United States

Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

d08447SPcover-v2.indd 1 
What Participants Said

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Convened This 

Forum

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

April 2008

HIGHLIGHTS OF A FORUM 

Improving the Federal Government’s Financial 

Management Systems 

Highlights of a forum, GAO-08-447SP 

Since the enactment of key 

financial management reforms, 

such as the Chief Financial Officers 

(CFO) Act of 1990 and the Federal 

Financial Management 

Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA),

the federal government has 

devoted significant resources to 

improving financial management 

activities and practices. At the 

same time, continuing attention is 

needed to address persistent, longstanding accountability problems 

and to redefine success for federal 

financial management. Successfully 

implementing financial 

management systems has been a 

particular challenge to the federal 

government. Many agency financial 

management systems do not 

routinely produce the accurate,

timely, and meaningful information 

needed for management decision

making. 

This forum brought together 

knowledgeable and recognized 

financial management leaders from

the federal government, including 

the CFO, Chief Information Officer,

and Inspector General 

communities, and selected other 

officials with extensive experience

in financial management from both

the public and private sectors. The 

forum addressed (1) the future of 

federal financial management, 

(2) applying lessons learned from 

federal financial management 

system implementations, and 

(3) strategies for transforming 

federal financial management 

culture. These highlights do not 

necessarily represent the views of

the organizations that the 

participants represent, including 

GAO.

Forum participants expressed a wide range of views on key topics related to 

improving the federal government’s financial management capabilities and 

better integrating the role of financial managers to achieve 21st-century goals. 

An overarching theme from the forum was that financial management systems 

are a critical factor in agencies’ ability to achieve the systematic measurement 

of performance; the development of cost information; and the integration of 

program, budget, and financial information for management reporting. 

Shaping the Future of Federal Financial Management 

Many participants emphasized the need for financial management

organizations to play a broader role as a strategic partner in meeting overall

agency and program objectives. One of the themes emerging from the forum 

was that federal financial leaders should focus more of their efforts on 

comprehending and meeting program managers’ financial information 

requirements and not simply on financial reporting compliance. According to

participants, current obstacles to future success include limited resources, 

competing initiatives, and varying levels of commitment among some federal 

officials to address long-standing financial management issues. 

Lessons Learned from Financial Management System Implementations

The forum participants generally agreed that there has been a growing body of 

knowledge based on lessons learned from past federal financial management 

system implementation efforts. Consequently, managers possess a greater

knowledge of the system design and implementation challenges they face, as 

well as possible solutions to these challenges. Experience related to financial 

management, human capital management, systems ownership, customization 

of commercial off-the-shelf software, and the purchase of shared services has 

provided useful insights that should help financial managers avoid some of the 

obstacles that impeded past projects. Financial managers also reported 

identifying various useful system implementation practices, including 

conducting independent verification and validation, and periodically 

reevaluating system implementation projects. 

Strategies for Transforming Federal Financial Management Culture 

Participants stated that in order to remain relevant, the financial management 

community must be willing to proactively embrace change and focus on ways

of proving value to the entire organization. Forum participants discussed the 

need to continually reexamine the roles of the CFO and other federal financial 

organizations. Participants suggested working toward a better integration of 

people, processes, and data. According to some participants, the key for CFOs

in creating value for their organization is delivering information that makes a 

difference, including developing appropriate business metrics. To facilitate 

such a transformation, federal financial management human capital strategies 

could be better focused on attracting and retaining a new technology-savvy 

generation of financial professionals with 21st-century skill sets. To view the full product, click on GAO-08-

447SP. For more information, contact Kay 

Daly at (202) 512-9095 or dalykl@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Introduction 1

Background 4

Shaping the Future of Federal Financial Management 13 

Applying Lessons Learned from Past Federal Financial 

Management System Implementations 19 

Strategies for Transforming Federal Financial Management Culture 

to Capitalize on Financial Management System Modernization 

Opportunities 25

Appendix I List of Participants on December 11, 2007 30 

Appendix II Forum Agenda 33 

Appendix III Discussion Questions Sent in Advance of Forum 34 

Appendix IV Results of Electronic Survey 39 

Appendix V Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 44 

Related GAO Products 45 

Figures 

Figure 1: Federal Financial Management Reform Framework 7 

Figure 2: Comparison of 2007 Financial Statement Audit Results to 

FFMIA Assessments 9 

Page i GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Abbreviations 

CFO chief financial officer 

CIO chief information officer

COTS commercial off-the-shelf 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

E-gov electronic government 

ERP enterprise resource planning 

FFMIA Federal Financial Management Improvement Act

FMFIA Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act 

FMLOB financial management line of business 

FSIO Financial Systems Integration Office

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

IG inspector general 

IT information technology 

IV&V independent verification and validation 

JFMIP Joint Financial Management Improvement Program 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PA/PAS Presidential Appointee/Presidential Appointee Senate 

 Confirmed 

PMA President’s Management Agenda 

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. 

Page ii GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Since the enactment of key financial management reforms such as the 

Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990 and the Federal Financial 

Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA), the federal government 

has devoted significant resources to improving financial management 

activities and practices. There has been a recognition of the value and

need for good financial management throughout government. At the same 

time, continuing attention is needed to address persistent, long-standing 

accountability problems and to redefine success for federal financial 

management. Effectively seizing these opportunities will be important to 

the federal government in transforming its operations to a world-class 

level. 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

Introduction 

GAO previously identified the following success factors as instrumental in 

achieving the vision of becoming a world-class finance organization: 

culture, customer, leadership, organization, people, process, and 

technology. Improving the federal government’s financial management 

technology is one of the key success factors that has been a particular 

challenge. Financial management systems are a critical factor in agencies’

ability to achieve accountability and transparency in federal finances.1

Modernized systems can help agencies minimize errors, systematically 

measure performance, develop cost information, and integrate program, 

budget, and financial information for management reporting. This will be 

important as the federal government faces difficult fiscal challenges that 

will require reliable cost and performance information to support timely 

decisions on spending, and, at the same time, address potential fraud, 

waste, and abuse. 

Many agency financial management systems do not routinely produce 

accurate, timely, and meaningful information needed for management 

decision making. For example, auditors reported that 13 of the 24 CFO Act 

agencies were not compliant with FFMIA for fiscal year 2007. The inability 

of more than half of the 24 CFO Act agencies to comply with the 

requirements of FFMIA demonstrates that many agencies continue to 

 1

Financial management systems encompass more than an agency’s automated information 

systems and include both the automated and manual processes, procedures, controls, and

personnel needed to support agency financial management. 

Page 1 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
struggle to implement modern financial management systems that 

effectively support program management. 

Recognizing that decision makers can benefit from a better understanding 

of the challenges and opportunities associated with the implementation of 

modern, effective federal financial management systems, GAO convened a 

forum on December 11, 2007. The forum provided a venue for bringing 

together 36 knowledgeable and recognized senior-level leaders from the 

federal financial management community to share insights on the critical

challenges and opportunities for improving federal financial management 

system implementation efforts. Participants included individuals from the 

CFO, Chief Information Officer (CIO), and Inspector General (IG) 

communities. In addition, executive-level officials and experts with 

extensive experience in federal financial management from federal 

oversight agencies and a variety of private sector organizations that 

specialize in assessing and improving federal financial systems and 

internal controls also participated in the conference. (See app. I for a list 

of forum participants.) 

The forum addressed (1) the future of federal financial management, 

(2) applying the lessons learned from federal financial management 

system implementations, and (3) strategies for transforming federal 

financial management culture to capitalize on financial management 

system modernization opportunities. (See app. II for the forum’s agenda.)

This forum was designed to engage in a rich and substantive discussion, 

on a nonattribution basis, and to obtain a range of views on key issues 

affecting the role, organization, and focus of federal financial management 

and the related financial management systems. (See app. III for discussion 

questions provided in advance to participants that were used to help 

facilitate forum discussion.) 

This summary captures the ideas and themes that emerged at the forum, 

the collective discussion of forum participants, the responses to electronic 

survey questions (see app. IV for the electronic survey results), and 

comments received from participants based on a draft of this summary. 

The forum comments summarized do not necessarily represent the views 

of any of the organizations that these participants represent, including 

GAO. 

I would like to thank all the forum participants for taking the time to share 

their knowledge, insights, and perspectives. We at GAO will benefit from 

these insights as we carry out our work to improve federal financial 

management for Congress and the nation. The Joint Financial Management 

Page 2 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Improvement Program (JFMIP) Principals2

 also have great interest in the 

points raised during this forum and plan to monitor progress on these 

issues. We look forward to working with the entire federal financial 

management community and the forum’s participants on this and other 

important issues of mutual interest and concern in the future. 

Gene L. Dodaro 

Acting Comptroller General of the United States

April 16, 2008

 2

The four JFMIP Principals are the Comptroller General of the United States, the Secretary

of the Treasury, and the Directors of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and 

Office of Personnel Management. 

Page 3 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
The role of financial management in the federal government is evolving.

Many agencies have made great strides toward generating more accurate

and reliable annual financial statements. However, the process of 

preparing financial statements and subjecting them to independent audit is 

only the first step toward satisfying the mandate for a world-class financial

management organization. To reap the full benefits of well-intended 

reforms, federal financial management organizations and operations must 

go beyond an audit opinion toward (1) establishing seamless systems and

processes, (2) routinely generating reliable cost and performance 

information and analysis, (3) undertaking other value-added activities that

support strategic decision making and mission performance, and 

(4) building a finance team that supports the agency’s mission and goals. 

Background 

Billions of dollars have been spent on developing and implementing 

financial management systems throughout the federal government. These 

systems are intended to support the interrelationships and 

interdependencies between budget, cost, and management functions. 

Financial management systems are not only critical for meeting federal 

financial management requirements, but more importantly for producing 

complete, reliable, timely, and consistent financial information for use by 

the executive branch of the federal government and Congress in the 

financing, management, and evaluation of federal programs. Many efforts 

are under way to implement new core financial systems3

 and supporting 

financial management systems such as logistics, acquisition, and human 

resources. However, recent efforts to modernize financial management 

systems have often exceeded budgeted cost, resulted in delays in delivery 

dates, and did not provide the anticipated system functionality and 

performance. To help reduce those risks associated with acquiring and 

implementing financial management systems, the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) has undertaken a number of initiatives intended to 

address long-standing financial management problems. 

 3

According to systems requirements issued by OMB, core financial systems are the

backbone of an agency’s integrated financial management system. Core financial systems 

provide specific functional capabilities necessary for managing a general ledger, controlling 

spending, making payments, managing receivables, measuring costs, funds management, 

and reporting in the federal environment.

Page 4 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Efforts to improve financial management and associated systems can be 

traced back to a series of management reform laws passed by Congress 

over the past three decades. This series started with the Federal Managers’ 

Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA), which Congress passed to 

strengthen internal controls and accounting systems throughout the 

federal government, among other purposes.4

 While agencies had achieved 

some early success in identifying and correcting material internal control 

and accounting system weaknesses, their efforts to implement FMFIA did 

not produce the results Congress intended. 

Federal Financial 

Management Legislative 

Framework 

Therefore, beginning in the 1990s, Congress passed additional 

management reform legislation to improve the general and financial 

management of the federal government. The CFO Act was the beginning of 

such legislation, and laid the foundation for other key legislative reforms 

that followed a common thread of increased accountability and better 

management practices. The CFO Act established a leadership structure, 

provided for long-range planning, required audited financial statements, 

sought improvement in systems of accounting, financial management, and

internal controls, and strengthened accountability reporting. The first 

related legislation that followed the CFO Act was the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), which requires agencies to 

develop strategic plans, set performance goals, and report annually on 

actual performance compared to goals. GPRA was followed by the 

Government Management Reform Act of 1994, which made permanent the 

pilot program in the CFO Act for annual audited agency-level financial

statements, expanded this requirement to all CFO Act agencies, and 

established a requirement for the preparation and audit of 

governmentwide consolidated financial statements. 

The Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA) 

built on the foundation laid by the CFO Act by reflecting the need for CFO 

Act agencies to have systems that can generate reliable, useful, and timely 

information with which to make fully informed decisions and to ensure 

accountability on an ongoing basis. FFMIA requires the departments and 

agencies covered by the CFO Act to implement and maintain financial 

management systems that comply substantially with (1) federal financial 

management systems requirements, (2) applicable federal accounting 

 4

The Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950 has required heads of executive 

agencies to establish and maintain systems of accounting and internal control that met

certain criteria and standards. See Act of Sept. 12, 1950, §113, 64 Stat. 835, 836 (codified, as

revised, at 31 U.S.C. §3512 (b)). 

Page 5 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
standards, and (3) the U.S. Government Standard General Ledger at the 

transaction level. FFMIA also requires auditors to state in their CFO Act 

financial statement audit reports whether the agencies’ financial 

management systems substantially comply with these three FFMIA 

requirements. 

The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (also known as the Information Technology 

Management Reform Act of 1996) sets forth a variety of initiatives to 

support better decision making for capital investments in information 

technology (IT), which has led to the development of the Federal 

Enterprise Architecture and better-informed capital investment and 

control processes within agencies and across government. The 

Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 required most executive 

agencies that are not otherwise required, or are exempted by OMB, to 

prepare annual audited financial statements and to submit such 

statements to Congress and the Director of OMB. The Improper Payments

Information Act of 2002, requires executive branch agency heads to review

their programs and activities annually, identify those that may be 

susceptible to significant improper payments, and report estimates of 

improper payments for susceptible programs. Lastly, in 2004 the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Financial Accountability Act 

made DHS subject to the CFO Act, which requires DHS to issue audited

financial statements, among other things. 

As shown in figure 1, if successfully implemented, these reforms provide a 

solid basis for improving accountability of government programs and 

operations as well as routinely producing valuable cost and operating 

performance information. The figure shows the three levels of the pyramid 

that result in the end goal, accountability and useful management 

information. The bottom level of the pyramid is the legislative framework, 

as discussed above, that underpins the improvement of the general and 

financial management of the federal government. The second level shows 

the drivers that build on the legislative requirements and influence agency

actions to meet these requirements. The four drivers are (1) the 

President’s Management Agenda (PMA),5

 (2) CFOs, (3) congressional and 

other oversight, and (4) the activities of the JFMIP Principals.

 5

In the summer of 2001, President Bush introduced the PMA, which outlined specific 

governmentwide goals and strategies to address the nation’s most pressing management

issues.

Page 6 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Figure 1: Federal Financial Management Reform Framework 

Accountability and useful management inf or mation 

End goal 

K e y success

f actors

Integ r ated 

systems

Reliable 

financial and 

perf or mance data

f or repor ting 

Eff ectiv e 

inter nal 

control 

PMA 

Dr iv ers

Legislativ e 

fr ame w or k 

CFOs Congress JFMIP

Principals

(1990)

Chief Financial

Officers Act 

 (1982)

Federal Managers'

Financial Integrity Act 

(1996)

Federal

Financial Management

Improvement Act 

(1996)

Clinger-Cohen

Act 

(2002)

Accountability of

Tax Dollars Act

(2002)

Improper Payments

Information Act

(2004)

Department of

Homeland

Security Financial

Accountability Act

(1993)

Government

Performance

and Results Act 

(1994)

Government

Management

Reform Act 

Source: GAO. 

One of the President’s five PMA goals is to improve financial performance 

by ensuring that federal financial management systems produce accurate,

timely, and useful information to support operating, budget, and policy 

decisions. CFOs in place at federal agencies are responsible for developing

and maintaining integrated accounting and financial management systems, 

directing, managing, and providing policy guidance and oversight of all 

agency financial management personnel, activities, and operations, and 

overseeing the recruitment, selection, and training of personnel to carry 

out agency financial management functions. They are to provide 

leadership on financial management issues and are expected to serve as

change agents. Congressional and other financial management oversight 

bodies are to help ensure that federal financial management initiatives are 

properly focused and on track. JFMIP was originally formed under the 

authority of the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950 as a joint 

Page 7 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
and cooperative undertaking of GAO, the Department of the Treasury, 

OMB, and the Office of Personnel Management, working in cooperation 

with each other to improve financial management practices in the federal

government. In an effort to eliminate duplicative roles and streamline 

financial management improvement efforts, the four JFMIP Principals 

agreed to realign JFMIP’s responsibilities for financial management policy 

and oversight as described in a December 2004 OMB memorandum.6

 As a 

result of the realignment, JFMIP ceased to exist as a separate organization.

The JFMIP Principals continue to meet periodically to address key 

financial management challenges that face the federal government. 

Since the passage of the CFO Act, agencies have made progress in 

achieving the requirements of these laws. The key success factors to 

achieve progress, as shown in the third level of the pyramid, are integrated

systems, reliable financial and performance data for reporting, and 

effective internal control. However, much work remains to fulfill the 

underlying goals of the CFO Act and FFMIA. For example, while the CFO 

Act has proven to be an effective foundation for federal financial 

accountability, GAO has identified7

 the following five principal challenges 

to fully realizing the world-class federal financial management anticipated

by the CFO Act: 

• Modernize and integrate financial management systems to provide a 

complete range of financial and cost information needed for 

accountability, performance reporting, and decision making. 

• Build a more analytic financial management workforce to support 

program managers and decision makers. 

• Solve long-standing internal control weaknesses. 

• Enhance financial reporting to provide a complete picture of the federal

government’s overall performance, financial condition, and future fiscal 

outlook. 

• Ensure that financial management reform is sustained given the leadership 

changes that occur at the end of any administration and the long-term 

nature of many of the ongoing reform initiatives. 

 6

OMB, Realignment of Responsibilities for Federal Financial Management Policy and

Oversight, memorandum (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 2, 2004). 

7

GAO, CFO Act of 1990: Driving the Transformation of Federal Financial Management, 

GAO-06-242T (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17, 2005). 

Page 8 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
While the ability to produce the data needed for efficient and effective 

management of day-to-day operations in the federal government would be 

of significant value to the agency, taxpayers, and Congress, reporting by 

GAO and other auditors demonstrates this has been a long-standing 

challenge at most federal agencies. Although 19 out of the 24 CFO Act 

agencies received an unqualified or “clean” opinion on their financial 

statements in fiscal year 2007, auditors for 8 of the 19 reported that 

agencies’ systems did not substantially comply with FFMIA as illustrated 

in figure 2. This shows that irrespective of these unqualified opinions, 

many agencies do not have financial management systems that produce 

timely, reliable, and useful financial information with which to make 

informed decisions and ensure accountability on an ongoing basis—the 

ultimate goal of the CFO Act. Furthermore, the wide disparity in the types 

and severity of the findings reported by auditors may indicate a general 

lack of clarity among agencies regarding what constitutes “substantial 

compliance” with FFMIA. 

Figure 2: Comparison of 2007 Financial Statement Audit Results to FFMIA 

Assessments

Note: Data are compiled from CFO Act agencies’ Performance and Accountability Reports for fiscal 

year 2007. 

Auditors have also reported on the inability of agencies to meet federal 

financial management systems requirements, which involve not only core 

financial systems, but also other enterprise resource planning (ERP) 

solutions—a business system that is intended to meet the information 

Status of Federal Efforts to 

Implement Financial 

Management Framework 

Page 9 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
needs of both internal and external customers and to promote 

standardization and integration of business processes and systems across 

the agency.8 While the problems are much more severe at some agencies 

than at others, the federal government’s access to relevant, timely, and 

reliable data to effectively manage and oversee its major programs, which 

is the ultimate objective, continues to be restricted. 

Across the federal government, agencies have efforts under way to 

implement new financial management systems or to upgrade existing 

systems. Agencies expect that new systems will provide reliable, useful, 

and timely data to support day-to-day managerial decision making and 

assist taxpayer and congressional oversight. As GAO has reported,9

implementing and upgrading information systems is a difficult job and 

brings a degree of new risk. However, organizations that follow and 

effectively implement accepted best practices in systems development and 

implementation, also known as disciplined processes, together with 

human capital management and other IT management practices, can 

manage to reduce these risks to acceptable levels.

 8

An ERP solution is an automated system using commercial off-the-shelf software 

consisting of multiple, integrated functional modules that perform a variety of businessrelated tasks such as accounts payable, general ledger accounting, and supply chain 

management. 

9

GAO, Financial Management Systems: Additional Efforts Needed to Address Key Causes 

of Modernization Failures, GAO-06-184 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2006).

Page 10 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Within the last decade, there have been a number of initiatives related to 

improving federal financial management capabilities. Some of these 

initiatives are in collaboration with the CIO10 and CFO11 Councils and are 

broad-based attempts to reform financial management operations across 

the federal government. For example, the PMA, as mentioned earlier, has 

been a key initiative to drive change. As the federal organization with 

primary responsibility for federal financial management systems, OMB has 

also introduced other initiatives dedicated to addressing financial 

management problems. For example, OMB developed and continues to 

evolve governmentwide Federal Enterprise Architecture12 products and 

has required a mapping of agency architectures to this federal architecture 

as part of the budget review process. Another key OMB initiative is 

referred to as the lines of business,13 which promotes business-driven, 

common solutions to enhance the federal government’s performance and 

services. OMB’s financial management line of business (FMLOB) initiative 

is intended to address past financial management systems’ weaknesses 

and implementation failures and support the PMA goal of expanding 

electronic government. The goals of the FMLOB initiative include 

Ongoing Governmentwide 

Initiatives Intended to Help 

Address the Federal 

Financial Management 

Reform Framework 

 10The CIO Council was first established in 1996 by executive order. See Exec. Order 13011, 

Federal Information Technology, § 3, 61 Fed. Reg. 37657 (July 19, 1996). The CIO Council’s 

existence was codified into law by Congress in the E-Government Act of 2002. See 44 

U.S.C. § 3603. The CIO Council serves as the principal interagency forum for improving 

practices in the design, modernization, use, sharing, and performance of federal 

government agency information resources. The council’s role includes developing 

recommendations for information technology management policies, procedures, and

standards; identifying opportunities to share information resources; and assessing and 

addressing the needs of the federal government’s IT workforce. 

11The CFO Council was established by section 302 of the CFO Act of 1990 to advise and 

coordinate the activities of the agencies of its members on such matters as consolidation 

and modernization of financial systems, improved quality of financial information, financial 

data and information standards, internal controls, legislation affecting financial operations 

and organizations, and any other financial management matters. See 31 U.S.C. § 901 note. 

12OMB is developing the Federal Enterprise Architecture, a business-based framework for 

governmentwide improvement, to transform the federal government to one that is citizencentered, results-oriented, and market-based. 

13In March 2004, OMB initiated a governmentwide analysis of five lines of business—

financial management, human resources management, grants management, federal health 

architecture, and case management—and in March 2005 started a task force to address a

sixth line of business on IT security. Three additional lines of business were initiated in

March 2006 on budget formulation and execution, geospatial, and IT infrastructure

optimization. 

Page 11 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
• providing timely and accurate data for decision making; 

• facilitating stronger internal controls that ensure integrity in accounting 

and other stewardship activities; 

• reducing costs by providing a competitive alternative for agencies to 

acquire, develop, implement, and operate financial management systems 

through shared service solutions; 

• standardizing systems, business processes, and data elements; and 

• providing for seamless data exchange between and among federal 

agencies by implementing a common language and structure for financial 

information and system interfaces. 

OMB expects its initial framework for the competitive migration to either 

a public shared service provider or a qualified private sector provider 

under the FMLOB initiative to help agencies maximize value by 

considering alternative solutions in a reasoned and structured manner. 

However, as we previously recommended,14 OMB needs to define standard

business processes and ensure that agencies do not continue developing

and implementing their own stovepiped systems.15 Failure to do so may 

require additional work, increase costs to adopt these standard business 

processes, and further delay the transformation of federal financial 

management systems. In a January 2008 memo,16 OMB recognized the risks 

associated with nonstandardized processes and updated its guidance on 

the FMLOB. Current plans are for the Financial Systems Integration Office 

(FSIO) to continue developing business standards and incorporate them 

into software requirements and only permit agencies and shared service 

providers to utilize the certified products as configured. While reforming 

federal financial management is an undertaking of tremendous 

complexity, it presents great opportunities for improvements in financial

management system implementations and related business operations. 

 14GAO-06-184. 

15Stovepiped systems are systems procured and developed for a specific purpose and

contain data that cannot be easily shared with other systems. 

16OMB, Update on the Financial Management Line of Business, memorandum 

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 28, 2008). 

Page 12 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Participants provided a variety of perspectives on the future of federal 

financial management during the forum. Many participants emphasized the 

need for federal financial management organizations to play a broader role 

as a strategic partner in meeting overall agency and program objectives. 

Several indicated that more focus is needed to meet the needs of program 

managers for managing programs more effectively. Finally, a number of 

participant comments focused on several factors that will continue to 

challenge efforts to improve government financial management in the 

future, including potentially competing governmentwide initiatives. 

The purpose of financial management systems should go beyond providing 

the data necessary to comply with various financial reporting

requirements to focus on routinely producing reliable, useful, and timely 

financial information that federal managers can use for day-to-day 

decision-making purposes. One of the themes emerging from the forum 

was that federal financial management leaders should refocus their efforts 

on comprehending and meeting program managers’ financial information 

requirements and not simply on meeting financial reporting compliance 

requirements. 

Certain participants indicated that they considered financial management 

systems as “enablers” for providing needed financial information that can

be viewed as part of the organization’s overall infrastructure. One 

participant stated that financial management systems are a component of 

what is needed to become a world-class financial management 

organization. In determining the role of financial management systems, 

one participant indicated that financial management leaders need to know 

what information is needed for decision making and work backward to 

determine how it can be provided. However, forum participants expressed 

concerns regarding the current focus of government financial management 

systems on accounting information and less on the need to understand 

program managers’ information needs and how agency business works. 

Some participants indicated that the lack of integration between current 

financial and program systems limits their potential effectiveness as a tool

for management decision making. One participant stated that financial 

information is just one “piece of the puzzle” needed to effectively manage

agency programs and operations. Another participant stated that much of 

the data in their core financial systems consists of summary level data that 

is difficult to disaggregate to provide useful information for a program 

management perspective. Other participants expressed similar views 

pertaining to a lack of accurate data flowing from “feeder systems” and a

need for financial systems to tie into program systems. Finally, another 

Shaping the Future of 

Federal Financial 

Management 

Emphasizing Strategic 

Role Is Key to Future 

Success of Federal 

Financial Management 

Organizations 

Role of Financial Management 

Systems Is Evolving to Focus 

More on Program Manager 

Needs 

Page 13 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
participant stated that the federal financial management community needs 

to think about accessibility of financial information in the future as users 

become more technology driven in an electronic government (E-gov) 

environment. 

Responses to one of our electronic survey questions indicate concern that

more integration of financial and program information is needed. When 

asked to what extent they believe financial systems now provide program 

managers with reliable, useful, and timely information to assist them in the 

day-to-day management of the agency, 21 of 33 participants responded that 

they believed such systems provide little or no information needed to meet 

such needs. Ten participants indicated that information provided by 

current financial management systems meet program manager needs to a 

moderate extent while only one participant indicated that program 

manager needs are being met to a large extent. 

In contrast to concerns that finance organizations should focus more 

efforts toward meeting the needs of program managers, some participants

cautioned that complying with basic financial reporting requirements 

remains an important aspect of agency finance organization activities. One 

participant stated that efforts over the past several years at his agency

focused on cleaning up financial reporting and systems. As a result, the 

agency managers are now in a much better position to ask themselves 

whether the information produced from their systems was “good enough”

for the agency’s program management needs. Prior to these efforts, agency 

managers were not in a good position to use this financial data to help 

make program assessments. Finally, participants indicated that producing 

accurate financial statements should be viewed as a by-product of 

effective business processes and financial management systems. The 

primary goal is not to prepare perfect financial statements; rather, the 

primary goal is to improve financial management systems so that financial 

information from these systems can be used to help manage agencies 

more effectively. 

Now that most agencies are receiving clean audit opinions and fewer 

material weaknesses are identified, participants indicated that more effort 

can be focused on business processes and program manager needs. 

Several participants expressed concern that, due to the efforts devoted to

preparing financial reports and meeting financial reporting compliance 

requirements, finance organizations have not focused sufficient attention 

on understanding and meeting the financial management needs of program 

managers. As a result, they indicated the extent to which program 

managers’ decisions are linked to financial-related performance indicators 

Producing Accurate, Timely, 

and Useful Financial Data Is 

Important Part of Broader Goal 

Shifting Focus from Financial 

Reporting Compliance to 

Program Stewardship

Page 14 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
is limited and less informed. For example, one participant indicated that

he is amazed at the extent to which efforts have focused primarily on 

compliance issues as opposed to talking with program managers to help 

them understand their financial management information needs and 

training them how to effectively link financial and program data to better 

manage their programs. 

Other participants pointed to a need for federal financial management to 

focus its efforts on providing program managers with analytic

“dashboards” containing both program and financial performance data on

a regular and timely basis. One participant discussed an inventory tracking 

system used in a large retail organization as an example of an application

developed to effectively link program and financial information to meet a 

variety of needs. The participants generally agreed that agencies need to

focus on these types of enterprise information systems in order to produce 

information needed for program stewardship. This financial information 

should result from the business processes where the transactions are 

being recorded—outside the CFO’s office. 

The federal government has made progress in the past 15 years in 

achieving the CFO Act’s goals and objectives. For example, unqualified 

audit opinions for CFO Act agencies financial statements have grown from 

6 in fiscal year 1996 to 19 in fiscal year 2007. Nevertheless, significant 

agency efforts to improve federal financial management systems have 

resulted in limited progress as indicated by the majority of agencies still 

not in compliance with FFMIA. Across the federal government, evidence 

exists suggesting that agencies have made gradual improvements related 

to the accuracy of financial information, the reliability of financial 

reporting processes and systems, and the level of compliance with various 

financial management laws and regulations. However, despite the 

successes in meeting financial reporting compliance requirements, 

participants expressed concern that managers may have reached a 

crossroads for determining how and where to proceed with regard to 

future financial system implementation efforts. 

While agencies have come a long way in improving federal financial 

management, opportunities exist to help agencies move to the next level 

and reach agreement on what constitutes substantial compliance with 

FFMIA. The government’s focus on financial management has led to 

gradual improvements in the accuracy of financial information, the 

reliability of financial reporting processes and systems, and compliance 

with FFMIA requirements, as reflected in electronic survey results. For 

Financial Management 

Improvement Efforts Have 

Reached a Crossroads 

Opportunities Remain for 

Addressing FFMIA Compliance 

Issues 

Page 15 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
example, the extent to which participants believe internal controls have 

improved through significant agency efforts to comply with FFMIA 

indicate general agreement that efforts are achieving results. With regard 

to electronic survey results, 22 of 35 respondents said that internal 

controls had improved to a large or moderate extent through these efforts. 

On the basis of electronic survey questions regarding compliance with 

FFMIA, however, participants’ views concerning what constitutes 

compliance and who should have a role in assessing compliance vary. 

When asked how much progress they believed their respective agency had 

made in achieving compliance with the three requirements of FFMIA, 25 of 

35 participants responded it had done so to a moderate or large extent. On 

the other hand, when asked to what extent they believe agreement exists 

regarding what constitutes substantial compliance with FFMIA, 20 of 35

respondents indicated that agreement exists to little or no extent while 15 

of 35 believed agreement exists to a moderate extent. Importantly, none of 

the forum participants indicated that the federal financial community has 

reached agreement in this area to a large extent, indicating that this may 

be an area on which to focus in the future. Regarding the role of IGs and 

independent public accounting firms in assessing substantial compliance 

with FFMIA, 18 of 35 respondents believe they should have little or no 

role, while 16 believe they should have a large or moderate role in the 

assessment. 

Although participants acknowledged that efforts to improve government 

financial management have been significant and are resulting in gradual 

improvements, forum participants’ comments varied regarding the 

progress still to be achieved. One participant expressed the view that 

much progress has been made in that agencies are now providing financial 

statement auditors with good financial information. Another participant 

agreed that progress has been made, especially over the past few years 

with FSIO’s17 (formerly JFMIP) help. However, one participant cautioned 

that it seems as though agencies are reaching a plateau in implementing 

new systems. In this regard, it is not unusual, in the normal evolution of 

financial management systems, for there to be challenges in moving 

Opinions Vary on Focus of 

Remaining Efforts to Ensure 

Continued Progress 

 17The Financial Systems Integration Office (FSIO) was formerly known as the Joint 

Financial Management Improvement Program (JFMIP) staff office. In December 2004, the 

JFMIP Principals voted to modify the roles and responsibilities of the JFMIP. The FSIO 

Executive reports to OMB’s Office of Federal Financial Management Controller. See OMB,

Update on the Financial Management Line of Business and the Financial Systems

Integration Office memorandum (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 16, 2005).

Page 16 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
forward. Implementing a financial management system is risky, and when 

compounded with rapidly evolving technology and standards, the risk is 

increased. A participant stated that agencies are at a point where they 

need to decide over the next several years whether to focus their efforts 

on financial reporting, or on developing performance analytics. Another 

participant expressed the view that agency efforts need to move to the

next level and focus more on meeting agency business needs with 

appropriate data. 

OMB’s financial management line of business (FMLOB) initiative is an 

important component of the PMA for improving overall government 

performance management, focusing on business-driven, common 

solutions to help address financial management system weaknesses and 

implementation failures. However, in response to an electronic survey 

question, none of the 33 participants that answered believed the resources 

available to implement the initiative are fully adequate. Additionally, in

connection with this initiative, OMB had established a goal of migrating 

the majority of agencies toward the use of shared service providers 

capable of providing a variety of financial management services to 

multiple agencies by 2011. Based on responses to an electronic survey 

question, however, participants appeared uncertain regarding the ability of

their respective organizations to reach this goal by 2011, with 15 of 33

respondents indicating that the transition will occur either to a moderate 

or to a large extent and 12 of 33 indicating it will occur to little or no 

extent. Six of the respondents indicated that they did not know or that the 

question was not applicable to them.

Participants expressed views that significant resources have been devoted 

to improving federal financial management and have facilitated a better 

understanding of the issues involved in making further improvements to 

financial management systems. For example, one participant agreed that 

using agencies’ past experiences as case studies may provide good models

for other agencies to learn from as they work through similar challenges.

Other participants expressed the view that improvement efforts also 

highlight the need to focus on common data and standardization to 

facilitate common solutions. One participant stated that agency leadership 

should first agree on what data are needed by internal and external 

stakeholders. Another participant stated that standard data elements are 

an important component of system implementations and those being 

developed through the FMLOB initiative will facilitate greater integration

of financial and program management systems in the future. 

Efforts on Current Initiatives 

Highlight Needs for Future 

Improvements 

Page 17 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
While agencies have taken important steps that have contributed to 

improving federal financial management over the last several years, future

improvements in federal financial management may become increasingly 

difficult. According to participants, obstacles to future success of 

modernization efforts include limited resources available, competing 

governmentwide initiatives, and varying levels of commitment among 

some federal officials to address long-standing financial management 

issues. These obstacles continue to limit the ability of the federal financial 

management community to effectively consider and address the needs of 

key stakeholders, including program managers. 

Many participants expressed concerns that finance organizations face 

significant challenges in balancing and meeting the needs of various 

stakeholders. Participants indicated that compliance requirements have 

continued to increase in complexity. One participant indicated that 

financial reporting requirements have become more complex to the point 

where a danger exists that accounting compliance requirements have 

become so prescriptive that they may begin to drive business processes 

rather than business processes driving accounting processes. Participants 

discussed other countries that recently implemented modern financial 

management systems and expressed the concern that United States 

legislative requirements and standards are too extensive and complex. 

Streamlining and simplifying financial reporting requirements to focus on 

essential information needed by decision makers, according to some 

participants, is critical for realizing continued progress in government 

financial management. Resource limitations will continue to represent a 

challenge to making progress in government financial management. One 

participant noted that although agencies continue to struggle with legacy 

systems and sound business cases exist for upgrading them, competing 

priorities often result in a lack of resources to fund financial management 

system improvement projects. 

Participants also expressed significant concern related to stovepipes— 

organizational barriers that limit communication—among various 

initiatives that hamper federal governmentwide improvement efforts and 

management effectiveness. The following provides examples of some of 

the long-standing obstacles and challenges forum participants identified:

Addressing Challenges to 

Continued Progress 

Balancing and Meeting 

Customer Needs and Financial 

Reporting Requirements with 

Limited Resources 

Overcoming Long-standing 

Parochial Interests 

• It is very costly to gather the information needed to meet financial 

reporting requirements. 

• There are significant differences in how agency finance organizations 

operate and devote resources to conducting budget and financial reporting 

activities. 

Page 18 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
• Budget, accounting, and program management are all disconnected in 

today’s environment. 

• OMB’s various lines of business initiatives are serving to preserve existing

stovepipes. For example, it is unclear why separate lines of business are 

needed for budget and financial management. 

• There should be increased awareness of the benefits of merging financial

management activities together and demonstrating greater value through

more effective integration. 

• It may be necessary to better educate stakeholders regarding the value of 

financial management information for project management purposes. 

Participants noted that varying levels of interest in financial management 

information by stakeholders including program managers and Congress 

indicate a general lack of usefulness of such information for program 

management or decision-making purposes. According to participants, 

some legislators and senior agency leadership do not seem to appreciate 

the benefits of financial reports despite the fact that preparing reports 

consumes significant resources. Some participants thought these leaders 

were more focused on budget-oriented information. This effectively

demonstrates the perceived lack of understanding of the value of financial 

management information to stakeholders, and the need to develop 

performance information that stakeholders consider meaningful. 

The forum participants generally agreed that there has been a growing 

body of knowledge based on lessons learned from past federal financial 

management system implementation projects that provide useful insights 

for future efforts. Managers now possess a greater knowledge of the 

system design and implementation challenges they face, as well as 

possible solutions to these challenges. As one participant noted, “agencies 

currently possess a good list of dos and don’ts” with respect to various 

system implementation challenges. Echoing the prior comment, other 

participants stated that it is time to start putting into practice the lessons 

learned from previous implementation efforts. As part of an effort to begin 

confronting these challenges, forum participants offered a range of 

perspectives, insights, and examples pertaining to the (1) experience 

obtained from modernizing federal financial management systems that can 

benefit future implementation efforts, and (2) practices agencies found 

most effective in monitoring progress and identifying implementation 

issues on a timely basis. 

Applying Lessons 

Learned from Past 

Federal Financial 

Management System 

Implementations 

Page 19 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Financial managers have gained valuable lessons learned experiences with 

regard to implementing financial management systems over the years. For 

example, experience related to human capital management, systems 

ownership, customization of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software, 

and the purchase of shared services has provided useful insights that can 

help financial managers avoid some of the obstacles that impeded past 

system implementation projects. According to participants, the effective 

integration of responses to lessons acquired from previous implementation 

efforts are critical components of a successful system implementation 

project. 

Because federal financial management system implementation is such a 

complicated and multifaceted endeavor requiring large amounts of federal 

resources, participants commented that it was critical for agencies to 

identify and obtain the services of experienced, top talent for project 

oversight and management purposes. For example, a participant stated 

that agencies should consider focusing on identifying the right oversight 

body capable of providing direct, decision-making authority at the highest 

level within the agency to increase the likelihood of implementation 

success. In addition, another participant noted that obtaining personnel 

with demonstrated, effective project management skills was critical to 

successful system implementation. Another participant stated that an

agency should use its “A-Team” for system implementation projects rather

than relatively less qualified, but more readily available, personnel. The 

participant also pointed out that the private sector typically devotes its top 

talent and significant resources to system implementation projects. 

Participants also stressed the importance of holding qualified program 

managers responsible for implementation results. 

Several participants suggested the federal government should facilitate 

ways of sharing top system implementation talent among agencies. One 

participant stated that experience is of critical importance in the area of

systems implementation; however, there is currently only a limited pool of 

top-level experienced talent. Consequently, the federal government may 

wish to look for creative ways to share or move these resources among 

agencies to best meet the federal government’s collective needs. Based on 

the experiences of two participants, personnel with the requisite talent 

and experience are currently employed by the federal government; 

however, such talent is not present at all agencies. Nevertheless, 

participants provided examples of federal agencies whose personnel had 

acquired significant system implementation experience over the past 

decade or more. According to one participant, more experienced project

Experience Obtained from 

Modernizing Federal 

Financial Management 

Systems Can Benefit 

Future Efforts 

Experienced Top Leadership Is 

Critical Component of 

Implementation Success 

Page 20 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
managers eventually contributed to successful implementation outcomes 

at their respective agencies. 

Forum participants commented that shifting agency focus from system 

ownership to the purchase of financial system shared services may make 

more economic and operational sense. According to one participant, it 

may be more efficient for large agencies to de-emphasize systems 

ownership and instead focus on purchasing large-scale system services 

from other agencies or the private sector. Conversely, it may be more 

economical for smaller agencies to contract with large agencies to obtain 

required system services such as financial processing. Participants noted 

that large agencies generally possess the necessary infrastructure required

to purchase large-scale services in a more economical manner, primarily 

due to their greater economies of scale, particularly with regard to 

processing activities. 

Focusing less on system ownership could allow federal agencies to devote

more resources to value-added activities, such as financial analysis and 

managing people and processes, according to one participant. Another 

participant believed that purchasing certain financial systems services 

from other agencies or the private sector might help an agency to “right 

size” its CFO position. For example, through such purchases of financial 

services, it may not be necessary for a CFO to perform many of an 

agency’s financial statement preparation and internal control reporting 

responsibilities. Outsourcing these responsibilities to other agencies or the 

private sector could free CFO resources for more value-added program 

management and oversight activities. However, participants also 

expressed a number of concerns and provided certain caveats regarding 

the transition from systems ownership to the purchase of shared services:

Challenges in Moving from 

Systems Ownership to Use of 

Shared Services 

• The advantages of economies of scale with regard to transaction 

processing may be questionable because the agency doing the outsourcing 

generally would still need many of the related accounting skills in-house. 

• Some agency financial leaders may be reluctant to transition to the 

purchase of certain financial services because they fear losing control of 

critical functions. In order to address this concern, the federal financial

management community must work to convince agency officials that they

will continue to have access to the data at the endpoint. 

• It may be necessary to develop a phased approach for the transition to 

shared service providers in order to gain the trust of agency financial and 

program leaders. The approach of trying to convince agencies of the 

benefits of wholesale outsourcing many business activities may not be 

Page 21 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
effective; consequently, a pared down “case study” approach may be more 

effective. 

• All key stakeholders, such as agency management and shared service 

providers, need to be “at the table” for decision-making purposes. 

However, agencies should have accountability for ensuring the success of 

their systems. 

Participant responses to GAO’s electronic survey questions tended to 

reinforce the importance of focusing on making the most efficient and

effective use of existing resources (e.g., performing higher-level financial 

management activities vs. transaction processing) when attempting to 

implement a financial management system or move to a shared service 

provider. For example, the responses to the question concerning the 

extent to which participants believed resources invested in federal 

financial management system modernization efforts yielded a

commensurate level of value to the federal government tended to vary, 

with 18 of 34 participants stating it had occurred from a moderate to a 

large extent, and 15 of 34 stating it had occurred to little or no extent. On a 

related note, 16 of 34 participants responding to our electronic survey 

question concerning areas of needed improvement indicated that the area

of “human capital” could benefit the most from the introduction of 

enhanced guidance, training, or other tools designed to assist 

implementation efforts. 

Participants generally agreed that refraining from excessive COTS 

software customization may help to reduce the perpetuation of parochial 

(nonenterprisewide) financial management and related business practices. 

According to participants, the need for excessive customizing of COTS 

software may be an indicator of inefficient agency business practices. A 

participant stated that if an agency’s business practices did not conform to 

the software, the agency should focus on reengineering its practices rather 

than customizing the COTS software. Participants also suggested that 

excessive customization of COTS software may result in promoting 

inefficiency by working around an inefficient business practice instead of 

working to eliminate it. 

Several participants identified the inefficient, wasteful use of federal 

resources as one of the significant problems resulting from excessive 

COTS customization. For example, one participant noted that when 

federal agencies expend resources for research and development purposes 

in order to customize COTS software, private-sector vendors sometimes 

are the beneficiaries of this activity. According to the participant, 

customization results in altered COTS software code. Vendors sell the 

Minimizing COTS 

Customization Facilitates 

Standardization and 

Interoperability 

Page 22 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
altered COTS software developed for one agency to other federal agencies; 

however, the government is not necessarily compensated for its related 

software research and development expenditures to customize the 

software. Another participant stated that agencies, as part of the COTS 

customization process, have wasted resources in requiring the use of 

separate sets of overly prescriptive processes for implementing COTS 

software. A participant stated that experienced COTS-based system 

integrators have been successful in avoiding such costly customizations by 

using their own implementation processes and methodologies. From 

another participant’s perspective, experienced systems integrators have 

not always been a panacea and that adherence to disciplined processes 

has been predictably shown to be the best indicator for success by 

reducing project risk. 

According to some participants, the development of governmentwide 

standards for various agency business processes is a critical evolutionary

step in the system implementation process. A participant stated it was 

important for the federal financial management community to begin 

thinking about standardization, particularly as agencies have become more 

aware of lessons learned from past projects and now collectively have a 

good list of “dos and don’ts” to begin working from. The participant also 

noted that OMB/FSIO’s work with regard to standard business processes 

was especially meaningful. However, another participant cautioned that 

agencies should be aware that implementation failures have occurred 

because managers decided to ignore the systems development and 

implementation standards they believed too general in nature. This might 

result in managers engaging in implementation activities that could 

increase the project risk. 

Participants suggested it might be of value for agencies to begin their 

standardization efforts by focusing on the areas of data management. A 

participant stated that agencies are increasingly tending to view data as a 

commodity or basic element of management, and as a result, government

should begin focusing more of its efforts on data standardization (e.g.,

OMB’s efforts on setting business standards). Another participant 

suggested that additional federal efforts should be devoted to data 

standardization and the conversion of old data into new systems. A 

participant noted the urgency of the matter by stating that the efforts to 

clean data for conversion can take years. Other participants stressed the 

importance of focusing on essential data. 

Page 23 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Federal financial managers reported identifying various system 

implementation practices over the years that have proven useful in helping 

to facilitate successful financial system implementation outcomes. The 

practices include verification and validation conducted by independent 

sources, periodically reevaluating system implementation projects, and 

reliance on the authority of top management to oversee project 

implementation. According to participants, such practices provide early 

warning of potential problems. 

Participants suggested that it may be necessary from time to time for 

agencies to step back and evaluate ongoing implementation efforts from a 

broader perspective in order to assess progress. According to participants, 

this is important because it helps project managers better determine 

whether a project is making appropriate progress on the path to meeting 

its objectives. For example, one participant stated that in a previous 

system implementation, he had another executive who was not directly 

involved in the implementation attend meetings in order to act as an 

impartial sounding board and to ask the important question, “Does it make 

sense?” He believed this practice bolstered the project’s internal 

accountability, which in turn decreased project risk. 

Participants generally agreed that executive oversight bodies with the 

appropriate authority were critical in helping to remove any impediments 

to implementation and to assess whether a particular project should 

continue or be terminated. One participant stressed the importance of 

having a top-level executive involved in overseeing the implementation 

project that did not have direct responsibility for the project. According to

another participant, top management “courage” is key to identifying 

situations and making difficult determinations whether project efforts 

should proceed or be terminated. Another participant stated that courage 

is key to objectively assessing the viability of an implementation project. 

However, participants did note that sometimes the determination of 

whether or not to terminate a project was also influenced by such factors 

as the level of project funding or a negative relationship with a contractor. 

Participants agreed that independent verification and validation (IV&V) 

efforts help to identify and provide early warning of potential federal 

financial management system implementation problems. Participants also

generally agreed that having an effective IV&V in place was important, 

particularly when attempting to decide whether a project should be 

terminated. Another participant recommended the use of IV&V 

contractors, but cautioned that this would have to be carefully managed. 

For example, another participant stated that while the use of an IV&V 

Practices Agencies Found 

Most Effective in

Monitoring Progress and 

Identifying Implementation 

Issues on a Timely Basis 

Periodically Reevaluating 

Modernization Projects Helps 

Agencies Identify Problems and 

Potential Solutions 

Oversight Bodies with 

Appropriate Authority Enhance 

Accountability 

Independent Verification and 

Validation Efforts Help Reduce 

Risk and Provide Additional 

Support to Stakeholders 

Page 24 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
review can be an important tool in assessing the effectiveness of an 

implementation project, agency officials must take steps to oversee these 

reviews to avoid “falling asleep at the wheel” and accepting without 

question the findings of an IV&V contractor. 

Participants provided a variety of comments related to the need to 

transform the federal financial management culture to best capitalize on 

financial management system modernization opportunities. In responding 

to an electronic survey question asking how far along organizations are in

transforming their business systems, 17 of 31 participants indicated that 

moderate progress has been achieved while 12 indicated that little or no 

progress had been made. Only one indicated that their efforts were 

substantially complete. Participants emphasized the importance of the 

financial management culture transforming itself to focus on assuring their 

financial systems provide information integral to the successful operation 

of an entire organization. Additionally, participants discussed the 

relevance of the CFO and financial management organizations and the 

need to attract and retain a new generation of financial management 

professionals with new skill sets. 

There was a perception expressed by some participants that 

(1) management often views accountants as merely technicians and not as 

relevant to decision making, and (2) the federal financial management 

community continues to develop financial statements that no one reads. 

According to some participants, the accounting profession is at a crisis 

point. In order to remain relevant, the federal financial management 

community must be willing to proactively embrace change and transform 

its organizational culture to focus on ways for financial management 

systems to provide value to the entire organization. Other forum 

participants commented on the need to continually reexamine the roles of 

the CFO and other federal financial management organizations. Finally, 

participants emphasized the importance of developing appropriate 

business metrics to demonstrate the ability to deliver greater value to the 

organization.

Many participants expressed views and concerns regarding the role of 

financial management leadership in improving future federal financial 

management. In response to two electronic survey questions, 29 of 32 

respondents indicated that “the role of the CFO” and “success for financial 

management” need to be redefined. Additionally, one participant stated 

that agency CFOs will need to assume broader roles to achieve world-class 

Strategies for 

Transforming Federal 

Financial 

Management Culture 

to Capitalize on 

Financial 

Management System 

Modernization 

Opportunities 

Increasing Relevance of 

CFO and Government 

Finance Organizations 

Redefining Roles of CFO and 

Other Federal Financial 

Management Organizations 

Page 25 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
status, including focusing on how best to support broad, overall program 

stewardship goals. 

Participants generally agreed that CFOs now have a limited role in the 

management decision-making process within the federal government. One 

of the points that a participant raised was that this is because requested 

funds are appropriated by Congress and do not require approval by the 

CFO as in the private sector. As a result, the government CFO has less 

clout in decision making. According to one participant, in the private 

sector the CFO holds an important role in key management decisions and

is frequently the path to becoming Chief Executive Officer, whereas, in the 

federal environment, the CFO is often the accountant and preparer of 

financial statements and not involved in key management decisions. In 

order to attain similar status, participants stated that federal government 

CFOs and other federal financial management organizations should 

consider adopting a more forward-looking financial analysis outlook and 

identifying ways of demonstrating the value of their financial management 

perspective to the organization’s management. 

Participants suggested that it is critical that the behavior of the federal 

financial management community changes to increase its focus on 

becoming more relevant to management and the entire organization. 

According to participants, federal financial managers need to do more 

than just provide data; they need to add value to the organization with 

respect to providing useful information to program managers. Participants

stated that the federal financial management cultural change will require 

spending more time with program managers to gain the perspectives and 

insight needed to maximize their value as financial advisors across the 

organization and to assist in decision making. Participants suggested that 

the federal financial management community focus additional effort on 

helping program managers understand how to integrate financial 

management information and why it is important to the decision-making 

process. According to some participants, agency CFOs should transform 

the culture of their organizations to focus on their role as advisors, rather 

than their “bean counter” role. 

One participant suggested that making CFOs career positions would result 

in greater continuity and reduce turnover within the federal financial 

management community. However, there was more support for the 

opposing view that there is great merit in having political appointees in 

CFO positions to gain support on issues. For example, one participant 

stated that only politically appointed CFOs will have “a seat at the table,” 

in making key organizational decisions. One participant served as both a 

Differing Opportunities and 

Challenges Associated with 

Career CFO Positions and 

Politically Appointed Positions 

Page 26 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
politically appointed CFO and a career-status CFO and stated that political 

appointees are treated very differently. That is, politically appointed and 

confirmed members generally have more public support, and thus they 

have more influence in decision making among their peers. 

Some participants suggested that agencies need to assess how to change 

the human capital strategy regarding the different requirements, roles, and 

responsibilities of career and political positions. According to several 

participants, the federal financial management community continues to 

experience a great deal of turnover, particularly since many federal CFOs 

are political appointees. Some participants expressed concern about the 

level of skill in the politically appointed CFO community and whether 

those CFOs had the requisite experience necessary to fill the position. 

Thus, some participants expressed a need to evaluate whether increased 

reliance on career CFO positions might better provide for continuity of the 

CFO community. Some participants also stated that the federal financial

management community might consider addressing the creation of two 

classes of financial management professionals within federal financial 

management organizations, one class for PA/PAS (Presidential 

Appointee/Presidential Appointee Senate Confirmed) and another for 

career financial management professionals. According to some 

participants, agencies may benefit from examining the roles of financial

management political appointees, the number of such political appointees, 

and where they are in organizations.

Participants also discussed whether the cultural transformation of the 

federal financial management community might be furthered through 

having set term appointments for CFOs. Such a change would allow CFOs 

to be a member of the “political team,” as well as provide an additional 

degree of stability and continuity to the position. One participant 

suggested 5 to 7 years may be a realistic option for the term of a federal

CFO. 

Participant responses varied to an electronic survey question regarding the 

extent to which they believed modernization efforts were leading toward 

positive cultural transformation and creating more organizational value, 

with 19 of 32 indicating from a moderate to a large extent, and 13 of 32 

indicating to little or no extent. It was suggested by a participant that the 

key to creating value for their organization is through the CFO’s vision and

ability to deliver value that makes a difference. The participant also stated 

that such value-added activities include developing appropriate business 

metrics and demonstrating the influence of effective internal controls on 

mission effectiveness. Another participant pointed to an example where a 

Delivering Value through 

Reliable Data and Development 

of Appropriate Business 

Metrics 

Page 27 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
new agency CFO was tasked with developing a new set of performance 

metrics for each program. This effort resulted in the financial management 

organization expanding beyond its traditional accounting and budgetrelated activities to develop critical program performance metrics. The 

participants agreed that the establishment of business metrics and related 

goals helps a CFO demonstrate the ability to deliver greater value to the 

organization as an advisor, rather than as a mere “cruncher” of numbers. 

The financial management environment is more and more reliant on 

accounting processes that are increasingly more sophisticated. 

Consequently, the federal financial management community must attract 

and retain a new generation of financial management professionals who 

have greater capabilities for using such sophisticated technology and

information in new ways. Although the environment is changing, the 

ability of agencies to change their financial management cultures over the 

past 17 years, since the passage of the CFO Act, has been encumbered by 

the legacy of an existing workforce with limited technological abilities. To 

facilitate the transition from the old way of doing things, it was suggested

that federal financial management human capital strategies could be better 

focused on attracting and retaining a new technology-savvy generation of 

financial professionals. Participants agreed that the future transformation 

of the federal financial management culture depends on the new skill sets 

of the next generation of federal financial management professionals. 

Additionally, the skill sets and responsibilities of current federal financial 

management professionals may shift with a growing use of contractors. 

When asked to what extent do human capital issues significantly challenge

their agencies’ ability to realize the benefits associated with financial 

management system modernization efforts, 31 of 32 respondents indicated 

it occurred from a large to moderate extent. As the financial management 

environment continues to evolve, federal financial management human 

capital strategies must adapt in order to address challenges associated 

with transforming the federal financial management culture, including 

retaining effective, experienced CFOs and financial talent within the 

federal government. Some participants expressed concern that there is a 

growing sentiment that financial management is not highly valued because 

agency leaders have failed to recognize significant ongoing CFO efforts. 

Participants stated that it is more difficult to hire good people and retain 

CFOs and financial talent within the federal government when the heads

of federal agencies do not value the CFO’s insights and perspectives or the 

contributions of other financial managers. It was suggested that federal 

financial management professionals need to feel they are relevant and

Attracting and Retaining 

Appropriately Skilled 

Financial Talent Is Key to 

Successful Transformation 

of Federal Financial 

Management Community 

Challenges Exist in Recruiting 

and Retaining Talent in 

Financial Management 

Page 28 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
valued. Without proper recognition for good performance, federal 

financial management professionals may lack needed incentives. 

Participants commented that federal financial management professionals 

are not interested in being part of something viewed as unimportant. 

A few participants were concerned that the growing use of contractors 

also raised issues related to the erosion of the federal financial 

management critical knowledge base and intellectual capital. The 

movement toward outsourcing federal financial reporting and recording 

activities, if not properly managed, may pose a threat to the continuity of 

the federal financial management community and may potentially weaken

federal financial management organizations’ ability to provide value-added

services to management. As one participant stated, even defining the 

“federal financial management workforce” is difficult due to the roles now 

carried out by contractors. 

Although one participant suggested that agencies should rely less on 

contractors and build a skill base within their organization, another 

participant supported a greater, but more efficient use of contractors. 

Agency CFOs could consider as a model how various CIOs commonly 

outsource network and maintenance requirements for how to keep 

architecture and other strategic activities in-house, allowing them to focus 

on business processes and systems. One of the participants also cautioned 

that the federal financial management community should avoid

outsourcing strategic activities. Thus, according to the participant, the 

federal government should control the most important financial and 

program management responsibilities, as well as ensure that the 

appropriate level of oversight and accountability is maintained in-house 

for the systems and information produced from contractor arrangements. 

Growing Use of Contractors 

Could Facilitate or Impede 

Growth of Agencies’ Financial 

Management Knowledge Base 

Page 29 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Appendix I: Lis

Dec

t of Participants on 

ember 11, 2007

Page 30 GAO-08-447SP 

Appendix I: List of Participants on 

December 11, 2007 

Comptroller General of the United States 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

Director, Federal Programs 

Oracle Corporation 

Fiscal Assistant Secretary 

U.S. Department of the Treasury 

Partner in Charge, Federal Advisory Services 

KPMG, LLP

Director of Financial Management Solutions Center 

Deloitte Consulting, LLP

Director, Public Sector Solution Management 

SAP 

Vice President of Financial Management 

AOC Solutions, Inc. 

Assistant Inspector General for Audit 

U.S. Agency for International Development 

Acting Chief Financial Officer 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Chief, Office of Federal Financial Management

Office of Management and Budget 

Deputy Chief Financial Officer 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Host 

Hon. David M. Walker 

Participants 

Michael G. Barker 

Kenneth E. Carfine 

John R. Cherbini 

Clarence C. Crawford 

Geoffrey Darnell 

Larry J. Eisenhart 

Joseph Farinella 

Lisa D. Fiely

Hon. Gregory H. Friedman 

Adam H. Goldberg 

Patricia E. Healy

Financial Management Systems Forum
Appendix I: List of Participants on 

December 11, 2007

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grants 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Defense 

Chief Operating Officer, Global Public Sector 

Grant Thornton, LLP 

Director, Washington Federal Practice 

PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP 

Chief Information Officer, Office of Thrift Supervision 

U.S. Department of the Treasury 

Chief Financial Officer

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Executive Vice President

Savantage Solutions 

Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Technology Strategy 

Financial Systems Integration Office Executive 

Office of Governmentwide Policy 

U.S. General Services Administration

Partner, Americas Director of Public Sector Services 

Ernst & Young, LLP 

Vice President 

Booz Allen Hamilton 

Director of Consulting 

CGI Federal, Inc. 

Deputy Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs/Chief Financial Officer 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Terry L. Hurst 

Hon. Claude M. Kicklighter 

C. Morgan Kinghorn, Jr. 

Joseph L. Kull 

Wayne G. Leiss 

William M. McCabe 

Clyde G. McShan, II 

Mary J. Mitchell 

Daniel J. Murrin 

Catherine Nelson 

Elizabeth T. O’Neil 

Daniel R. Petrole 

Hon. Phyllis F. Scheinberg 

Page 31 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Appendix I: List of Participants on 

December 11, 2007

Director, Business Integration Office

U.S. Department of Defense 

Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Executive Director 

Association of Government Accountants 

Acting Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management

Office of Management and Budget 

President 

The Whittaker Group 

Chief of Staff, Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Chief Administrative Officer/Chief Financial Officer 

Managing Director, Financial Management and Assurance 

Director, Financial Management and Assurance 

Controller, Controller/Administrative Services Office 

Acting Chief Technologist, Applied Research and Methods 

Radha Sekar 

Hon. Richard L. Skinner 

Relmond P. Van Daniker 

Daniel I. Werfel 

Adm. James B. Whittaker 

(Retired) 

Michael Wood 

GAO Participants 

Sallyanne Harper 

Jeffrey C. Steinhoff 

McCoy Williams 

George Strader 

Nabajyoti Barkakati 

Page 32 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Appendix II: Forum Agenda Appendix II: Forum Agenda 

Check-in 

Welcome & Opening Remarks 

12:30 p.m. 

1:00 p.m. 

• Comments from the Comptroller General 

• Participant Introductions 

Topic 1: Shaping the Future of Government Financial Management 

Break 

Topic 2: Lessons Learned from Financial Management System 

Implementations to Date 

Topic 3: Transforming Organizational Culture to Capitalize on Financial

Management System Modernizations 

Wrap up 

Adjournment 

1:15 p.m. 

2:40 p.m. 

3:00 p.m. 

4:00 p.m. 

4:45 p.m. 

5:00 p.m. 

Page 33 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Appendix III: D

A

iscussion Questions Sent in 

dvance of Forum 

Page 34 GAO-08-447SP 

Appendix III: Discussion Questions Sent in 

Advance of Forum 

Topic 1: Shaping the Future of Government Financial Management 

1. In your opinion, what is reliable, useful, timely, and relevant financial 

information? 

Topics/Discussion 

Questions 

• What criteria and methods are well-suited for assessing agencies’ 

progress in developing such information? 

2. How have modernization efforts to date improved agencies’ abilities to 

operate more efficiently and effectively? 

• What are the challenges that agencies face in delivering timely, useful, 

and relevant data to decision makers? What can we do to make users of 

the information more involved in the development and delivery of the 

reports? 

• How has financial information improved and how is it being used by 

decision makers? 

• What are the major problems that agencies face when improving their 

financial management? Are the problems limited to financial 

management system implementations? 

• What steps can agencies take to ensure newly implemented systems 

support and facilitate agencies’ current and future strategic needs 

through appropriate integration with other agency systems and 

business process reengineering? 

• What actions are being taken to effectively “retire” prior systems, 

including their associated input, maintenance, and output activities? 

• How have agency performance metrics changed as a result of financial

management system implementations? 

3. What is the role of financial management systems in enabling federal 

agencies to become world-class finance organizations? 

• Are these systems assisting in providing reliable, useful, timely, and 

relevant financial information? Why or why not (or what are the 

impediments)? 

• Are these systems assisting in developing full cost? Why or why not (or 

what are the impediments)? 

• Are the existing systems supporting agency needs?

• Are agencies successful in purchasing commercial systems and 

changing their processes to fit their systems? 

• Is this approach still a valid model of operation? 

• What can we do to improve the quality and effectiveness of the 

systems?

Financial Management Systems Forum
Appendix III: Discussion Questions Sent in 

Advance of Forum 

• Is there a need for an overarching financial management vision and 

related strategies and systems to define the federal government 

financial management organization and how improvement efforts 

should be measured? 

4. Is there a need to reevaluate or change key financial management 

legislation (e.g., FFMIA and the CFO Act) or related accounting and 

auditing requirements to support agencies implementing financial 

management systems? 

• How has FFMIA implementation helped or hindered agencies in 

meeting their goals of improving financial management? 

• What are the major challenges to achieving FFMIA compliance? 

• How do financial management systems assist in reaching the goals of 

FFMIA at the agency and governmentwide level? 

• What are the significant challenges for the auditor with respect to 

reporting under FFMIA? 

• What are some indicators that you use to assess FFMIA 

compliance?

• How could the current FFMIA guidance be changed to help provide 

additional clarity? 

• Will this assist agencies in meeting the goals of the statute? 

• What level of auditor assurance should be required (positive vs. 

negative assurance)? 

• What are the differences between the two? 

• How will reporting one or the other assist in assurances that

agencies have reliable, timely, and useful financial information? 

5. What are the current obstacles to implementing the financial 

management line of business initiative designed to streamline the 

implementation and operation of financial management systems 

through the use of designated shared service providers? 

• What do you see as key drivers to make it successful? 

• How will overall cost and administrative burden be reduced and 

service delivery improved? 

• To what extent should agency financial management services be 

contracted out and how much dependence should be placed on the 

contractor community? 

• What measures should agencies use to ensure accountability and 

proper oversight for service delivery in an environment increasingly 

dependent on shared service providers? 

Page 35 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Appendix III: Discussion Questions Sent in 

Advance of Forum 

• What can be done to provide for continuity of current initiatives 

between administrations so that the current momentum and progress 

continues? 

6. How is the federal government staying abreast of leading edge

technologies and approaches for delivering world-class financial 

management? 

• Given emerging technologies, such as Service Oriented Architecture, is 

the concept of a single integrated system still suitable? 

• Has Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) been properly 

considered, implemented, or used in the federal government? 

• What key challenges need to be addressed to drive successful 

implementation of XBRL or other new technologies at the federal level? 

• What other technological advancements exist that should be 

considered? 

Topic 2: Lessons Learned from Financial Management System 

Implementations to Date 

1. What lessons have agencies learned while modernizing federal 

financial management systems that can benefit future efforts? 

• Do existing system implementation methodologies provide an 

appropriate fundamental framework for successful implementations? 

• Is there agreement on what widely accepted systems development and 

implementation efforts (known as disciplined processes) should be 

used for systems implementations (e.g., requirements management, 

testing, data conversion and system interfaces, risk management, 

project management)? 

2. What actions have agencies found to be most effective in monitoring 

progress and identifying implementation issues on a timely basis? 

• What are the primary root causes of system implementation problems 

and failures and how can they be minimized or avoided? 

• When do you cut your losses on a project that is not meeting its cost, 

schedule, or performance goals? 

3. Since modernization efforts are underway across the federal 

government, how could future implementations be improved to take 

advantage of available resources on a governmentwide basis? 

Page 36 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Appendix III: Discussion Questions Sent in 

Advance of Forum 

• What types of additional implementation assistance and support (e.g., 

guidance, coordination, advisory services) would be beneficial? 

4. All things considered, has the investment in financial management 

systems resulted in an adequate return on investment? 

• Is there any gap between the new system’s capability and in improving 

efficiency and reducing operational costs? 

• Are the true costs and benefits of new systems implementation being 

identified and measured? 

• Do agencies achieve cost savings after having implemented new 

systems?

• What can the government do as a whole to help reduce the cost of 

investments in the future? 

• What can be done to avoid expensive upgrades or implementations 

every 5 to 10 years? 

Topic 3: Transforming Organizational Culture to Capitalize on 

Financial Management System Modernizations 

1. How are financial management system implementations affecting 

agency human capital strategies? 

• To what extent are both financial and nonfinancial components 

affected such that line managers in all components better understand 

the financial implications of their decisions and the value of useful 

financial information readily available from reliable financial

management systems? 

• Have system implementations significantly affected agency strategies 

related to training, outsourcing, and developing and retaining critical 

skills? 

• Do agencies’ financial management organizations have appropriate and 

sufficient human capital resources to fully utilize modernized financial 

management systems to more effectively execute agency financial 

management strategies? 

• Are human capital strategies aligned with movement toward greater 

use of shared service providers and outsourcing financial reporting and 

recording activities to ensure appropriate oversight and accountability 

for the systems and information produced from these arrangements? 

2. In addition to improving financial reporting, how are agencies planning 

to utilize improved financial management system capabilities to deliver 

greater organizational value and resolve financial reporting 

Page 37 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Appendix III: Discussion Questions Sent in 

Advance of Forum 

weaknesses identified in many agencies’ annual financial statement 

audits? 

• Have agencies developed plans that clearly distinguish between 

weaknesses reported in financial statement audits due to system 

limitations vs. other limitations? 

• How do agencies plan to coordinate system and non-system related 

efforts to ensure reported weaknesses are addressed? 

• What kind of “road maps” have agencies developed to communicate, 

promote, and guide future uses of improved capabilities with clear 

linkages/mappings from system capabilities to specific goals and 

results/outcomes in both of these areas? 

• What are some examples of significant business outcomes (e.g., 

improved analysis, innovative solutions to problems, operating cost 

savings) that improved financial management system capabilities will 

assist agencies in achieving? 

Page 38 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Appendix IV: Results of Electronic Survey 

Topic 1: Shaping the Future of Government Financial Management 

Percentage of

responses

Number of 

responses

Question 1: To what extent do you believe that your 

financial management systems are now able to 

provide reliable, useful, and timely information to 

assist program managers in the day-to-day 

management of the agency?

1) Large extent

2) Moderate extent 

3) Little or no extent 

4) Don’t know/Not applicable

3%

30%

64%

3%

1

10

21

1

Question 2: To what extent do you believe 

agreement exists within the federal financial

community regarding what constitutes substantial 

compliance with FFMIA? 

1) Large extent

2) Moderate extent 

3) Little or no extent 

4) Don’t know/Not applicable

0%

43%

57%

0%

0

15

20

0

Question 3: To what extent do you believe OIGs or 

IPAs should have a role in assessing substantial 

compliance with FFMIA? 

1) Large extent

2) Moderate extent 

3) Little or no extent 

4) Don’t know/Not applicable

20%

26%

51%

3%

7

9

18

1

Question 4: To what extent do you believe internal

controls have improved through FFMIA compliance 

efforts? 

1) Large extent

2) Moderate extent 

3) Little or no extent 

4) Don’t know/Not applicable

14%

49%

34%

3%

5

17

12

1

Appendix IV: Results of Electronic Survey 

Page 39 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Appendix IV: Results of Electronic Survey 

Percentage of

responses

Number of 

responses

Question 5: How much progress do you think that 

your agency has made in achieving compliance with 

the three components of the FFMIA? 

1) Large extent

2) Moderate extent 

3) Little or no extent 

4) Don’t know/Not applicable

26%

46%

20%

9%

9

16

7

3

Question 6: To what extent do you believe the 

resources available to implement the PMA and 

FMLOB initiatives are adequate? 

1) Fully adequate 

2) Marginally adequate 

3) Inadequate 

4) Don’t know/Not applicable

0%

27%

64%

9%

0

9

21

3

Question 7: In connection with the FMLOB goal of 

migrating the majority of agencies by 2011, to what 

extent do you believe your organization will

transition to the use of SSPs by this date? 

1) Large extent

2) Moderate extent 

3) Little or no extent 

4) Don’t know/Not applicable

24%

21%

37%

18%

8

7

12

6

Page 40 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Appendix IV: Results of Electronic Survey 

Topic 2: Lessons Learned from Financial Management System 

Implementations to Date 

Percentage of

responses

Number of 

responses

Question 8: To what extent have the resources 

invested in federal financial management system 

modernizations yielded a commensurate level of 

value to the government organization and taxpayer?

1) Large extent

2) Moderate extent 

3) Little or no extent 

4) Don’t know/Not applicable

3%

50%

44%

3%

1

17

15

1

Question 9: To what extent do you believe 

agreement exists regarding what constitute the 

disciplined processes (e.g., requirements 

management; testing; data conversion; 

configuration, risk and project management; and 

quality assurance) that should be used in system 

implementation projects? 

1) Large extent

2) Moderate extent 

3) Little or no extent 

4) Don’t know/Not applicable

22%

53%

25%

0%

7

17

8

0

Question 10: To what extent do you believe

adequate guidance exists concerning the use of 

disciplined processes to ensure the success of 

system implementation projects? 

1) Large extent

2) Moderate extent 

3) Little or no extent 

4) Don’t know/Not applicable

24%

46%

30%

0%

8

15

10

0

Question 11: To improve future implementations, 

which of the following areas could benefit MOST

through enhanced guidance, training, or other tools 

designed to assist implementation efforts? 

1) Disciplined processes 

2) Human capital (e.g., project manager, project 

staffing, training) 

3) Business process reengineering 

4) Don’t know/Not applicable

27%

47%

27%

0%

9

16

9

0

Page 41 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Appendix IV: Results of Electronic Survey 

Topic 3: Transforming Organizational Culture to Capitalize on 

Financial Management System Modernizations 

Percentage of

responses

Number of 

responses

Question 12: Do we need to redefine success for 

financial management? 

1) Yes 

2) No 

3) Unsure 

91%

9%

0%

29

3

0

Question 13: Do we need to redefine the role of the 

CFO?

1) Yes 

2) No 

3) Unsure 

91%

3%

6%

29

1

2

Question 14: To what extent are modernization 

efforts leading to positive transformation of your 

organization’s financial management culture toward 

creating more organizational value? 

1) Large extent

2) Moderate extent 

3) Little or no extent 

4) Don’t know/Not applicable

9%

50%

41%

0%

3

16

13

0

Question 15: To what extent do human capital 

issues significantly challenge your organization’s 

ability to realize benefits associated with financial 

management system modernization efforts? 

1) Large extent

2) Moderate extent 

3) Little or no extent 

4) Don’t know/Not applicable

84%

13%

3%

0%

27

4

1

0

Question 16: How far along is your organization in

transforming its business systems to effectively 

meet its organizational needs? 

1) Substantially complete 

2) Moderate progress has been achieved

3) Little or no progress has been achieved

4) Don’t know/Not applicable

3%

55%

39%

3%

1

17

12

1

Page 42 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Appendix IV: Results of Electronic Survey 

General 

Percentage of

responses

Number of 

responses

Question 17: As it relates to your participation in 

today’s Forum, what has been your primary 

experience and/or role related to federal financial 

management system modernization projects? 

1) Agency Financial Leadership

2) Agency Information Technology Leadership

3) Oversight Leadership (including IG and other 

agencies involved in governmentwide efforts) 

4) External Advisors/Consultants/Private Sector 

5) Other 

33%

10%

27%

20%

10%

10

3

8

6

3

Note: Percentages for Questions 5 and 11 do not total 100 percent due to rounding.

Page 43 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Appendix V: Co

A

ntact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 44 GAO-08-447SP 

Appendix V: Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Kay L. Daly, (202) 512-9095 or dalykl@gao.gov 

In addition to the contact above, Michael S. LaForge, Assistant Director, 

and C. Robin Hodge, Analyst-in-Charge, managed all aspects of the work, 

and Latasha L. Brown, Francine DelVecchio, and James A. Kernen made 

important contributions to organizing the forum and producing this report. 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Financial Management Systems Forum
Related GAO Products Related GAO Products 

Financial Management: Long-standing Financial Systems Weaknesses 

Present a Formidable Challenge. GAO-07-914. Washington, D.C.: August 3, 

2007. 

DOD Business Transformation: Lack of an Integrated Strategy Puts the 

Army’s Asset Visibility System Investments at Risk. GAO-07-860. 

Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2007. 

Business Modernization: NASA Must Consider Agencywide Needs to 

Reap the Full Benefits of Its Enterprise Management System 

Modernization Effort. GAO-07-691. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2007. 

Homeland Security: Departmentwide Integrated Financial Management

Systems Remain a Challenge. GAO-07-536. Washington, D.C.: June 21, 

2007. 

Federal Financial Management: Critical Accountability and Fiscal 

Stewardship Challenges Facing Our Nation. GAO-07-542T. Washington,

D.C.: March 1, 2007. 

Financial Management: Improvements Under Way but Serious 

Financial Systems Problems Persist. GAO-06-970. Washington, D.C.: 

September 26, 2006. 

Financial Management Systems: Lack of Disciplined Processes Puts 

Effective Implementation of Treasury’s Governmentwide Financial 

Report System at Risk. GAO-06-413. Washington, D.C.: April 21, 2006. 

Financial Management Systems: DHS Has an Opportunity to 

Incorporate Best Practices in Modernization Efforts. GAO-06-553T. 

Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2006. 

Financial Management Systems: Additional Efforts Needed to Address 

Key Causes of Modernization Failures. GAO-06-184. Washington, D.C.: 

March 15, 2006. 

CFO Act of 1990: Driving the Transformation of Federal Financial 

Management. GAO-06-242T. Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2005. 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Long-standing 

Financial Management Challenges Threaten the Agency’s Ability to 

Manage Its Programs. GAO-06-216T. Washington, D.C.: October 27, 2005. 

Page 45 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Related GAO Products 

DOD Business Systems Modernization: Navy ERP Adherence to Best 

Business Practices Critical to Avoid Past Failures. GAO-05-858. 

Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2005. 

Financial Management: Achieving FFMIA Compliance Continues to 

Challenge Agencies. GAO-05-881. Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2005. 

Business Modernization: Some Progress Made toward Implementing 

GAO Recommendations Related to NASA’s Integrated Financial 

Management Program. GAO-05-799R. Washington, D.C.: September 9, 

2005. 

Business Systems Modernization: Internal Revenue Service’s Fiscal Year 

2005 Expenditure Plan. GAO-05-774. Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2005. 

DOD Business Systems Modernization: Long-standing Weaknesses in 

Enterprise Architecture Development Need to Be Addressed. GAO-05-702. 

Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2005. 

Army Depot Maintenance: Ineffective Oversight of Depot Maintenance 

Operations and System Implementation Efforts. GAO-05-441. 

Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2005. 

DOD Business Systems Modernization: Billions Being Invested without 

Adequate Oversight. GAO-05-381. Washington, D.C.: April 29, 2005. 

Internal Revenue Service: Assessment of the Fiscal Year 2006 Budget 

Request. GAO-05-566. Washington, D.C.: April 27, 2005. 

Information Technology: OMB Can Make More Effective Use of Its 

Investment Reviews. GAO-05-276. Washington, D.C.: April 15, 2005. 

Information Technology: Customs Automated Commercial Environment 

Program Progressing, but Need for Management Improvements 

Continues. GAO-05-267. Washington, D.C.: March 14, 2005. 

Office of Personnel Management: Retirement Systems Modernization 

Program Faces Numerous Challenges. GAO-05-237. Washington, D.C.: 

February 28, 2005. 

DOD Systems Modernization: Management of Integrated Military 

Human Capital Program Needs Additional Improvements. GAO-05-189. 

Washington, D.C.: February 11, 2005.

Page 46 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Related GAO Products 

Department of Defense: Further Actions Are Needed to Effectively 

Address Business Management Problems and Overcome Key Business 

Transformation Challenges. GAO-05-140T. Washington, D.C.: November 

18, 2004. 

Business Systems Modernization: IRS’s Fiscal Year 2004 Expenditure 

Plan. GAO-05-46. Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2004. 

Financial Management: Improved Financial Systems Are Key to FFMIA 

Compliance. GAO-05-20. Washington, D.C.: October 1, 2004. 

Financial Management Systems: HHS Faces Many Challenges in 

Implementing Its Unified Financial Management System. GAO-04-

1089T. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004. 

Financial Management Systems: Lack of Disciplined Processes Puts 

Implementation of HHS’ Financial System at Risk. GAO-04-1008. 

Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2004. 

Information Technology: DOD’s Acquisition Policies and Guidance Need 

to Incorporate Additional Best Practices and Controls. GAO-04-722. 

Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2004. 

Department of Defense: Financial and Business Management 

Transformation Hindered by Long-standing Problems. GAO-04-941T. 

Washington, D.C.: July 8, 2004. 

Information Security: Agencies Need to Implement Consistent Processes

in Authorizing Systems for Operation. GAO-04-376. Washington, D.C.: 

June 28, 2004. 

DOD Business Systems Modernization: Billions Continue to Be Invested 

with Inadequate Management Oversight and Accountability. GAO-04-

615. Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2004. 

Information Technology: The Federal Enterprise Architecture and 

Agencies’ Enterprise Architectures Are Still Maturing. GAO-04-798T. 

Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2004. 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Significant Actions 

Needed to Address Long-standing Financial Management Problems. 

GAO-04-754T. Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2004. 

Page 47 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Related GAO Products 

DOD Business Systems Modernization: Limited Progress in 

Development of Business Enterprise Architecture and Oversight of 

Information Technology Investments. GAO-04-731R. Washington, D.C.: 

May 17, 2004. 

Information Technology: Early Releases of Customs Trade System 

Operating, but Pattern of Cost and Schedule Problems Needs to Be 

Addressed. GAO-04-719. Washington, D.C.: May 14, 2004. 

Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework for 

Assessing and Improving Process Maturity (Version 1.1). GAO-04-394G. 

Washington, D.C.: March 2004. 

Information Technology Management: Governmentwide Strategic 

Planning, Performance Measurement, and Investment Management Can 

Be Further Improved. GAO-04-49. Washington, D.C.: January 12, 2004. 

Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce 

Planning. GAO-04-39. Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2003. 

Business Modernization: NASA’s Challenges in Managing Its Integrated

Financial Management Program. GAO-04-255. Washington, D.C.: 

November 21, 2003. 

Business Modernization: NASA’s Integrated Financial Management 

Program Does Not Fully Address Agency’s External Reporting Issues. 

GAO-04-151. Washington, D.C.: November 21, 2003. 

Business Modernization: Disciplined Processes Needed to Better Manage 

NASA’s Integrated Financial Management Program. GAO-04-118. 

Washington, D.C.: November 21, 2003. 

Information Technology: Architecture Needed to Guide NASA’s 

Financial Management Modernization. GAO-04-43. Washington, D.C.: 

November 21, 2003. 

Information Technology: Leadership Remains Key to Agencies Making 

Progress on Enterprise Architecture Efforts. GAO-04-40. Washington, 

D.C.: November 17, 2003.

DOD Business Systems Modernization: Important Progress Made to 

Develop Business Enterprise Architecture, but Much Work Remains. 

GAO-03-1018. Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2003. 

Page 48 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Related GAO Products 

Business Systems Modernization: IRS Has Made Significant Progress in

Improving Its Management Controls, but Risks Remain. GAO-03-768. 

Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2003. 

Business Modernization: Improvements Needed in Management of 

NASA’s Integrated Financial Management Program. GAO-03-507. 

Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2003. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development: Status of Efforts to 

Implement an Integrated Financial Management System. GAO-03-447R. 

Washington, D.C.: April 9, 2003. 

Information Technology: A Framework for Assessing and Improving 

Enterprise Architecture Management (Version 1.1). GAO-03-584G. 

Washington, D.C.: April 2003. 

DOD Business Systems Modernization: Continued Investment in Key 

Accounting Systems Needs to be Justified. GAO-03-465. Washington, D.C.: 

March 28, 2003. 

DOD Business Systems Modernization: Improvements to Enterprise 

Architecture Development and Implementation Efforts Needed. GAO-03-

458. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2003. 

Customs Service Modernization: Automated Commercial Environment 

Progressing, but Further Acquisition Management Improvements 

Needed. GAO-03-406. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2003. 

Customs Service Modernization: Third Expenditure Plan Meets 

Legislative Conditions, but Cost Estimating Improvements Needed. 

GAO-02-908. Washington, D.C.: August 9, 2002. 

DOD Financial Management: Important Steps Underway but Reform 

Will Require a Long-term Commitment. GAO-02-784T. Washington, D.C.: 

June 4, 2002.

Customs Service Modernization: Management Improvements Needed on 

High-Risk Automated Commercial Environment Project. GAO-02-545. 

Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2002. 

Tax Administration: IRS Continues to Face Management Challenges in

its Business Practices and Modernization Efforts. GAO-02-619T. 

Washington, D.C.: April 15, 2002. 

Page 49 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Related GAO Products 

Business Systems Modernization: IRS Needs to Better Balance 

Management Capacity with Systems Acquisition Workload. GAO-02-356. 

Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2002.

Human Capital: Building the Information Technology Workforce to 

Achieve Results. GAO-01-1007T. Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2001. 

Business Systems Modernization: Results of Review of IRS’ March 2001

Expenditure Plan. GAO-01-716. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2001. 

Information Technology: DLA Should Strengthen Business Systems 

Modernization Architecture and Investment Activities. GAO-01-631. 

Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2001. 

Customs Service Modernization: Results of Review of First Automated 

Commercial Environment Expenditure Plan. GAO-01-696. Washington,

D.C.: June 5, 2001. 

Information Technology: Architecture Needed to Guide Modernization of 

DOD’s Financial Operations. GAO-01-525. Washington, D.C.: May 17,

2001. 

District of Columbia: Weaknesses in Financial Management System 

Implementation. GAO-01-489. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2001. 

Tax Systems Modernization: Results of Review of IRS’ Third 

Expenditure Plan. GAO-01-227. Washington, D.C.: January 22, 2001. 

Tax Systems Modernization: Results of Review of IRS’ August 2000 

Interim Spending Plan. GAO-01-91. Washington, D.C.: November 8, 2000.

Indian Trust Funds: Improvements Made in Acquisition of New Asset 

and Accounting System But Significant Risks Remain. GAO/AIMD-00-

259. Washington, D.C.: September 15, 2000. 

Tax Systems Modernization: Results of Review of IRS’ March 7, 2000, 

Expenditure Plan. GAO/AIMD-00-175. Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2000. 

Executive Guide: Creating Value Through World-class Financial 

Management. GAO/AIMD-00-134. Washington, D.C.: April 2000. 

Indian Trust Funds: Interior Lacks Assurance That Trust Improvement 

Plan Will Be Effective. GAO/AIMD-99-53. Washington, D.C.: April 28, 1999. 

Page 50 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
Related GAO Products 

Federal Information System Controls Audit Manual, Volume I: 

Financial Statement Audits. GAO/AIMD-12.19.6. Washington, D.C.: 

January 1999. 

District of Columbia: Status of Efforts to Develop a New Financial 

Management System. GAO/AIMD-97-101R. Washington, D.C.: July 9, 1997.

Information Security: Opportunities for Improved OMB Oversight of 

Agency Practices. GAO/AIMD-96-110. Washington, D.C.: September 24, 

1996. 

Financial Management Reform. GAO/T-AFMD-90-31. Washington, D.C.: 

September 17, 1990. 

Managing the Cost of Government: Building an Effective Financial 

Management Structure. GAO/AFMD-85-35. Washington, D.C.: February 

1985. 

(195122) Page 51 GAO-08-447SP Financial Management Systems Forum
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. 

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 “E-mail 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, DC 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 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

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

Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

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

Washington, DC 20548 

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