United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Department Operations,

Nutrition, and Foreign Agriculture, Committee on

Agriculture, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at

9:30 a.m.

Tuesday,

March 3, 1998

USDA INFORMATION

MANAGEMENT

Proposal to Strengthen

Authority of the Chief

Information Officer

Statement of Joel C. Willemssen

Director, Civil Agencies Information Systems

Accounting and Information Management Division

GAO/T-AIMD-98-96

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

We are pleased to be here today to assist the Subcommittee by discussing

the bill, H.R. 3280, cosponsored by yourself and Congressman Latham to

strengthen the authority of the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Chief

information Officer. To provide some background for my testimony this

morning, I will briefly discuss the problems and challenges USDA has faced

in managing the more than $1 billion it spends annually on information

technology (IT) investments, as well as recent IT reform legislation that

established the Chief Information Officer (CIO) position in federal

agencies. I will then summarize the bill’s provisions, designed to clarify

and enhance the CIO’s authority at USDA, and briefly convey our views on

these provisions.

USDA: Size,

Complexity Make

Department

Enormous User of

Information

Technology

The influence of USDA on millions of Americans makes it essential that the

department plan and manage its information technology wisely. USDA’s size

and complexity, however, make this far from simple. It has a diverse

portfolio of over 200 federal programs throughout the nation and the

world. The department delivers about $80 billion in programs, at a cost in

federal outlays of an estimated $54 billion. The fourth largest federal

agency, USDA employs over 100,000 individuals in 31 agencies and

departmental offices having multiple and sometimes disparate missions.

Its responsibilities range from forests and timber to food assistance for the

needy and the safety of meat and poultry products for human

consumption.

In fiscal year 1998 alone, USDA plans to spend about $1.2 billion on

information technology and related information resources management

(IRM) activities. It has reported spending more than $8 billion on IT over the

past decade. During this time, USDA has seen its annual IT expenditures

nearly double.

Page 1 GAO/T-AIMD-98-96
Strong Leadership

Essential to

Overcoming

Long-Standing

Problems Managing

Information

Technology

Investments

As we testified before this Subcommittee last spring, USDA has a long

history of problems in managing its substantial investments in IT.

1

 We

chronicled many cases dating back to 1981 in which the department had

not effectively planned major computer modernization activities or

managed IT resources. Such ineffective IT planning and management have

resulted in USDA’s wasting millions of dollars.

While many factors have contributed to these problems, a major cause was

the lack of strong IRM leadership, accountability, and oversight of the

acquisition and use of departmental IT investments. Over the years USDA’s

component agencies were allowed to independently acquire and manage IT

investments solely on the basis of their own parochial needs or interests.

Because of this, USDA agencies have continued to independently plan,

acquire, and develop separate systems, without considering opportunities

to integrate systems and share data.

Consequently, over time, the department has invested hundreds of millions

of dollars in hundreds of systems that are not interoperable with others in

the agency and that actually inhibit the use and sharing of information. In

fact, data are often inaccessible and underutilized outside of and even

within USDA’s individual agencies for identifying problems, analyzing

trends, or assessing crosscutting programmatic and policy issues.

Legislative Reforms

Provide Framework

for Improved

Information

Technology

Acquisition,

Management

Unfortunately, USDA’s experiences with information technology

management are not atypical among government agencies. After more

than a decade of poor IT planning and program management by federal

agencies, as just described for USDA, the Congress enacted the

Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, which, in part, seeks to strengthen executive

leadership in information management and institute sound capital

investment decision-making to maximize the return on information

systems investments. It is important to note that just as technology is most

effective when it supports defined business needs and objectives, the

Clinger-Cohen Act is at its most powerful when integrated with the

objectives of other, broader, governmentwide management reform

legislation that USDA is also required to implement.

One such reform is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which

emphasizes the need for an overall IRM strategic planning framework, with

IT decisions linked directly to mission needs and practices. Another is the

1

USDA Information Management: Extensive Improvements Needed in Managing Information

Technology Investments (GAO/T-AIMD-97-90, May 14, 1997).

Page 2 GAO/T-AIMD-98-96
Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, which requires that sound financial

management practices and systems essential for tracking program costs

and expenditures be in place. Still another is the 1993 Government

Performance and Results Act, which focuses on defining mission goals and

objectives, measuring and evaluating performance, and reporting results.

Together, Clinger-Cohen and these other laws provide a powerful

framework under which federal agencies such as USDA have the best

opportunity to improve their management and acquisition of IT.

The Chief Information

Officer

A central element of Clinger-Cohen was the requirement that the head of

each executive agency designate a CIO. Much more than a senior

technology manager, this top-level executive—reporting directly to the

agency head—is to be responsible for mission results through technology

by working with senior managers to achieve the agency’s strategic

performance goals. Moreover, the CIO is to promote improvements in work

processes and develop and implement an integrated, agencywide

technology architecture. The CIO is also required to monitor and evaluate

the performance of IT programs, and advise the head of the agency

whether to continue, modify, or terminate a program or project. Further,

the CIO is responsible for strengthening the agency’s knowledge, skills, and

capabilities to effectively manage information resources.

A Bill to Strengthen

CIO Authorities at

USDA

H.R. 3280 presents requirements to clarify and enhance the authorities of

the department’s CIO; these requirements are discussed in five major

sections. The first addresses the CIO’s relationship to the Secretary and the

department’s Executive Information Technology Investment Review

Board. The next three present requirements as they relate to developing an

information technology architecture, providing funding for the CIO’s office,

and establishing control over IT staff across the department. The last

provision discusses an annual Comptroller General report on compliance.

More specifically, the sections and some information about them include

the following.

Position of Chief

Information Officer,

Department of Agriculture

This section requires that the CIO report directly to the Secretary, and that

the CIO shall not be under the direction or control of the Deputy Secretary

or other official or employee of the department. This section also requires

the CIO to serve as vice chair of the department’s Executive Information

Technology Investment Review Board—or any other entity established for

Page 3 GAO/T-AIMD-98-96
this purpose—and to review and approve IT acquisitions by USDA offices

and agencies.

The Secretary of Agriculture established the CIO position on August 8,

1996. That same day, he announced the designation of the department’s

then-Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration to serve as acting CIO,

and has since appointed this individual as USDA’s first departmental CIO.

However, we were advised that the Secretary has not yet issued a formal

delegation of authority describing the CIO’s authority and responsibilities.

USDA established the Executive Information Technology Investment

Review Board on July 1, 1996, to coordinate and prioritize the

department’s IT investments, and to provide a critical link between IT and

agency missions. Comprising senior-level managers, the board is also

supposed to ensure that USDA technology investments are managed as

strategic business resources supporting efficient and effective program

delivery. Moreover, USDA’s Fiscal Year 1998 Appropriations Act provides

that all IT acquisitions for new systems or significant upgrades must be

approved by the CIO, with the concurrence of USDA’s Executive Information

Technology Investment Review Board. The CIO told us that she had

reviewed and approved the department’s fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year

1999 IT investment package and submitted it to the board in

September 1997, which then concurred with the investment package as

submitted.

Responsibilities of Chief

Information Officer With

Regard to Information

Technology Architecture

This section requires the CIO to be responsible for designing and

implementing an information technology architecture for the department.

It also requires the CIO to ensure that development, acquisition,

procurement, and implementation of IT by any USDA office or agency

complies with the resulting architecture and results in the best use of

resources.

In February 1997 USDA published an initial draft version of a high-level

information technology architecture. However, the CIO said that little has

been done since then and that much work remains to refine that version.

Availability of Agency

Information System Funds

This section requires each USDA office and agency to annually transfer to

the control of the CIO an amount equal to 4 percent of the estimated

expenditures to be made by that office or agency for equipment and

software. The funds transferred are to remain available until expended by

Page 4 GAO/T-AIMD-98-96
the CIO for carrying out responsibilities of the CIO, as outlined in this bill,

Clinger-Cohen, and the Paperwork Reduction Act. Additionally, funds may

be used when developing, acquiring, procuring, or implementing

departmentwide information systems or to make all mission-critical

systems Year 2000 compliant.2

Mr. Chairman, it is a policy call whether to transfer no-year funds to the

CIO annually and what amount is required in addition to other sources of

funding available to the CIO. In this regard, the CIO already obtains

appropriated funds to carry out responsibilities under Clinger-Cohen and

other legislative mandates. In addition, the CIO’s office uses working

capital funds to support departmentwide IT-related activities, such as

operating its Kansas City data center and carrying out telecommunications

activities.

Authority of Chief

Information Officer Over

Information Technology

Personnel

This section creates the position of Deputy Information Officer within the

CIO’s office, while abolishing the separate CIO positions within the

department’s agencies and offices. It also requires that managers of major

IT programs and projects within USDA shall be subject to the CIO’s approval

and that the CIO shall provide his or her perspective as a factor in the

performance reviews of such persons. Also covered under this section are

the temporary detail and assignment of personnel to the CIO’s office and

the transfer to the CIO of the direction and control of officials responsible

for procurement of IT across the department.

As we testified last October on the importance of having strong CIO

leadership at federal agencies, we support the establishment of a CIO

structure at major agency component and bureau levels because it may be

difficult for the CIO at a large department to adequately oversee and

manage the specific information needs of a department’s major

components.3

 Such a management structure is particularly important in

situations, such as at USDA, where the departmental components have large

information technology budgets or are engaged in major modernization

efforts that require substantial CIO attention and oversight. In the

Conference Report on the Clinger-Cohen Act, the conferees recognized

2

For the past several decades, information systems have typically used two digits to represent the year,

such as “98” for 1998, in order to conserve electronic data storage and reduce operating costs. In this

format, however, 2000 is indistinguishable from 1900 because both are represented as “00.” As a result,

if not modified, computer systems or applications that use dates or perform date- or time-sensitive

calculations may generate incorrect results beyond 1999.

3

Chief Information Officers: Ensuring Strong Leadership and an Effective Council (GAO/T-AIMD-98-22,

Oct. 27, 1997).

Page 5 GAO/T-AIMD-98-96
that agencies may wish to establish CIOs for major components and

bureaus.4

We believe that where utilized, such component-level CIOs should have

responsibilities, authority, and management structures that mirror those of

the departmental CIO. However, USDA could not readily provide information

to identify the current organizational structures across USDA, where each

of its component agency CIOs was positioned, or a description of their

roles and responsibilities. We were told by the department’s CIO that the

role of the CIO at the component level has not been defined consistently

across USDA agencies.

According to the CIO’s office, USDA agencies and departmental offices have

a total of 16 positions that are either CIOs or senior IT officials with

equivalent leadership roles. We were told that the roles and

responsibilities of these officials differ from one agency to the next; some

control all IT staff resources and others do not. Additionally, we were told

that in most cases these officials report to their component management;

USDA’s CIO then works with these individuals through the department’s

Information Resources Management Council. The council has

responsibility for planning, approving, and overseeing departmentwide IT

projects. The bill would consolidate these agency CIO positions under the

departmental CIO.

Annual Comptroller

General Report on

Compliance

This section requires that, not later than January 15 of each year, the

Comptroller General shall submit to the Congress a report evaluating

compliance by USDA’s CIO and the department with this proposed

legislation. The bill provides that the report should include a review and

compilation of spending by the department on information resources

necessary to assess compliance with the annual transfer of funds to the CIO

and use of these funds, as well as the CIO’s performance under this

proposed legislation. It also provides that the report should include an

evaluation of the department’s success in creating a departmentwide

information system and ensuring that all mission-critical systems are Year

2000 compliant. In addition, this section provides for the Comptroller

General to include other recommendations and evaluations considered

appropriate.

We are prepared to assist the Subcommittee in its efforts to ensure USDA’s

compliance with any new legislative requirements. It is worth noting,

4

H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-450 at 977 (1996).

Page 6 GAO/T-AIMD-98-96
however, that because USDA’s Inspector General is responsible for auditing

the department’s annual financial statements, it may be more efficient to

have that office review and compile spending data on information

resources pertaining to the annual transfer and use of funds.

The Bill: GAO’S

Perspective

Mr. Chairman, we support your effort and that of the Subcommittee and

Mr. Latham to ensure strong and effective CIO leadership at USDA by

providing for more accountability and responsibility over the substantial

investments the department makes in information technology. We see the

thrust of this bill as, for the most part, consistent with the goals of

Clinger-Cohen and other legislation designed to strengthen executive

leadership in information management.

We testified last October on the importance of strong CIO leadership at

federal agencies. At that time we said that various approaches exist as to

how the CIO position can best be utilized to implement legislative

requirements under Clinger-Cohen and other federal laws.5

 These laws,

along with guidance from the Office of Management and Budget and our

best practices experience with leading organizations, define common

tenets for the CIO position. What is important is that the approach be

consistent with these tenets. Specifically, agencies should

• appoint a CIO with expertise and practical experience in technology

management;

• position the CIO as a senior partner reporting directly to the agency head;

• ensure that the CIO’s primary responsibilities are for information

management;

• have the CIO serve as a bridge between top management, line management,

and information management support professionals, working with them to

ensure the effective acquisition and management of information resources

needed to support agency programs and missions;

• task the CIO with developing strategies and specific plans for the hiring,

training, and professional development of staff in order to build the

agency’s capability to develop and manage its information resources; and

• support the CIO position with an effective CIO organization and

management framework for implementing agencywide information

technology initiatives.

Having an effective CIO with the institutional capacity and structure

needed to implement the management practices embodied in the broad set

5

GAO/T-AIMD-98-22, Oct. 27, 1997.

Page 7 GAO/T-AIMD-98-96
of reforms set out in Clinger-Cohen and other legislation is crucial for

improved planning and management of IT investments. Success at USDA

will depend on how well the department implements such legislation, and

how well the CIO exercises whatever authority she possesses to make

positive change—and the degree to which this individual is held

accountable for doing so.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to respond

to any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have at

this time.

(511453) Page 8 GAO/T-AIMD-98-96
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