VETERANS AFFAIRS 

The Critical Role of the 

Chief Information Officer 

Position in Effective 

Information Technology 

Management 

Statement of Linda D. Koontz 

Director, Information Management Issues 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony before the Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs, House of 

Representatives 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

September 14, 2005 

GAO-05-1017T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-1017T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Linda Koontz at 

(202) 512-6240 or koontzl@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-1017T, a testimony

before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 

House of Representatives 

September 14, 2005

VETERANS AFFAIRS

The Critical Role of the Chief Information 

Officer Position in Effective Information 

Technology Management 

CIOs play a critical role in managing information and technology within 

federal agencies. According to GAO’s 2004 review, CIOs generally held wide 

responsibilities and reported to their agency heads or other top level 

managers. In general, CIOs reported that they were responsible for key 

information and technology management areas; for example, all the CIOs 

were responsible for five key areas (capital planning and investment 

management, enterprise architecture, information security, strategic 

planning for information technology and information resource management, 

and information technology workforce planning). However, in carrying out 

their responsibilities, the tenure of federal CIOs was often less than the 

length of time that some experts consider necessary for them to be effective 

and implement changes: the median tenure was about 2 years, and the most 

common response regarding time required to be effective was 3 to 5 years. In 

contrast, CIOs were generally helped in carrying out their responsibilities by 

the background and experience they brought to the job: most had 

background in information technology (IT) or related fields, and many also 

had business knowledge related to their agencies. Other factors that help 

CIOs meet their responsibilities include (1) being supported by senior 

executives who recognize the importance to their missions of IT and an 

effective CIO; (2) playing an influential role in applying IT to business needs; 

and (3) being able to structure their organizations appropriately. At the same 

time, CIOs cited several challenges, of which the two most frequently 

mentioned were implementing effective IT management and obtaining 

sufficient and relevant resources. 

Over time, the CIO position at VA, as well as information and technology 

management as a whole, has received increased attention at the department. 

After several years with CIOs whose primary duty was not information and 

technology management or who were serving in an acting capacity, the 

department appointed a full-time permanent CIO in August 2001. In 2002, the 

department proposed further strengthening the position and centralizing IT 

management, recognizing that aspects of its computing environment were 

particularly challenging and required substantial management attention. In 

particular, the department’s information systems and services were highly 

decentralized, and a large proportion of the department’s IT budget was 

controlled by the VA’s administrations and staff offices. To address these 

challenges, the Secretary issued a memo in 2002 announcing that IT 

functions, programs, and funding would be centralized under the 

department-level CIO. This realignment held promise for improving 

accountability and enabling the department to accomplish its mission. The 

additional oversight afforded the CIO could have a significant impact on the 

department’s ability to more effectively account for and manage its IT 

spending. 

In carrying out VA’s mission of 

serving the nation’s veterans and 

their dependents, the agency relies 

extensively on information 

technology (IT), for which it is 

requesting about $2.1 billion in 

fiscal year 2006. VA’s vision is to 

integrate its IT resources and 

streamline interactions with 

customers, so that it can provide 

services and information to 

veterans more quickly and 

effectively. 

Fully exploiting the potential of IT 

to improve performance is a 

challenging goal for VA, as it is 

throughout government. The 

Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 

addressed this challenge by, among 

other things, establishing the 

position of chief information 

officer (CIO) to serve as the focal 

point for information and 

technology management within 

departments and agencies. 

The Committee requested that GAO 

discuss the role of CIOs in the 

federal government, as well as 

provide a historical perspective on 

the roles and responsibilities of 

VA’s CIO. In developing this 

testimony, GAO relied on its 

previous work at VA as well as on 

the CIO role across government, 

including a 2004 review of CIOs at 

major departments and agencies. 
Page 1 GAO-05-1017T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for inviting us to take part in your discussion of the 

information technology organization at the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) and the role of the Chief Information Officer (CIO). In 

carrying out its mission of serving our nation’s veterans, the 

department relies heavily on information technology, for which it is 

requesting about $2.1 billion in funding for fiscal year 2006. The CIO 

will play a vital role in ensuring that this money is well spent and 

that information technology is managed effectively. As we have 

previously reported, an effective CIO can make a significant 

difference in building the institutional capacity that is needed to 

improve an agency’s ability to manage information and technology 

and thus enhance program performance. 

At your request, we will discuss the role of CIOs in the federal 

government, as well as providing a historical perspective on the 

roles and responsibilities of VA’s CIO. 

In developing this testimony, we reviewed our previous work in this 

area. All work covered in this testimony was performed in 

accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. 

Results in Brief 

Since the Clinger-Cohen act established the CIO position in 1996, 

federal CIOs have played a central role in managing information and 

technology within federal agencies. According to CIOs at major 

departments and agencies, they generally held wide responsibilities 

and reported to their agency heads or other top level managers.1 In 

general, CIOs reported that they were responsible for key 

information and technology management areas; for example, all the 

CIOs were responsible for five key areas (capital planning and 

investment management, enterprise architecture, information 

 1

 GAO, Federal Chief Information Officers: Responsibilities, Reporting Relationships, 

Tenure, and Challenges, GAO-04-823 (July 21, 2004). 
Page 2 GAO-05-1017T 

security, strategic planning for information technology and 

information resource management, and information technology 

workforce planning). In carrying out these responsibilities, the 

tenure of federal CIOs was often less than the length of time that 

some experts consider necessary for them to be effective and 

implement changes: the median tenure was about 2 years, and the 

most common response regarding time required to be effective was 

3 to 5 years. In contrast, CIOs were generally helped in carrying out 

their responsibilities by the background and experience they 

brought to the job. Although their background was varied, most had 

background in information technology (IT) or related fields, many 

having previously served as CIOs; many also had business 

knowledge related to their agencies, having previously either 

worked at the agency or in an area related to its mission. Other 

factors that help CIOs meet their responsibilities effectively are 

described in guidance2

 that we have issued; key among these are 

(1) being supported by senior executives who recognize the 

importance to their missions of IT and an effective CIO; (2) playing 

an influential role in applying IT to business needs; and (3) being 

able to structure their organizations appropriately. At the same time, 

CIOs cited several challenges, of which the two most frequently 

mentioned were implementing effective IT management and 

obtaining sufficient and relevant resources. 

Over time, VA has devoted increased attention to the CIO position 

and to IT management. After going for 21⁄2 years after the passage of 

the Clinger-Cohen Act without a CIO, followed by 2 years with an 

executive whose time was divided among CIO and other major 

duties, and then 1 year with an acting CIO, the department 

appointed a full-time permanent CIO in August 2001. Since then, the 

department proposed further strengthening the position and 

centralizing IT management, recognizing that aspects of its 

computing environment were particularly challenging and required 

substantial management attention. In particular, the department’s 

information systems and services were highly decentralized, and a 

large proportion of the department’s IT budget was controlled by 

 2

 GAO, Maximizing the Success of Chief Information Officers: Learning from Leading 

Organizations, GAO-01-376G (Washington, D.C.: February 2001). 
Page 3 GAO-05-1017T 

the VA’s administrations and staff offices. To address these 

challenges, the Secretary issued a memo in 2002 announcing that IT 

functions, programs, and funding would be centralized under the 

department-level CIO. In our view, this realignment held promise for 

improving IT accountability and enabling the department to 

accomplish its mission. The additional oversight afforded the CIO 

could have a significant impact on the department’s ability to more 

effectively account for and manage its approximately $2.1 billion in 

planned IT spending. 

Background 

VA comprises three major components: the Veterans Benefits 

Administration (VBA), the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), 

and the National Cemetery Administration (NCA).3

 VA’s mission is 

summed up in its mission statement, a quotation from Abraham 

Lincoln: “to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his 

widow and his orphan.” VA carries out this mission by providing 

benefits and other services to veterans and dependents. 

The department’s vision is to be a more customer-focused 

organization, functioning as “One VA.” This vision stemmed from the 

recognition that veterans think of VA as a single entity, but often 

encountered a confusing, bureaucratic maze of uncoordinated 

programs that put them through repetitive and frustrating 

administrative procedures and delays. The “One VA” vision is to 

create versatile new ways for veterans to obtain services and 

information by streamlining interactions with customers and 

integrating IT resources to enable VA employees to help customers 

more quickly and effectively. This vision will require modifying or 

replacing separate information systems with integrated systems 

using common standards to share information across VA programs 

and with external partner organizations, such as the Department of 

 3

 VBA provides nonmedical benefits to veterans and their dependents; VHA provides 

services through the nation’s largest health-care system; and NCA provides burial services 

in 115 national cemeteries. 
Page 4 GAO-05-1017T 

Defense. Accordingly, effective management of its IT programs is 

vital to VA’s successful achievement of its vision and mission. 

Table 1 shows a breakdown of VA’s approximately $2.1 billion IT 

budget request for fiscal year 2006. Of the total, VHA accounted for 

approximately $1.8 billion, VBA approximately $150 million, and the 

National Cemetery Administration (NCA) approximately $11

million. The remaining $84 million was allocated to the department 

level. 

Table 1: Breakdown of VA’s Fiscal Year 2006 Information Technology Budget 

Request (in millions) 

Organization Request 

VHA $1835 88%

VBA 150 7%

NCA 11 <1%

Department 84 4%

Total $2080

Source: GAO analysis of VA data. 

CIO Plays Major Role in IT Management

The Congress has long recognized that IT has the potential to enable 

federal agencies to accomplish their missions more quickly, 

effectively, and economically. However, fully exploiting this 

potential presents challenges to agencies. Despite substantial IT 

investments, the federal government’s management of information 

resources has produced mixed results. One of the ways in which the 

Congress has addressed this issue was to establish the CIO position; 

an agency’s CIO serves as the focal point for information and 

technology management within an agency. 

Legislative Evolution of Agency CIO Role 

For more than 20 years, federal law has structured the management 

of IT and information-related activities under the umbrella of 
Page 5 GAO-05-1017T 

information resources management (IRM).4 The IRM approach was 

first enacted into law in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.5

 The 

intention of the Congress was to provide for a coordinated approach 

to managing federal agencies’ information resources, addressing the 

entire information life cycle, from collection through disposition, 

with the ultimate goal of improving the efficiency and effectiveness 

of government while reducing the “paperwork burden” on the 

public.6 

The 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act centralized governmentwide 

IRM responsibilities in the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), giving OMB specific policy-setting and oversight duties 

regarding individual IRM areas, such as records management, 

privacy, and the acquisition and use of IT.7

 Agencies were given 

responsibility for carrying out their IRM activities in an efficient, 

effective, and economical manner in compliance with OMB policies 

and guidelines. The law also required that each agency head 

designate a senior official, reporting directly to the agency head, to 

carry out the agency’s responsibilities under the law. 

In 1996, the Clinger-Cohen Act established the position of agency 

CIO by giving this title to the “senior IRM official” mentioned in the 

Paperwork Reduction Act and specifying additional responsibilities 

for this position.8 Among these responsibilities, the Clinger-Cohen 

 4

 IRM is the process of managing information resources to accomplish agency missions and 

to improve agency performance. 

5

 Pub. L. 96-511 (Dec. 11, 1980). 

6

 That is, the burden of responding to government information collections: forms, surveys, 

and questionnaires. 

7

 The 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act referred to this as “automatic data processing and 

telecommunications equipment,” a term that has since been replaced by “IT.” 

8

 Pub. L. 104-106, February 10, 1996. The law, initially entitled the Information Technology 

Management Reform Act, was subsequently renamed the Clinger-Cohen Act in Pub. L. 104-

208, September 30, 1996. 
Page 6 GAO-05-1017T 

act required that the CIOs in the 24 major departments and agencies9

have IRM as their “primary duty.” 10 

The view of the Congress as reflected in current law is thus that 

CIOs should play a key leadership role in ensuring that agencies 

manage their information functions in a coordinated and integrated 

fashion in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of 

government programs and operations. 

CIO Responsibilities and Reporting Relationships 

Besides their statutory responsibilities, CIOs have other 

responsibilities that can contribute significantly to the successful 

implementation of information systems and processes. In July 2004, 

we interviewed 27 CIOs at major agencies 11 on their roles, 

responsibilities, and challenges, among other things. For this report, 

we identified major areas of CIO responsibilities that were either 

statutory requirements or critical to effective information and 

technology management.12 Altogether, we identified the 13 areas 

shown in table 2. 

 9

 The 24 major departments and agencies are specified in 31 U.S.C. 901. 

10 The E-Government Act of 2002 reiterated agency responsibility for information resources 

management. Pub. L. 107-347, December 17, 2002. 

11 The 27 agencies covered by our report were the Departments of Agriculture, the Air 

Force, the Army, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, 

Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, the 

Navy, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; and the Environmental 

Protection Agency, General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, National Science Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of 

Personnel Management, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, 

and U.S. Agency for International Development. 

12 GAO, Federal Chief Information Officers: Responsibilities, Reporting Relationships, 

Tenure, and Challenges, GAO-04-823 (July 21, 2004). 
Page 7 GAO-05-1017T 

Table 2: Major Areas of CIO Responsibility 

Area of responsibility Description Applicable laws 

IT/IRM strategic planning Performing strategic planning for 

all information and information 

technology management 

functions 

44 U.S.C. 3506(b)(2) 

IT capital planning and 

investment management 

Planning and management of IT 

capital investments 

44 U.S.C. 3506(h), 

40 U.S.C. 11312 & 

11313 

Information security Ensuring agency compliance 

with the requirement to protect 

information and systems 

44 U.S.C. 3506(g) 

and 3544(a)(3) 

IT/IRM human capital Helping agency meet IT/IRM 

workforce needs 

44 U.S.C. 3506(b), 

40 U.S.C. 11315(c) 

Information 

collection/paperwork reduction 

Reviewing agency information 

collection proposals to maximize 

the utility and minimize public 

paperwork burden 

44 U.S.C. 3506(c) 

Information dissemination Ensuring that information 

dissemination activities meet 

policy goals such as timely and 

equitable public access to 

information 

44 U.S.C. 3506(d) 

Records management Ensuring that agency 

implements and enforces 

records management policies 

and procedures under the 

Federal Records Act 

44 U.S.C. 3506(f) 

Privacy Ensuring agency compliance 

with the Privacy Act and related 

laws 

44 U.S.C. 3506(g) 

Statistical policy and 

coordination 

Performing statistical policy and 

coordination functions, including 

ensuring the relevance, 

accuracy, and timeliness of 

information collected or created 

for statistical purposes 

44 U.S.C. 3506(e) 

Information disclosure Ensuring appropriate information 

access under the Freedom of 

Information Act 

44 U.S.C. 3506(g) 

Enterprise architecturea Developing and maintaining the 

enterprise architecture defining 

the agency’s mission and the 

information and IT needed to 

perform it 

OMB guidance 

Systems acquisition, 

development, and integrationa

Controlling the acquisition, 

development, and integration of 

IT systems 

44 U.S.C. 3506(h)(5), 

40 U.S.C. 11312 
Page 8 GAO-05-1017T 

Area of responsibility Description Applicable laws 

E-government initiativesa Supporting initiatives to use IT to 

improve government services to 

the public and internal 

operations 

44 U.S.C. 3506(h)(3), 

E-Government Act of 

2002, other laws and 

guidance 

Source: GAO analysis. 

a The last three areas of responsibility—enterprise architecture; systems acquisition, development, 

and integration; and e-government initiatives—are not assigned to CIOs by statute; they are assigned 

to the agency heads by law or guidance. However, in virtually all agencies, the agency heads have 

delegated these areas of responsibility to their CIOs. 

According to our report, CIOs were generally responsible for the key 

information and technology management areas shown in the table, 

although not all CIOs were completely responsible for all areas.13 For 

example: 

● All the CIOs were responsible for five areas (capital planning and 

investment management, enterprise architecture, information 

security, IT/IRM strategic planning, and IT workforce planning). 

● More than half had responsibility for six additional areas (systems 

acquisition, major e-government initiatives, information 

collection/paperwork reduction, records management, information 

dissemination, and privacy). 

● Fewer than half were responsible for two areas (information 

disclosure and statistics). 

It was common for CIOs to share responsibility for certain 

functions, and in some cases responsibilities were assigned to other 

offices. For example, systems acquisition responsibility could be 

shared among the CIO and other officials, such as a procurement 

executive or program executive; disclosure could be assigned to 

general counsel and public affairs, while statistical policy could be 

assigned to offices that deal with the agency’s data analysis.14

Nevertheless, even for areas of responsibility that were not assigned 

 13 The acting CIO at VA at the time of the review responded that the CIO was responsible 

for all the activities except for statistical policy and coordination. 

14 This is particularly the case in agencies that contain Principal Statistical Agencies, such 

as the Bureau of Economic Analysis (Department of Commerce), Bureau of Justice 

Statistics (Department of Justice), Bureau of Labor Statistics (Department of Labor), and 

others. 
Page 9 GAO-05-1017T 

to CIOs, agency CIOs generally reported that they contributed to the 

successful execution of the agency’s overall responsibilities in that 

area. 

In carrying out their responsibilities, CIOs generally reported to 

their agency heads. The Paperwork Reduction Act—as well as our 

guidance15—generally calls for CIOs to report to their agency heads,16

forging relationships that ensure high visibility and support for farreaching information management initiatives. For 19 of the agencies 

in our review, the CIOs stated that they had this reporting 

relationship. In the other 8 agencies, the CIOs stated that they 

reported instead to another senior official, such as a deputy 

secretary, under secretary, or assistant secretary. In addition, 8 of 

the 19 CIOs who said they had a direct reporting relationship with 

the agency head noted that they also reported to another senior 

executive, usually the deputy secretary or under secretary for 

management, on an operational basis. According to members of our 

Executive Council on Information Management and Technology,17

what is most critical is for the CIO to report to a top level official. 

Tenure and Backgrounds of CIOs 

Federal CIOs often remained in their positions for less than the 

length of time that some experts consider necessary for them to be 

effective and implement changes. At the major departments and 

agencies included in our review, the median time in the position of 

permanent CIOs whose time in office had been completed was 

about 23 months.18 For career CIOs, the median was 32 months; the 

 15 GAO, Maximizing the Success of Chief Information Officers: Learning from Leading 

Organizations, GAO-01-376G (Washington, D.C.: February 2001). 

16 The Homeland Security Act of 2002 states that the CIO for the Department of Homeland 

Security shall report to the Secretary of Homeland Security or to another official as 

directed by the Secretary. As allowed by the law, the Secretary has directed the CIO to 

report to the Under Secretary for Management. 

17 This panel of industry, state government, and academic experts provides outside 

expertise to GAO on information technology issues. 

18 We did not include acting CIOs in this calculation, unless the acting CIO was later put in 

the permanent position. We calculated tenure since the enactment of the Clinger-Cohen Act 

(1996). 
Page 10 GAO-05-1017T 

median for political appointees was 19 months. To the question of 

how long a CIO needed to stay in office to be effective, the most 

common response of the CIOs (and former agency IT executives 

whom we consulted) was 3 to 5 years. Between February 10, l996, 

and March 1, 2004, only about 35 percent of the permanent CIOs 

who had completed their time in office reportedly had stayed in 

office for a minimum of 3 years. The gap between actual time in 

office and the time needed to be effective is consistent with the view 

of many agency CIOs that the turnover rate was high, and that this 

rate was influenced by the political environment, the pay 

differentials between the public and private sectors, and the 

challenges that CIOs face. 

In contrast, the CIOs interviewed for our report were generally 

helped in carrying out their responsibilities by the background and 

experience they brought to the job. The background of the CIOs 

varied in that they had previously worked in the government, the 

private sector, or academia, and they had a mix of technical and 

management experience. However, virtually all had work 

experience or educational backgrounds in IT or IT-related fields; 12 

agency CIOs had previously served in a CIO or deputy CIO capacity. 

Moreover, most of the them had business knowledge related to their 

agencies because they had previously worked at the agency or had 

worked in an area related to the agency’s mission. 

Success Factors and Challenges of CIOs 

To allow CIOs to serve effectively in the key leadership role 

envisioned by the Congress, federal agencies must use the full 

potential of CIOs as information and technology management 

leaders and active participants in the development of the agency’s 

strategic plans and policies. The CIOs, in turn, must meet the 

challenges of building credible organizations and developing and 

organizing information and technology management capabilities to 

meet mission needs. 
Page 11 GAO-05-1017T 

In February 2001, we issued guidance19 on the effective use of CIOs, 

which describes the following three factors as key contributors to 

CIO success: 

● Supportive senior executives embrace the central role of technology 

in accomplishing mission objectives and include the CIO as a full 

participant in senior executive decision making. 

● Effective CIOs have legitimate and influential roles in leading top 

managers to apply IT to business problems and needs. Placement of 

the position at an executive management level in the organization is 

important, but in addition, effective CIOs earn credibility and 

produce results by establishing effective working relationships with 

business unit heads. 

● Successful CIOs structure their organizations in ways that reflect a 

clear understanding of business and mission needs. Along with 

knowledge of business processes, market trends, internal legacy 

structures, and available IT skills, this understanding is necessary to 

ensure that the CIO’s office is aligned to best serve agency needs. 

The CIO study that we reported on in July 2004 also provides 

information on the major challenges that federal CIOs face in 

fulfilling their duties.20 In particular, CIOs view IT governance 

processes, funding, and human capital as critical to their success, as 

indicated by two challenges that were cited by over 80 percent of 

the CIOs: implementing effective information technology 

management and obtaining sufficient and relevant resources. 

● Effective IT management. 

Leading organizations execute their information technology 

management responsibilities reliably and efficiently. A little over 80 

percent of the CIOs reported that they faced one or more challenges 

related to implementing effective IT management practices at their 

agencies. This is not surprising given that, as we have previously 

 19 GAO, Maximizing the Success of Chief Information Officers: Learning from Leading 

Organizations, GAO-01-376G (Washington, D.C.: February 2001). 

20 GAO, Federal Chief Information Officers: Responsibilities, Reporting Relationships, 

Tenure, and Challenges, GAO-04-823 (Washington, D.C.: July 21, 2004). 
Page 12 GAO-05-1017T

reported, the government has not always successfully executed the 

IT management areas that were most frequently cited as challenges 

by the CIOs—information security, enterprise architecture, 

investment management, and e-gov.21

● Sufficient and relevant resources. 

One key element in ensuring an agency’s information and 

technology success is having adequate resources. Virtually all 

agency CIOs cited resources, both in dollars and staff, as major 

challenges. The funding issues cited generally concerned the 

development and implementation of agency IT budgets and whether 

certain IT projects, programs, or operations were being adequately 

funded. 

We have previously reported that the way agency initiatives are 

originated can create funding challenges that are not found in the 

private sector.22 For example, certain information systems may be 

mandated or legislated, so the agency does not have the flexibility to 

decide whether to pursue them. Additionally, there is a great deal of 

uncertainty about the funding levels that may be available from year 

to year. 

The government also faces long-standing and widely recognized 

challenges in maintaining a high-quality IT workforce. In 1994 and 

2001, we reported on the importance that leading organizations 

placed on making sure they had the right mix of skills in their IT 

workforce.23 About 70 percent of the agency CIOs reported on a 

 21 See, for example, GAO, High-Risk Series: Protecting Information Systems Supporting 

the Federal Government and the Nation’s Critical Infrastructures; GAO-03-121

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 1, 2003); Information Technology Management: Governmentwide 

Strategic Planning, Performance Measurement, and Investment Management Can Be 

Further Improved, GAO-04-49 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12, 2004); Information Technology:

Leadership Remains Key to Agencies Making Progress on Enterprise Architecture 

Efforts, GAO-04-40 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17, 2003); and Major Management Challenges

and Program Risks: A Governmentwide Perspective, GAO-03-95 (Washington, D.C.: 

January 2003). 

22 GAO, Chief Information Officers: Implementing Effective CIO Organizations, GAO/TAIMD-00-128 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 24, 2000).

23 GAO, Executive Guide: Improving Mission Performance through Strategic Information 

Management and Technology, GAO/AIMD-94-115 (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 1994) and 

GAO-01-376G. 
Page 13 GAO-05-1017T 

number of substantial IT human capital challenges, including, in 

some cases, the need for additional staff. Other challenges included 

recruiting, retention, training and development, and succession 

planning. 

In addition, two other commonly cited challenges were 

communicating and collaborating (both internally and externally) 

and managing change. 

● Communicating and collaborating. 

Our prior work has shown the importance of communication and 

collaboration, both within an agency and with its external partners. 

For example, one of the critical success factors we identified in our 

guide focuses on the CIO’s ability to establish his or her organization 

as a central player in the enterprise.24 Ten agency CIOs reported that 

communication and collaboration were challenges. Examples of 

internal communication and collaboration challenges included 

(1) cultivating, nurturing, and maintaining partnerships and alliances 

while producing results in the best interest of the enterprise and 

(2) establishing supporting governance structures that ensure twoway communication with the agency head and effective 

communication with the business part of the organization and 

component entities. Other CIOs cited activities associated with 

communicating and collaborating with outside entities as 

challenges, including sharing information with partners and 

influencing the Congress and OMB. 

● Managing change. 

Top leadership involvement and clear lines of accountability for 

making management improvements are critical to overcoming an 

organization’s natural resistance to change, marshaling the 

resources needed to improve management, and building and 

maintaining organizationwide commitment to new ways of doing 

business. Some CIOs reported challenges associated with 

implementing both changes originating from their own initiative and 

changes from outside forces. Implementing major IT changes can 

 24 GAO-01-376G. 
Page 14 GAO-05-1017T 

involve not only technical risks but also nontechnical risks, such as 

those associated with people and the organization’s culture. Six 

CIOs cited dealing with the government’s culture and bureaucracy 

as challenges to implementing change. Former agency IT executives 

also cited the need for cultural changes as a major challenge facing 

CIOs. Accordingly, in order to effectively implement change, it is 

important that CIOs build understanding, commitment, and support 

among those who will be affected by the change. 

Effectively tackling these reported challenges can improve the 

likelihood of a CIO’s success. Until these challenges are overcome, 

federal agencies are unlikely to optimize their use of information 

and technology, which can affect an organization’s ability to 

effectively and efficiently implement its programs and missions. 

Roles and Responsibilities of the CIO Position at VA Have Evolved 

over Time 

Since enactment of the Clinger-Cohen Act in 1996, the roles and 

responsibilities of VA’s Chief Information Officer have evolved.

From lacking a CIO entirely, the department has taken steps to 

address the challenges posed by its multiple widespread 

components and its decentralized information technology and 

services. 

In June 1998, VA assigned CIO responsibility to a top manager. 25 

However, we reported in July 199826 that the person holding the CIO 

position at VA had multiple additional major responsibilities, as this 

person also served as Assistant Secretary for Management, Chief 

Financial Officer, and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget. 

According to the act, the CIO’s primary responsibility should be 

information and technology management. Noting that VA’s structure 

 25 Section 5604 of the Clinger-Cohen Act specifically created the position of Chief 

Information Officer at VA effective August 8, 1996. See 38 U.S.C. § 310. 

26 GAO, VA Information Technology: Improvements Needed to Implement Legislative 

Reforms, GAO/AIMD-98-154 (Washington, D.C.: July 7, 1998). 
Page 15 GAO-05-1017T 

was decentralized, its IT budget was large, and its CIO faced serious 

information and technology management issues, we recommended 

that the Secretary appoint a CIO with full-time responsibilities for 

IRM. Concurring with the recommendation, VA established the 

position of Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology to 

serve as its CIO. 

As of May 2000, however, the position of Assistant Secretary for 

Information and Technology was vacant, and as we reported at the 

time,27 it had been unfilled since its creation in 1998. The Secretary 

then created and filled the position of Principal Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Information and Technology, designating that person 

as VA’s acting CIO until an Assistant Secretary could be appointed. 

The Secretary also realigned IRM functions within VA under this 

position, which reported directly to the Secretary. 

As we reported,28 the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary was 

involved in IT planning issues across the department. In addition to 

advising the Secretary on IT issues, he served as chair of the 

department’s CIO Council and as a member of the department’s 

Capital Investment Board, and he worked with the CIOs in VBA and 

VHA (at the time, NCA had no CIO). According to this official, one 

of his priorities was to ensure that IT activities in VBA and VHA 

were in concert with VA’s departmentwide efforts. 

In August 2001, VA filled the CIO position. In March 2002,29 we 

testified that this hiring was one of the important strides that the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs had made to improve the department’s 

IT leadership and management, along with making a commitment to 

reform the department’s use of IT. 

 27 GAO, Information Technology: Update on VA Actions to Implement Critical Reforms,

GAO/AIMD-00-74 (Washington, D.C.: May 11, 2000). 

28 GAO, Information Technology: Update on VA Actions to Implement Critical Reforms,

GAO/AIMD-00-74 (Washington, D.C.: May 11, 2000). 

29 GAO, Progress Made, but Continued Management Attention Is Key to Achieving 

Results, GAO-02-369T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 13, 2002). 
Page 16 GAO-05-1017T 

On June 29, 2003, the CIO retired after a tenure of almost 2 years 

(about the median length of tenure for federal CIOs, as discussed 

above); the current CIO was confirmed in January 2004. 

Figure 1 is a time line showing the history of the CIO position at VA 

since the passage of the Clinger-Cohen Act. 

Figure 1: Time Line of CIO Tenure at VA 

August 1996: CIO 

position established by 

Clinger-Cohen Act 

July 1998: CIO 

responsibilities assigned 

to VA executive 

June 2000: Deputy assistant 

secretary position established; 

acting CIO in position 

June 29, 2003: 

CIO retired; deputy 

acts as CIO 

⇣ ⇣ ⇣ August 2001: CIO 

confirmed ⇣ January 2004: CIO confirmed 

 

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Vacant 

CIO with multiple responsibilities 

Acting 

Permanent dedicated position 

Source: GAO. 

VA Proposed to Realign its IT Organization in Response to IT Management Challenges 

Our prior work highlighted some of the challenges that the CIO 

faced as a result of the way the department was organized to carry 

out its IT mission.30 Among these challenges was that information 

systems and services were highly decentralized, and the VA 

administrations and staff offices controlled a majority of the 

department’s IT budget. For example, in VA’s information 

technology budget for fiscal year 2002 of approximately $1.25 

billion, VHA controlled about $1.02 billion (over 80 percent), 

whereas the department level controlled about $60.2 million (less 

than 5 percent). 

 30 GAO, VA Information Technology: Important Initiatives Begun, Yet Serious 

Vulnerabilities Persist, GAO-01-550T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 4, 2001) and VA Information

Technology: Progress Made, but Continued Management Attention Is Key to Achieving 

Results, GAO-02-369T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 13, 2002).
Page 17 GAO-05-1017T 

In addition, we noted that there was neither direct nor indirect 

reporting to VA’s cyber security officer—the department’s senior 

security official—thus raising questions about this person’s ability to 

enforce compliance with security policies and procedures and 

ensure accountability for actions taken throughout the department. 

The more than 600 information security officers in VA’s three 

administrations and its many medical facilities throughout the 

country were responsible for ensuring the department’s information 

security, although they reported only to their facility’s director or to 

the chief information officer of their administration. 

Given the large annual funding base and decentralized management 

structure, we testified that it was crucial for the departmental CIO 

to ensure that well-established and integrated processes for leading, 

managing, and controlling investments are commonplace and 

followed throughout the department. This is consistent with the 

finding in our CIO review that implementation of IT management 

practices was a challenge; over half of federal CIOs identified IT 

investment management specifically. 

Recognizing weaknesses in accountability for the department’s IT 

resources and the need to reorganize IT management and financing, 

the Secretary announced a realignment of the department’s IT 

operations in a memorandum dated August 2002. According to the 

memorandum, the realignment would centralize IT functions, 

programs, workforce personnel, and funding into the office of the 

department-level CIO. In particular, several significant changes were 

described: 

● The CIOs in each of the three administrations—VHA, VBA, and 

NCA—were to be designated deputy CIOs and were to report 

directly to the department-level CIO. Previously, these officials 

served as component-level CIOs who reported only to their 

respective administrations’ under secretaries. 

● All administration-level cyber security functions were to be 

consolidated under the department’s cyber security office, and all 

monies earmarked by VA for these functions were to be placed 

under the authority of the cyber security officer. Information 
Page 18 GAO-05-1017T 

security officers previously assigned to VHA’s 21 veterans integrated 

service networks31 would report directly to the cyber security 

officer, thus extending the responsibilities of the cyber security 

office to the field. 

● Beginning in fiscal year 2003, the department-level CIO would 

assume executive authority over VA’s IT funding. 

In September 2002,32 we testified that in pursuing these reforms, the 

Secretary demonstrated the significance of establishing an effective 

management structure for building credibility in the way IT is used, 

and took a significant step toward achieving a “One VA” vision. The 

Secretary’s initiative was also a bold and innovative step by the 

department—one that has been undertaken by few other federal 

agencies. For example, of 17 agencies contacted in 2002, 8 reported 

having component-level CIOs, none of which reported to the 

department-level CIO. Only one agency with component-level CIOs 

reported that its department-level CIO had authority over all IT 

funding. 

We also noted that the CIO’s success in managing IT operations 

under the realignment would hinge on effective collaboration with 

business counterparts to guide IT solutions that meet mission needs, 

and we pointed out the importance of the three key contributors to 

CIO success described in our 2001 guidance (discussed earlier).33 

Although we have not reviewed the current status of this proposed 

realignment or VA’s current organizational structure, it remains our 

view that the proposed realignment held promise for building a 

more solid foundation for investing in and improving the 

department’s accountability over IT resources. Specifically, under 

 31 The veterans integrated service network (VISN) is the basic budgetary and planning unit 

of the veterans health care system. Funding and other resources are distributed through 

the VISN. Each VISN covers a geographic area that encompasses a population of veteran 

beneficiaries. 

32 GAO, VA Information Technology: Management Making Important Progress in 

Addressing Key Challenges, GAO-02-1054T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 26, 200s).

33 GAO, Maximizing the Success of Chief Information Officers: Learning from Leading 

Organizations, GAO-01-376G (Washington, D.C.: February 2001). 
Page 19 GAO-05-1017T 

the realignment the CIO would assume budget authority over all IT 

funding, including authority to veto proposals submitted from 

subdepartment levels. This could have a significant effect on VA’s 

accountability for how components are spending money.34

To sum up, the CIO plays a vital role in ensuring that VA’s funds are 

well spent and in managing information technology to serve our 

nation’s veterans. In our view, the realignment of VA’s IT 

organization proposed in 2002 held promise for improving 

accountability and enabling the department to accomplish its 

mission. The additional oversight afforded the CIO could have a 

significant impact on the department’s ability to more effectively 

account for and manage its proposed $2.1 billion in planned IT 

spending. 

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

respond to any questions that you or other members of this 

Committee may have at this time. 

Contacts and Acknowledgements 

For information about this testimony, please contact Linda D. 

Koontz, Director, Information Management Issues, at (202) 512-6240 

or at koontzl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this 

testimony include Barbara Collier, Lester Diamond, Barbara Oliver, 

and Eric Trout.

 34 GAO, VA Information Technology: Progress Continues Although Vulnerabilities 

Remain, GAO/T-AIMD-00-321 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2000).

(310743) 
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. However, 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. 
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. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (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 www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER