QUESTIONS DESIGNED TO AID 

MAMAGERS AND AUDITORS IN ASSESSING 

THE ADP PLANNING PROCESS 

SEPTEMBER 30, 1982 

Prepared by 

The Automatic Data Processing Group 

Accounting and Financial Management Division 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street N.W. 

'? 

Washington, D . C . 20545 

UNITED STATES GENERAL .ACCOUNTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548 

-1NG AND f INANCIAL 

-EMEM DIVISION 

September 30, 1982 

The contents of this publication were compiled by the 

GAO staff that performs reviews of the management of planning for Automatic Data Processing Systems (ADP). It contains the results of their research in this area and a 

synthesis of the experience gained in assignments over the 

past 8 years. It identifies and amplifies in question and 

answer format approximately 58 elements which are considered 

essential to the operation of an effective ADP planning process. By comparing the actual management of ADP planning with 

these elements (or criteria) an assessment can be developed 

of the quality of the planning process. Such an assessment 

can be useful to auditors working in this area. 

important it can be used as a self evaluation tool by those 

responsible for managing ADP resources. 

format is presented in the introduction. 

alized performance objectives. For example, no organization 

will meet all the criteria exactly as they are presented in 

this publication. In many cases substitute procedures, 

abbreviated measures or other approaches would be equally as 

effective. An ability to-recognize such substitutions and 

sufficient understanding about this area to make confident 

judgments about their effectiveness are essential for anyone 

who would use this publication. 

Since being issued as an exposure draft in August 1979, 

this publication has been used effectively by GAO auditors 

and many others, including those at management levels of 

Federal agencies. Changes from the original draft were 

prompted primarily by the excellent feedback received from 

both the public and private sectors. Any further comments 

or questions should be direq,,ted to George P. Sotos, U.S. 

General Accounting Office, Accounting and Financial Management Division, Room 6011, 441 G Street, N.W., Washington, 

D.C. 20543. The telephone number is (202) 275-5040. 

But just as 

An explanation of the 

Overall, the criteria in this publication represent ideh 

Sincerely yours, 

Senior Associate Director 

INTRODUCTION 

SECTION 

1. ORGANIZATIONAL INVOLVEMENT 

1.1 

1.2 

1.3 

1.4 

1.5 

1.6 

1.7 

1.8 

1.9 

1.10 

Establish Responsibility and AccountaHold Functional Managers Responsible 

bility for ADP Plans 

for Strategy in ADP Plans 

Establish an Executive Management 

Corn i t te e 

Establish a Central Planning Group 

Provide Directives for Integration of 

Assess the Tradeoffs between Risks and 

ADP Systems 

Potential Payoff 

Develop a Financial Forecast 

Review the Financial Forecast 

Require Accountability for ADP 

Investments 

Establish Agency Head Decision Points 

2. DIRECTION 

2.1 Identify the Agency Mission 

2.2 Identify Long-Range Agency Programs :r 

2.3 Translgte Program Objectives into ADP 

Goals 

2.4 Identify the Strategy for Achieving 

Goals 

Page 

1 

7 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

16 

17 

18 

18 

20 

20 

20 

22 

22 

i 
CONTENTS 

SECTION Page 

2.5 Establish the Scope of Centralized 23 

Authority 

2.6 Require Accountability for Approval of 24 

ADP Requirements 

2.7 Assign Priorities for ADP Requirements 25 

2.8 Consolidate Long-Range Plans 25 

2.9 Identify ADP Investment Risks 26 

2.10 Require Supporting ADP Strategies 27 

2.11 Assign Responsibility for Carrying out 28 

the Plan 

3. STRUCTURE 30 

3.1 Identify the Organizational Structure 30 

for ADP Planning 

3.2 Require Life Cycle Projections for 31 

Software Application Systems 

3.3 Require Life Cycle Projections for 35 ' 

the ADP Hardware Configuration 

3.4 Standardize the Life Cycle Planning 36 

Structure 

3.5 Test the Translation from Functional to 37 

Technical Specifications 

3,6 Require Compliance with Standards 40 

3.7 Establish a PlaAning Time Frame 41 

3.8 Maintain the Planning Policies and Pro- 41 

cedures up-to-Date 

3.9 Require a List of Long-Range Objectives 42 I 

3.10 Include Planning Assumptions 43 
6 

CONTENTS 

SECTION 

3.11 Amplify the ADP Objectives 

3.12 Expose Support Problems 

3.13 Exploit New Opportunities 

3.14 Identify the Potential for External 

Support 

3.15 Perform an Economic Analysis 

3.16 Require a Risk Assessment 

3.17 Provide for Plan Implementation 

( Ac t iva t ion 

Page 

44 

45 

46 

47 

47 

48 

49 

4. CONTROL 50 

4.1 State all Performance Criteria 50 

4.2 Require that Peformance Criteria be 51 

Quanti f ied 

4.3 Front end Planning Should Be Quantified 52 

4.4 Quantify the Expected Benefits 53 

4.5 Quantify the Existing ADP Software 

Assets 

54 

4.6 Require that Proposed, New, or Revised 55 

Software Applications be Quantified 

4.7 Quantify the Existing ADP Hardware 56 

Ac qui s i t ion s 

4.8 Require that Proposed Hardware 

Acquisition 8e Quantified 

58 

4.9 Quantify the Existing Products of the 58 

ADP System 

4.10 Require that the Proposed Products of 59 

the Planned ADP System be Quantified 

iii 
CONTENTS 

SECTION 

4.11 Require that Development Risk be 

Quantified 

5. REPORTING 

5.1 Require Organization-wide ADP Resource 

Accounting and Control 

5.2 Provide Life Cycle Costing 

5.3 Require Reports on Implementation of 

the ADP Plan 

5.4 Require a Software Inventory Report 

5.5 Require a Hardware System Inventory 

Report 

5.6 Require a Mission - Function - ADP 

Relationship Report 

5.7 Show the Cost of ADP by Mission and 

Function Statements 

5.8 Require a Summary of the Long Range-Plan 

by Mission - Function 

5.9 Require Auditor Review and Report on ADP 

Plans 

APPENDIX 

I Instructions for Providin4 Software Inventory 

Information 

11 Instructions fop Providing File Information 

111 Some Sample Uses of This Pamphlet 

Paqe 

60 

62 

62 

64 

66 

67 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

75 

82 

86 

iv 
INTRODUCTION 

BACKGROUND 

This publication was prepared by the Automatic Data 

Processing Group, Financial and General Management Studies 

Division, U. S. General Accounting Office (GAO). The need 

for a publication of this type was recognized by the GAO 

staff as a result of over 42 reviews during the past 15 

years where the management of ADP planning was found to be 

inadequate. For example, during hearings before a Subcommittee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, 

in September 1976, the lack of effective ADP planning was 

cited as a major cause for noncompetitive procurements of 

ADP systems in the Federal Government. Also, in one 

instance, GAO reported in 1975 that an agency spent $7.7 

million in developing and implementing several management 

information systems over a 9 year period without one 

becoming fully operational. We attribute both of these 

type situations, in large part, to deficiencies in the ADP 

planning process. 

OBJECTIVE 

The primary objective iq the development of this publication was to assist experienced ADP auditors to plan and 

perform reviews of \he management of ADP planning in Federal 

aq enc ies. 

r 

-1- 
A secondary objective was to make it useful to all 

levels of management that have responsibility for manaq inq 

ADP-related resources or that are dependent upon the support 

provided by ADP systems. 

CONTENTS 

This publication cites 58 elements considered essential 

to good ADP planninq. Identified from research in the literature and from the results of GAO reviews of Federal 

agencies, these essential elements have been amplified into 

specific criteria which can be used as a reference base for 

evaluating the management of the ADP planning process. This 

has been done by use of a question and answer format as explained below. 

THE FORMAT 

The ADP planning process has been divided into 5 major 

subject areas and a chapter is devoted to each. 

They are: 

1. Organizational involvement 

2. Direction 

3. Structure 

4. Control, and 

5. Reporting 

In each chapter the essential elements for that subject 

a\ 

are identified by a two digit number, e.g.r 

-2- 
1.3 Establish an Executive Management Committee -- 

(This example is from page 9.) 

Each essential element (two digit number) is then amplified 

by a series of questions identified by three and four digit 

numbers, e-g., 

1.3.1 Has an executive management (or steering) committee been established? (see page 10) 

HOW IT SHOULD BE USED L/ 

There are over 370 questions in this pamphlet and selecting 

those that will be useful requires some thoughtful analysis of 

the problem area. Based on our experience one useful method is 

to : 

Document, at as detailed a level as possible, the objectives and subobjectives of the review. 

Examine all the questions and select only those whose 

answers will contribute to achievement of the objectives 

and subobjectives. 

Bear in mind that the higher the number of unanswered 

questions and/or vague, imprecise answers, the greater 

the probability of a serious management problem. 

more carefully the objectives and the relevant sub-objectives are developed, the easier it is to select and bring to an 

appropriate minimum the number of criteria used from this reference. 

However, when the objectives are general, a larger number of criteria 

can be used to develop an understanding of the different aspects of 1 

the overall management of the AD8 planning process. 

- l/Appendix IIL, pages 86-93, contains 4 examples of how this 

pamphlet can be used by both managers and auditors. 

-3- 
RECORDING ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS 

Suggested symbols for recording answers to the questions are provided below. By entering such symbols and 

other information adjacent to the question the pages can 

serve as both part of an audit plan and the work papers. 

U 

NP 

NA 

SYMBOLS MEANING OF SYMBOL 

S The task is being performed (or the 

action indicated is being taken) in a 

satisfactory manner. 

The task is being performed (or the 

action indicated is being taken) but 

the result appears unsatisfactory. 

The task {or action) is considered 

necessary but is not being performed. 

The task (or action) is considered not 

applicable for the particular criteria. 

In general a "Ut' and/or IINP" answer is an indication 

that further analysis is required. With few exceptions, the 

greater the number of I'U" or "NP" answers (to the questions) 

the more serious are the manage'ment problems. 

-4- 
AN EXAMPLE OF ITS USE FOR SELF EVALUATION 

Management can select several elements from the table of 

contents about which it does not have sufficient information. 

The questions under these elements can then be directed to 

the person responsible for that area. For example, the 

following questions might be useful to a manager who must 

make decisions on whether ADP systems are to be acquired 

1.2.2.9 Are ... cost benefit forecasts developed? 

1.3.4 Does an ADP steering committee review ... 

the long-range plan .... 7 

1.5.1 Is there a central planning group responsible for producing an integrated (agency-wide) 

ADP plan? 

1.8.1 .... are costs attributable to each major 

organizational unit shown .... 7 

If the answers are "U" or '+NP" for most questions, then 

management is aware that it has a problem that requires 

further attention. 

OTHER USES 

It might be worthwhile to select a number of elements 

about a particular subject and repackage that information for 

easier use by senior managers and others. Several examples of 

such repackaging might include: 

', ! 

-5- 
a. A compilation of the key elements that top management 

should be aware of before approving procurement of a 

computer system. 

b . A summary of specific elements which should be included 

in the ADP plan itself. 

c. A summary of some of the elements that should be covered 

in the organization's policies on the management of ADP 

planning (see appendix 111). 

d. A summary of the criteria that can be used to help 

evaluate the completeness of the ADP planning process 

(see appendix 111). 

This pamphlet is not designed to follow the flow of the ADP 

planning process and should not be used for that purpose without s 

extensive repackaging (similar to appendix 111) and addition of 

individual organization planning requirements. Also, while it iS 

intended to help in reviews of the planning process for organizaE 

tions with large ADP systems, the management principles which 

form the bases for the questions make it relevant for organizations with small systems. In the latter case a much smaller 

number of questions would be used. 

VALIDITY OF THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS 

The essential elements were developed as a result of 

experiences gained by the GAO in reviews over the past 8 

years. They are also consisttht with much of the current 

literature on the subject of corporate and government plan- 

% 

-6- 
ning. The only new aspect is the packaging of this infornation for use as evaluation criteria in the specific area 

of the management of the ADP planning process. Different 

sections have been tested in recent audits of Federal 

agencies and found to be useful both as an audit tool and 

as a means of communicating with agency managenent. 

-~ 

SOME CAUTIONS ON --- THE USE OF THIS PUBLICATION - 

These criteria represent idealized performance objectives. For exanple. no organization will neet all the criteria exactly as they are presented in this publication. 

In many cases substitute procedures, abbreviated measures 

or other approaches would be equally as effective as those 

identified in this document. An ability to recognize such 

substitutions and sufficient understanding about this area 

to make confident judgments about their effectiveness are 

essential for anyone who would use this publication. 

- 6a - 

1. ORGANIZATIONAL INVOLVEMENT 

Some degree of active involvement in plan formulation 

is essential for all levels of an organization that might be 

affected when the plans are carried out. For ADP planning 

it is critical that this active involvement be formalized 

and made visible at three key organizational levels; i.e., 

top management, data processing management, and user management. By the top management level we mean the Department or 

Agency head and officials down to and including the heads of 

major units such as bureaus and/or operating divisions. By 

user management we mean the senior line and staff officials 

for whom the computer support is provided. In some instances 

these senior users may also be members of top management. 

Evidence of this formalized involvement at each of these 

levels should be routinely conspicuous and well communicated 

within the organization. The form of that evidence and its 

substance are both important. In this section the essential 

elements of the substance of that involvement for top management, data processing management, and user management are 

identified. 

1.1 

for ADP Plans 

Through written policiea and guidelines the agency 

head should establish reeponoibilitire and 

accountability for ADP planning. 

l.L.1 

<,' 

Are senior managers of each major organizational unit required to 

a 

o participate in the planning? - 

o dofino thoir long-range ADP roquiremm~te 

-7- 
1.2 Hold Functional Managers Responsible for 

Strategy in ADP Plans 

Require that the head of each major organizational 

unit be responsible and held accountable for the 

decisions affecting his unit which are included in 

the strategy for achieving the ADP objectives. 

Do senior managers ot each major organizational unit 

require that those subordinate managers who use ADP 

Output pattic ipate in log-range ADP planning? 

1.2.2 Are buuar~inate managers held accountable for the 

determination, justification, and long-range planning of their ADP requirements? 

1.2.2.1 Are these subordinate managers required 

to oonfirm the value of the exfating ADP 

8UQpOrt they receive in terms of its contribution to performance of thelr functionrl tasks? 

1.2.2.2 Docs the record show that systems' costs 

were allocated to each user? - 

1.2.2.3 Are these Jubardinate managers instructed 

to justify their long-range ADP requirerrquiremtnts in terms of payoff contribumid4 to the functions for which they are 

responsiblfi?' 

1.2.2.4 Are these subordinate managers instructed 

"? 

to show the gap between existing procedures and required ADP SUppOtt? I 

-8- 
E 

1.2.2.5 Are these subordinate managers required to 

use quantitative terms to identify the 

performance criteria which, when achieved, 

will close the gap? 

1.2.2.6 Was an estimated cost considered by these 

subordinate managers when they inserted the 

ADP requirement into the long-range ADP plan? 

1.2.2.7 Was this estimated cost based on a life . cycle projection for the system that 

would satisfy the requirement? 

1.2.2.8 Are subordinate managers held accountable 

when computer systems developed for their 

support fall short of expected performance? 

For example, do they sign off on performance evaluation tests7 

1.2.2.9 Are these subordinate managers requirec? 

to evaluate and take a position on coat 

benefit forecasts of ADP system8 being 

developed for their support? - 

1.3 Establish an Executive Managant C&ttee 

A formal executive managant (or steering) cdttee 

consisting of senior managent from every mjor organizational unit should be established and held responsible for assessing the consolidation and integration of the functional, technical and financial aspects 

of ADP. 

agency head in managhnt of organizaticmwkle ADP resources and to insure that all viewpoints are considered. 

frm the agency head to the chairperson of this cannittee. 

The ccnmittee objectives are to assist the 

+ 

Its decision authority, if any, flaws directly 

-9- 
1.3.1 Has an executive management (or steering) committee 

been established? (We will use the term steering 

committee). 

1.3.1.1 Is there a formal charter (set of instructions) issued by the agency head which 

describes the responsibilities, authority, 

and duties of the steering committee? 

1.3.1.2 Does the charter require the chairman of 

the steering committee to report results 

of the committee's work directly to the 

agency head or deputy? 

Does the charter require that the steering 

codttee disagreements be presented to the 

1.3.1.3 

agency head or deputy far a decision? - 

1.3.2 Does the charter also establish a working group for 

the steering committee whose duties are to research 

the issues, perform intraorganizational coordination and other preparatory work supportive to the 

s tee r i ng c omm i t t e e? 

1.3.2.1 Does each member of the steering 

committee have a representative on 

the steering committee working gr?up? 

1.3.3 Are the members of the steering committee also 

members of the central planning group (nentioned in 1.4.1 below)? 

1.3.3.1 Are the menbers of the steering 

I, 4 

'? committee working group also members of the central planning group? 

- 10 - 
1.3.4 11 the ADP ateering committee required to review 

approve, and/or indicate disagreement with the 

Long-range ADP plan produced by the central 

planning group? - 

1.4 Establish a Central -~___ Planning Group 

This group should be established at the same level 

as other top agency planners. It should include 

representation from each major user as well as the 

data processing unit and its completed work should 

be submitted to the agency head through the steering 

committee. The illustration of the ADP planning 

process on page 15 shows the organizational location 

of a central planning group. 

I 

1.4.1 Has the authority and responsibility of a 

central. planning group been established by a 

written charter or set of instructions signed 

by the agency head or deputy? - 

1.4.2 Does the central planning group contain representatives from each major organizational 

unit in the agency? - 1 

1.4.3 Where there is no ADP central planning group 

or ADP steering conmittee is there an ADP 

planning or coordinating qroup with similar 

Y 

reaponsibilsties that reports to the agency 

head or deputy? - 

1.4.4 bo the written duties and responsibilities of 

the members of the central planning group require then to produce planning products for 

which they can be held accountable? 

- 11 - 
1.5 Provide Directives for Inteqration of 

ADP Svstems 

The central planning group should be held responsible and accountable for integration of ADP 

systems across departmental lines of authority. * 

1.5.1 Do the written duties of the central plannina 

group require that it produce an agency-wide 

integrated long-range ADP plan for approval 

by the agency head or the steering committee? 

1.5.2 Is the central planning group required to review all ADP plans and assess the potential 

for integration of ADP systeias across the 

entire agency? 

1.5.2.1 Does the central planning group analyze 

and assess for overlac) and integration 

potential each organizdtional unit's 

existing ADP 

o support applications? 

o long-range objectives and stjb->bject ives? 

o expected performance criteria? 

o support problems? 

o proposed new opportunities? 

o potential for systems integration? 

1.5.3 Is the central planning group required to document 

the results of its assessments? 

;I 

k. 

*See also items 2.8 and 2.9 for nore duties that should be 

performed by a central planning group. 

- 12 - 
1.5.3.1 Doee the head of each major functional 

unit coordinate on the system recommendations made by the central planning 

group? 

1.5.4 Do the results of the central planning group 

mtudies substantially influence the system 

deeign concepts and the technical design of 

the system? 

1.6 Assess the Tradeoffs Between Risks and 

Potential Payoff 

The central planning group should be held responsible 

and accountable for identifying and assessing the 

organization-wide risks and value to the agency of 

the potential payoff of the total ADP investment. 

1.6.1 For each objective and/or sub-objective in the ADP 

plan, is i ere an accompanying statement of the 

performance criteria expected when the objectives 

or sub-oblectives are achieved? 

1.6.2 Does a centra; planning group determine whether 

the objectives and sub-objectives in all ADP 

plane contain sufficient quantitative performance 

criteria to be used in a cost benefit analysis? 

1.6.3 Where such performance criteria are not included 

with the objectives or sub-objectives, ia there 

some other basis in the planning documentation 

which communicates how achievement of the objectiver will be recognized? 

.. 

a 

t 

- 13 - 
1.6.4 Arc the performance criteria which describe 

how the achievement of objectives will be 

recognized, presented in quantitative terms? 

1.6.5 Can the gap between existing and planned 

capabilities be identified from the record? 

1.6.5.1 Has a central planning group focused on those gaps as a means of identifying what the planned investment in 

ALW resources will buy? 

1.6.5.2 Has a central planning group reviewed 

the impact of this gap, or series of 

gaps, in ADP capabilities and reported 

in writing its assessment and recommendations to the agency head? 

1.6.6 Is the central planning group required to 

identify to the agency head those ADP applicaticne which 

o have high technical risks? 

o have high operational risks7 

1.6.7 16 the central planning group required to 

establish a quantitative mission "payoff" 

ranking €or each ADP application contained 

in the long-range plan? 

1.6.8 Is the manager of each major unft required to 

coordinate, or dissent, with the miasion payoff 

a8s~sement identified by the central planning 

group? 

1.6.9 Is the central planning group held accountable 

for the quality of the plana it produces? 

1.6.9.1 Does the central planning group sign 

off on the performance evaluation test 

of each nqjbr system covered in the plan? - 

1.6.9.2 Does the central planning group document 

a comparison between plan eatirnates and 

\ actual performance observed in the performance evaluation testa? 

- 14 - 
AN ADP PLANNING PROCESS 

DEPUTY 

DeptJAgenc y 

Headquarters ADP staff 4 

4 

The major 

functional 

divisions of 

the department 

(or aaencv). 

representatives 

1 

f I . 

. ............................ I f I 1 

1 l 

Executive Management Committee - heads of b ............. major functional divisions (Chaired by the 

I ............... 

u u u u of users and 

[IB I[B data processing 

I A 

+, I I .*+ 

. . 

b 

. 

‘T . 

Explanation : 

H = The head of a major functional division of a department (or agency). 

U = Represents the users within each major functional division who receive support from the ADP operation. 

D = The data processing organization within each major functional division and on the headquarters staff (Note:May Not Be Used In All Divisions). 

The dotted line ..... represents the flow of the ADP planning process -from the users and the data processing organizations through the 

major unit head to the Central Planning Group. The Central Planning Group, supported by the Headquarters 

ADP staff, reviews, evaluates, consolidates and integrates the separate plans from the organizational units tnto an 

organization wide plan. This plan is then presented to the Department Head (Agency head) through the Executive Committee. 

...... I- -. .... ... - ..... 
1.7 Develop a Financial Forecast 

The central planning gmup should develop an agency-wide 

coordinated financial forecast of the overall costs of 

all ADP resources for each year over the life of the 

long-range plan. 

1.7.1 Has each major unit manager been required to include in his/her long-range ADP plan a list of . 

those ADP applications which he/she uses but 

which provide unsatisfactory support or which 

have only a marginal payoff to the efficiency, 

effectiveness and economy of operations? - 

1.7.1.1 Are the unsatisf,ctory or marginal support 

capabilities identified in quantitative 

terms? 

1.7.2 Is each functional manager required to list in 

his/her long-range ADP plan those ADP applications which provide satisfactory support? 

1.7.3 Is each functional manager required to identify 

those existing applicatisns whose modification 

and/or enhancement would increase the efficiency, 

economy, and effectiveness cf operations? 

1.7.3.1 Is there a requirement to describe these 

modifications and/or enhancements in 

quantitabiGe terms? 

1.7.4 Is there a requirement that functional managers 

iden*fy new ADP capabilities that will increase 

tbe effectiveness of their cperations? 

Y 

- 16 - 
1.7.4.1 Are these new requirements for ADP support identified in quantitative terms7 

1.7.5 Has the head of each organizational unit prepared 

a list of ADP applications available from an 

external source that would result in increased 

productivity or has some other “pay off’ if 

acquired; i.e. 

o from another Government agency? 

o from a commercial vendor? 

1.8 Review the Financial Forecast 

The agency head should review the financial forecast 

and formalize, writing, hisher hvesttwnt decisions 

and the priorities. 

1.8.1 

1.8.2 

For each year of the plan, does the financial 

forecast show the costs attributable to each 

major organizational unit of the agency? 

For each year of the plan, does the financial 

forecast show the costs of the ADP operation 

by major systems components,such aei 

hardware? 

ryrtem software7 

application software? 

peripherals? 

communications? 

other relevant components? 

A. I 

?I. 

f 

t 

- 17 - 
I 

1.8.3 Ate the costs shown in a consistent format from 

year to year? 

1.8.4 Are cost trends shown? 

1.8.5 Is the priority shown for each application along 

with its annual and total cumulative life cycle 

estimate? 

1.9 Require Accountability for ADP Investments 

The senior manager of each organizational unit that 

receives or provides ADP support should be formally 

assigned, in writing, the responsibility and 

accountability for investment decisions made as a 

result of his/her stated ADP support requirements 

and recommend at ions. 

1.9.1 Does the record show that the agency heaa reviewed 

and approved 

o the financial forecast contained in the longrange plan? ("1.8) 

o the priority of resource investments contained 

in the long-range plan? -- 

1.10 Establish Agency Head Decision Points 

Key phases (or milestones) such as those in the 

life cycle of each software application, system, 

', 4 

a 

(*1.8) Question is similar and is repeated here to provide 

stand alone answers for this section. 

I 

I 
and hardware system, should be established in the 

plan as decision points where the agency head personally makes the decision to continue to the next 

phase. 

1.10.1 Does the agency head have a regularly scheduled 

review of the "expected" performance against 

"actual" performance contained in the ADP plan? 

1.10.1.1 Does the record show decisions made by 

the agency head as a result of these 

reviews? 

1.10.2 Are shortfalls between planned performance and 

actual performance identified on a system basis? 

1.10.2.1 Are the reasons for the deficiencies, if 

any, made visible in the record? 

1.10.3 Is there a standard set oE decision points by 

which the actual performance against planned performance is followed? 

(This can be milestones such as those in the 

life cycle of a software application system). 

1.10.3.1 Does the tecord show adequate communications and understanding of these milestones? 

- 19 - 
2. DIRECTION 

Specific direction and guidance must be provided 

throughout the ADP planning process to achieve consistent 

and effective plans. This direction is obtained from the 

organization's mission requirements. 

ments, goals and objectives are established and a coordinated strategy for achieving them is developed and inFrom the requirei 

cluded in the plan. Policies and procedures are formalized 

in writing to assure that the strategy is communicated and 

direction provided to those who carry out the plan. 

2.1 Identify the Agency Mission 

ADP plans prepared by the head of each organizational 

unit and the central planning group (see pages 14 and 

18) should identify the agency missions or goals 

contained in statutory and agency policy documents. 

2.1.1 Is the agency mission, or its goals, available as a 

written document? 

(NOTE: ORB A-113 13.6 uses missions and goals 

to mean the same thing.) 

2.2 Identify Long-Range Agency Proqrams 

Long-range agency pr'bF;rams which provide the basis 

for ADP support requirements should be identified 

and described . $. 

(NOTE: These are not ADP plans but they provide 

- 20 - 
the goals for ADP plans.) 

2.2.1 Is there documentation which describes the plans 

to achieve the agency prqram~goals? 

2.2.1.1 Does this documentation contain the 

short- and long-range objectives to 

be achieved for each program? 

2.2.1.2 Is there eufficient quantitative or other 

explicit informtion contained in the 

atatement of the program objectives 

(2.2.1.1) to provide effective criteria 

for assessing when objective8 are actually 

achieved? 

2.2.2 Is there written documentation that shows that 

the head of each organizational unit does assess 

trends for impact on his/her unit's functional 

tasks; i.e., 

o political trends? 

o technical trends? 

o social trends? 

o work trends? 

2.2.2.1 Based on the type of assessment, are 

factors or assumptions developed which 

influence the content of long-range ADP 

ob] ec t ives? 

2.2.3 Are assumptions included as an integral part of 

ths agency's long-range ADP plan? 

2.2.3.1. Ia there any evidence that the agency 

head reviewed the ADP planning aseutrptionr and approved them? 

- 21 - 
2.3 Translate Program Objectives into ADP Goals 

The agency programs should be translated into ADP 

sub-goals which support achievement of individual 

program objectives and these should be documented. 

2.3.1 Is there documentation which shows the ADP goals 

that support achievement of agency programs? 

2.3.1.1 Are the ADP goals stated quantitatively? 

2.4 Identify the Strategy for Achieving ADP Goals 

The plan should contain a strategy or series of 

decisions which indicate how the ADP goals are to 

be achieved. 

2.4.1 Is there documentation for an ADP strategy to 

accomplish each ADP goal; i.e., a set of decisions which have been made? 

2.4.1.1 Does this strategy contain long-range 

obj ec t ives? 

2.4.1.2 Are these long-range objectives stated 

quantitatively? 

2.4.1.3 Do the long-range objectives provide a 

guide for $he investment of ADP resources? 

2.4.1.4 Does the strategy contain quantitatively 

stated short-range objectives? 

'? 

- 22 - 
2.5 Establish the Scope of Centralized Authority 

There should be a clear policy expression of the 

authority, responsibility, and accountability for 

ADP resources. This should cover control of planning, design, development, operations, and compliance with internal and external regulations relevant to ADP. It should specifically establish the 

degree to which such control is or is not centralized in the agency headquarters. 

2.5.1 Is there policy documentation concerning 

2.5.1.1 internal organization authority to 

spend ADP funds? IC 

2.5.1.2 responsibility €or ADP resource use? - 

2.5.1.3 accountability for ADP resource 

investment results? - 

2.5.2 Is there documentation which assigns responsibility and accountability €or 

2.5.2.1 planning the use of ADP resources? - 

2.5.2.2 design of ADP systems? LI 

2.5.2.3 development of ADP systems? - 

2.5.2.4 operational performance of ADP systam? - 

2.5.2.5 e system of internal controls? - 

2.5.2.6 security and contingency plans? - 

2.5.2.7 compliancd+ with internal policies? - 

s 

4 

- 23 - 
2.5.3 Does this documentation establish the degree to 

which control is centralized in the agency headquarters? 

2.6 Require Accountability for Approval of 

ADP Requirements 

Accountability for cost effective use of ADP applications is that of the senior manager who approved 

the requirement for that support. This should be 

established as a matter of written policy. ("1.9) 

2.6.1 

2.6.2 

2.6.3 

Is there documentation which assigns autbority for 

approval of ADP requirements? 

Does this documentation require that estimated cost 

figures accompany the ADP requirements request or 

otherwise be known befare the requirement is 

approved? 

Are there provisions to hold the approving 

ofricial(s) accountable for the payoff of 

resource investment? 

(I&., are there start, finish, and use milestones or checkpoints where the signature or 

initals of the approving official( s) are required 

as his/her acknowledgement of control, feedback, 

status, and payoff?) 

2.6.3.1 rue th&e documented procedures 

for certifying that milestones 

h. or checkpoints have been reached? - 

('1.9) Question in similar but are repeated here to provide stand 

alone answers for this section. 

- 24 - 
t 

2.7 Assign Priorities for ADP Requirements 

There should be an established procedure to assign 

priorities for ADP requirements. This procedure 

should be consistent with the agency head's investment priorities. (*1.8) 

2.7.1 Is there a documented procedure which requires 

establishment of priorities for the investment 

of ADP resources? 

2.7.2 Is the actual setting of ADP investment 

priorities consistent with the procedures set by 

the qency head? 

2.8 Consolidate Long-Range ADP Plans 

The central ADP planning group should consolidate 

long-range ADP plans developed by the functional 

managers and prepare an agency-wide ADP plan. This 

group should determine whether the plans contain 

sufficient quantitative measures for use in cost 

benefit analyses. 

2.8.1 Is there a written directive establishing a central 

planning group for ADP long-range plans? (*1.5.1) 

! 

2.8.2 Is a central planning group tasked to consolidate 

all long-range ADP plans developed by functional 

h. 

managers and prepare an agency-wide ADP plan? _I- s 

(*1.5.1) Questions are similar but are repeated here to 

(*l.8) provide stand alone answers for this section. 

- 25 - 
a central planning group been araigned 

to determine whether the ADP long-range 

objactives proposed in functional manager 

(department) plana are conoiatent with 

agency mileion objcctivea? 

Has a central planning group been assigned to 

determine whether the objective8 and sub-objactfves in functional manager’s ADP plans contain sufficient quantitative performance 

criteria to be wed in a cost benefit analysis? - 

Has a central planning group been aarigned to 

report to the agency head it. findings on each 

- 

item lilted above? - 

2.9 Identify ADP Investment Risks 

The central planning group should document ADP investment risks which require agency head attention. 

These can be identified by a lack of quantitative 

criteria and vague linkage between ADP sub-objectives and agency mission objectives. (*1,6) 

2.9.1 Is the central planning group required to 

identify to the agency head 

2.9.1.1 Those ADP applications which 

o have high technical rirks? 

0 hrve hi h operational rioke? 

(*2.6.69 

(ll.6) Qum8tiona are airnilax bat are repeated hare to prOVide 

(*1.6.6) stand alon~,anawers for thi8 section. 

- 26 - 
I 

Those having cost benefit 

analyses that are primarily 

non-quantitative. 

Those containing a new hardware 

configuration, operating system, 

data base management system, or 

computer language for which the 

present in-house staff is untrained. 

Those for which the input volume 

har not been identified. 

Those which are being developed for 

the first time (by either a vendor 

or the in-house staff). 

Those whose expected output can not 

be traced to a visible and worthwhile 

improvement in a miision oriented task. - 

Thoae for which no user is identified 

a. having primary accountability. -- 

2.9.2 fa the central planning group required to 

artab1i.h a quantitative miamion "payoff" 

ranking for each ADP application contained 

in tho long range ADP plan? 

i 

- 26a - 
s 

I 
I 

2.9.3 Is the head of each major functional unit required 

to concur, or dissent, with the mission payoff 

assessment identified by the central planning 

group? (*1.6.8) 

2.10 Require Supporting ADP Strategies 

The head of each major organizational unit should 

summarize the key decisions that form the basis 

of the long-range ADP plans for his/her organizational unit. These decisions, or assumed decisions, 

should also be included in the long-range plan in 

an appropriate chronological sequence. 

2.10.1 Is publication of an ADP strategy required as 

part of, or associated with, the long-range 

ADP plan? 

2.10.2 Does the ADP strategy consolidate the longrange objectives proposed by the heads of 

the different major functional units? - 

2.10.3 Does the ADP strategy identify the performance 

gap which the investment in ADP resources is 

intended to overcome? (*1.6.5) 

('1.6.51 Questions are similar but are repeated here to provide stand 

alone answers for this section. 

izi.6.8j 

I 

- 27 - 
2.10.4 Is there a quantitative expression of the payoff 

to mission performance that will be purchased 

by the ADP resource investments in the long-range 

ADP plan? (*1.6.7) - 

2.10.5 Ze there a requirement for the ADP strategy to 

contain an investment priority ranking for the 

ADP applications listed in the long-range ADP 

plans? 

2.10.6 Is there a requirement for the manager of each 

major functional unit to coordinate on the priority ranking submitted to the agency head for 

rignature? 

2.10.7 Is there a requirement for the agency head to 

indicate his/her written approval of the decisions contained in the strategy document? 

2.11 Assign Responsibility for Carrying out the Plan 

Responsibility and accountability for carrying out 

the plan should normally be along the lines of 

organizational authority. When a steering committee 

and/or a project manager team is used, their authority 

and responsibility should'be published under the agency 

head's signature. 

\? 

T 

(*1.6.7) Question is similar but is repeated here to provide stand alone answers for this section. 

- 28 - 
2.11.1 Is there a set of documents which indicate that 

the Individual responsible for carrying out the 

plan is aware of hisher responsibilities and 

aUthQrity? 

2.11.2 Does the record show that the organizational 

unit managers have been informed concerning the 

responsibility and authority of those carrying 

out the plan? 

2.11.3 Does the record show any confusion or lack of 

a u t h o r i t a t i v e d i r e c t i o n in the carrying out of 

the plan? 

2.11.4 IS there dccunentation which assisns 

responsibility and accountability for 

maintaining the written planning regulations, instructions, and guidelines 

up-to-date? 

2.11.4.1 Is there a senior official, who reports 

directly to the agency head in the headquarters staff, assigned this responsibil ity? 

I 

2.11.4.2 If the answer is "no", is the organizational location of the responsible 

individual at an authoritative level 

above that of the major department heads? 

- 29 - 
3. STRUCTURE 

and 

The primary purpose of the ADP plan is to direct 

control the investment of ADP resources. To accomplish 

this purpose, a structure of short- and long-range ADP plans 

must b.e developed. This structure should provide for the 

short-term operational needs of each organizational unit as 

well as their future requirements. An agency-wide ADP plan 

Should be the product of an established, agency-wide, 

regularly scheduled, planning cycle. 

The elements of the ADP planning structure should be 

formalized, documented, and communicated to all units of the 

organization that may be affected by the plan. These 

elements may vary somewhat from agency to agency. However, 

in all agencies there is a minimum structure essential to a 

sound ADP planning capability. That minimum is described in 

this section. 

3.1 Identify the Organizational Structure for 

ADP Planning 

The structure and framework showing authority, 

responsibility, and aqcountability for ADP planning 

in each organizational unit affected by, or participating in, the ADP planning should be documented 

and well disseminated. 

h. 

- 30 - 
3.1.1 Can an organizational structure for ADP planning 

be identified from documentation issued at the 

agency headquarters (policy) level? 

3.1.2 IS documentation describing the orqanizational 

structure for ADP planning available at each 

level of management whose subordinates use output 

from the ADP system? 

3.1.3 Are non-management employees, whose job performance is affected by ADP output, aware of the 

organizational structure for ADP planning? 

(A sample of these employees should be 

questioned?) 

3.2 Require Life Cycle Projections for 

Software Application Systems 

Planning should cover the entire period during 

which resources will be spent on each application 

in the software inventory. 

3.2.1 Do the long-range ADP planning instructions 

require, or the pian includ-, a set of time phased, 

standard decision points, or milestones, over the 

life cycle of each application in the software 

inventory? 

.3.2.2 Do the long-range ADP planning instructions 

require, or the plah include, a management 

evaluation of the technical, economic and 

effectiveness health of an application as 

part of each milestone? 

- 31 - 
3.2.3 Do planning instructions require, or does the 

plan include, an information base (feasibility 

study or other analysis) which supports, for 

each application in the software inventory, 

the requirements and management's decision fOK 

o continuation of the application? - 

o development of the application? - 

o conversion of the application? - 

o redesign of the application? - 

o termination of the application? - 

3.2.3.1 Are milestones, similar to the following, included in the life cycle 

projection for each major application in the software inventory 

(a) requirements analysis? - 

(b) design? 7 

(c) implementation? - 

(e) redesign (or termination)? -- 

(d) production? - 

(f) conversion (or termination)? - 

3.2.4 The operational efficiency of the computer 

systemts) is an essential component of the 

ADP planning base. One method for identifying 

its level of operational efficiency is through 

the computation and use of efficiency ratios. 

(The computation method for these ratios will 

vary for differe?,t.types of systems - such as 

one that can be multi-programmed.) 

h 

3.2.4.1 Is the efficiency of the existing cornputer operation expressed in the plan 

by means of performance ratios or some 

equivalent method? - 

- 32 - 
3.2.4.2 Is there an application production run ratio? L/ - 

(This ratio is obtained when the total 

number of all production runs is divided 

by the total number of all runs for a 

specified period. For example, a weekly 

production run ratio might be the number 

of production runs divided by the total 

number of all rune for that week.) 

Production runs = Production Run 

Total of all runs ratio 

3.2.4.3 Is there an application maintenance run ratio? - 

(This ratio is obtained by dividing 

the total of all application maintenance 

runs. by the total number of a11 runs 

for a specified period. 

Application Application 

maintenance runs = maintenance run 

Total of all runs ratio 

3.2.4.4 Is there an application development run ratio? - 

(This ratio is obtained by dividing the 

total far all development runs by the 

total number of all applicacion runs for 

the period specified.) 

Total number of Application __ development runs = development 

Total number of run ratio 

all runs 

- 1/The ratioe shown on this page'are concerned simply with the number 

of runs. The amount of computer time could be used instead. For 

example 

Computer use fbr Production Runs Production Run 

Computer use ratio Total computer use all runs - - 

P 

- 33 - 
3.2.4.5 Over the past 3 years, is there any indication that ratios similar to those above 

were used to inform management about the 

trends in 

o development? 

o maintenance? 

o production? 

3.2.5 For the ten largest applications in the software 

inventory for the current (base) year of the plan, 

do records show the expenditures for 

o development? 

o maintenance? 

o production (operation)? 

3.2.6 For the ten largest applications in the software 

inventory, do the records show the trends over 

the past three years for 

o development? - 

o production? - o maintenance? - 

3.2.7 For each application in the existing and planned 

software inventory, is there a proiection over the 

life of the plan that contains an estimate of the 

o deve lopmen t costs? 

, 

o maintenance costs? 

o production costs? 

o redesign costs? . 

o conversion costs? 

:I 

t 

- 34 - 
3.3 Require Life Cycle Projections for the 

ADP Hardware Confiquration 

The key factors and the information base that supports management's decisions on the life cycle of 

a computer configuration should be visible. The 

decisions should include the planned useful life 

of (a) each hardware component in the overall 

hardware configuration and (b) the operation 

system software. 

3.3.1 Is there a 3-year history of the workload carried 

by the existing hardware configuration (such as in 

utilization reports)? 

3.3.1.1 Does that history show the hardware configuration use ratio or some similar 

measurement of hardware use for specific 

periods for each of the 3 years? 

Actual capacity used = Hardware configAvailable capacity uration use ratio 

3.3.1.2 Does that history show the annual impact 

on the use ratio of past hardware configuration changes? 

3.3.2 Does the planned life cycle for the hardware Efiguration include a 5-year projection of the 

hardware component@ use profile which includes all 

o new acquisitions? 

o moqifications? 

(This projection should show the estimated annual 

- 35 - 
use ot each major component of the hardware 

configuration as a percentage of the time the 

computer system will be turned on.) 

3.3.2.1 Does the planned life cycle for the 

hardware include at least a 5-year projection of the hardware configuration use 

rat io? 

(That is, a ratio that shows the annual 

overall configuration capacity expected 

to be used as a percentage of the 

estimated available capacity.) 

P 

3.4 Standardize the Life Cycle Planning Structure 

Consistent use of common planning terms over the 

life cycle is essential to assure effective communication and full understanding among the large 

numbers who contribute to, or are affected by, ADP 

plans. 

3.4.1 Do the planning instruction8 (OK the plan itself) 

contain a set of standard points (milestones) at 

which management is scheduled to reviev, evaluate 

and make decisions over the life cycle of each 

o major hardware component? 

o aof tware appl ieat ion? 

3.4.1.1 Is there a prelirinary 

stone where (based on 

broad cost estimates) 

Scheduled to make a a 

+! 

system plan milea rough plan and 

management i 8 

dcciaion on continuation of the project? 

- 35 - 
3.4.1.2 

3.4.1.3 

3.4.1.4 

Is there a feasibility study milestone 

where (based on a written report of 

the economic, technical, and operational 

feasibility) management is scheduled to 

make a decision on continuation or modification of the project? - 

Is there a cost benefit update for 

each milestone shown in sub paragraph 

3.2.3 e.g., 

(a) preliminary system plan 

(b) feasibility study 

(c) de8ign (a) development 

(e) implementation 

( f) product ion 

(g) redesign 

(h) conversion 

If structured methods are employed in 

software development, are there mileatones for structured analysis reviews 

(data flows) and structured design 

reviews? 

- 

3.5 Test the Transition from Functional 

to Technical Specifications 

Loss of information during the translation of operational 

requirements, contained in functional specifications, to 

working technical design specifications can result in 

1 

unwelcome output products and costly surprises. Tests and : 

evaluations to assess consistency should be required. This i 

consistency should include the linkage between each of the 

different interpretations of the original operational 

'. t requirements. 

3.5.1 Has q procedure been established by which managemnt can be assured of the consistency between 

- 37 - 
functional requirements and technical design 

spec i E ic at ions? 

3.5.1.1 

3.5.1.2 

3.5.1.3 

Does this procedure require that benchmark testing and evaluation criteria for 

every major hardware component and software application system be included as 

part of the aqency head's approval of 

functional specifications? 

Is the participation and understanding of 

the intended major users (of the output 

of the planned ADP applications) required 

for development of the benchmark tests? 

Is the senior manager of each major 

organizational unit that will receive 

support €rom the planned ADP applications 

r eq u i red to forma 1 i ze h i s/he r c o nc ur re nc e 

OK nonconcurrence with the benchmark 

performance criteria? 

3.5.2 Does the procedure require that each user Frovide 

advance drafts of the different outputs expected 

when the planned application is completed? 

3.5.2.1 Are these sample "draft" outputs or 

screens prepared by, or concurred in, by 

the person in the functional organization 

who is exkctea to use them when the 

planned systems are in operation? 

Is the person who will receive and use tho 

out-put from the ccrnpleted ADP systems 

r equ ired to ac know1 edg e ac c oun t ab i 1 i ty 

'1. 

3.5.2.2 

P 

- 38 - 
for assessing whether or not the products 

satisfy the functional specifications? 

3.5.2.3 Is this responsibility and accountability formalized by signatures? 

3.5.2.4 Where the output is some form of a generalized computational or information 

retrieval capaability, is there a description of these uses under the cancurring signature of each person in the 

organization for whom they are intended? 

3.5.3 Has a knowledgeable separate party, not involved 

in the statements of the ADP requirements or their 

use when completed, evaluated the benchmark criteria against the expectation in the functional 

spec if ications and assessed the consistency between 

them? 

3.5.3.1 Was the internal auditor used for this 

task? 

3.5.4 Where there is no audit trail of the above consistency [ between stated ADP requirements and preliminary technical designs and/or request for proposals from commercial vendors) is there a written 

statement from one or more managers of major functional organizational units which identifies the 

reasons the trail is missing? -..- 

3.5.4.1 Are such statements identified ae the 

moutct! of invcatnent riakn and brought 

to the attention of the agency head or 

deputy as part of the review of the 

long-range ADP plan? 

++ 

- 39 - 
3.5.4.2 Has the portion of the preliminary or tentative design, which has not been previously accomplished anywhere else before 

and for which there is no existing precedent, been identified as a resource 

i nve s tmen t r i sk? I 

3.6 Require Compliance with Standards 

For reasons of economy, compatibility, and intraorganizational unit communication, at a minimum, 

the ADP technical and operational standards established by the Federal Information Publication 

Standards (FIPS) documents should be required. 

3.6.1 Do planning instructions require compliance 

with some set of ADP standards? - 

3.6.1.1 

3.6.1.2 

3.6.1.3 

Are the technical standards generally 

comparable with those outlined in the 

Federal Information Processing Standards publications issued by the 

National Bureau of Standards? - 

{There should be some reference to 

these publications). 

If not, are comparable standards in 

force? .,, - 

Is there an additional set of ADP techh. nical specifications used to improve 

agency-wide communications and compatibility of ADP system within 

the agency? - I 

- 40 - 
3.6.1.4 

3.6.1.5 

Ze an effort made to translate 

U8Cr requirements into functional 

wpecifications (as opposed to 

technical specification) to be 

approved by the agency head or 

his/her deputy? - 

Are the functional specifications 

approved by the agency head or hie/ 

her deputy consistently included in 

acquisition documents? -- 

3.7 Establish a Planning Time Frame 

The time frame for achieving the long-range ADP 

objectives should be identified as a sub-set of 

the long-range agency programs they support. The 

minimum period covered should be 5 years. 

3.7.1 Baa a time frame been set within which the 

long-range ADP objectives are to be achieved? - 

3.7.2 what is that the frame? - 

3.7.3 I8 that time frame conmistent with the longrange agency programs which ADP ia supporting? - 

3.8. Maintain the Planninq Policies and Procedures 

Up-to-Date 

Responsibility and accountability for maintaining the 

agency's written planning. regulations, instructions and 

guidelines up-to-date should be assigned to the senior 

! 

headquarters planning official acting for the agency head. 

P 

- 41 - 
3.8.1 Is there documentation which assigns responsibility and accountability for maintaining the 

written planning regulations, instructions, and 

guidelines up-todate? (‘2.11.4) 

3.8.1.1 Is this responsibility assigned to a 

senior official, on the headquarters 

staff, who reports directly to the 

agency head or his/her deputy? (2.11.4.1) 

3.8.1.2 If the answer is “no”, is the organizational location of the responsible individual at an authoritative level above 

that of the major department heads? 

(*2.11.4.2) 

3.9 Require a List of Long-Range Objectives 

The heads of all organizational units that receive 

a prescribed level of ADP support annually should 

be required to list their long range ADP objectives. 

The threshold should be set by each agency. 

3.9.1 Has each unit manager been required to include 

in his/her long range ADP plan a ranking of ADP 

applications by degrees of efficiency. effectivenesa, and economy of operations and payoff? 

(*1.7. I) 

3.9.1.1 Are the unsatisfactory or marginal support \ 

a 

(*1.7.1) Questions are similar but are repeated here to provide 

(*2.11.4) stand alone answers to this section. 

(*2.11.4.1) 

(*2.11.4.2) 

- 42 - 
capabilities identified in qclantative 

terms? ( *l. 7.1.1) 

3.9.2 Is each functional manager required to identiey 

those existing applications whose modification 

and/or enhancement would increase the efficiency, 

economy, or effectiveness of operations? (+I. 7.3) 

3.9.2.1 Is there a requirement to describe these 

modifications and/or enhancements in 

quantitative terms? ! *1.7.3.1) -- 

3.9.3 Is there a requirement that functional managers 

identify new ADP capabilities that will increase 

the effectiveness of their operations? (*1.7.4) 

3.9.3.1 Are these new requirements identified in 

quantitative terms? (1.7.4.1) - 

3.10 Include Planninq Assumptions 

The objectives of the ADP resource investment as 

a function of the agency mission are often changed 

by events external to the agency. Political, economic? technical, and social trends should be assessed for their impact on the agency mission. For 

example, new legislation may increase or decrease 

the projected worklopd. The head of each organizational unit should make such an assessment and 

(*1.7.1.1) Questions are similar but are repeated here to provide stand 

(*I. 7.3) alone answers to this section. 

('1.7.3.1) 

(*1.7.4) 

(*1.7.4.1) 

* 

P 

- 43 - 
these should be included as factors or assumptions 

influencing the long-range ADP objectives. 

3.10.1 Iu there written documentation that shows that the 

head of each organizational unit does assess trends 

for impact on his/hec unit's functional tasks in 

the folloving areas 

o political? 

o economic? 

o technical? 

o social? 

('2.2.2) 

3.10.1.1 Based on the type of assessment mentioned, 

are factors or assumptions developed which 

influence the content OE long-range objectivc87 (*2.2.2.1) 

3.10.2 Are annumptionn included a0 an integral part of the 

agency's long-range ADP plan? ('2.2.3) 

3.10.2.1 Xs there any evidence that the agency head 

reviewed the planning asaumptions and 

approved them? (*2.2.3.1) 

3.11 Amplify the ADP Objectives 

While maintaining consistency in goal direction, 

the objectives, down to the level of each ADP 

application, should be amplified, documented, ',\ 

and used ps the basis for work planniw. 

(*2.2.2) 

(*2.2.2.1) alone answers to this section. 

(*2.2.3.1) 

Quertions are similar but art repeated here to provide stand 

(*2.2.3) 

- 44 - 
3.11.1 Ia thtre an objective, or sub-objectivc, documented 

for each ADP application listed in the ADP software 

inventory? 

3.11.2 Can the sub-objectives for the ADP applications be 

correlated with the broad long-range ADP objectives 

contained in the long-range plan? 

3.11.3 Is there an audit trail showing consistency of content between the objectives and sub-objectives 

of the ADP applications and the objectives contained in the long-range ADP plan? 

(Where there is a large inventory of ADP applications, the audit trail should be ascertained for 

a valid sample.) 

3.11.4 Does the work plan correlate with the ADP application objectives at the application program level? 

3.11.5 Is the work plan, a8 a whole, coneistent with the 

long-range MP objectives? 

(The work plan is that schedule or estimate of 

work that is needed to build the system.) 

3.12 Expose Support Problems 

Require from the head of each organizational unit a 

list and description of each existing application 

which is providing unsatisfactory support and/or a 

marg inal payoff . 

3.12.1 Ear each functional manager been requited to include in his/her Igg-range ADP plan a list of 

those ADP applications which he/she uses but 

which provide unsatisfactory support or which 

have only a marginal payoff to his/her efficiency, effectiveness, and economy of operation? 

(*3.9.1) (*1.7.1) 

Questions are similar but are repeated here to provide stand 

alone answers for this section. (+3.9.1) 

(*1.7.1) 

- 45 - 

i 
3.12.1.1 Are the unsatisfactory or marginal 

8UppOrt capabilities identified in 

quantitative terms? (*3.9.1.1) 

(*1.7.1.1) - 

3.12.2 Are the reasons for dissatisfaction documented? - 

3.13 Exploit New Opportunities 

Require from the head of each organizational unit a list 

and description of new opportunities for use of ADP resources which have a potential for enhancing the quality 

of that unit's, or the agency's mission performance. 

3.13.1 Is there a requirement that functional managers 

identify new ADP capabilities that will increase 

the effectiveness of their operations7 ('3.9-3) 

( el. 7.4) - 

3.13.2 Doe. plan implementation for analyses, design 

and development of computer software call for 

rtate of the art mcthoda that ume the computer 

to armist in generating software application 

programs and data baaes? 

3.13.3 Doer th4 agency have a documented procedure 

for flagging applications or syatsms with 

obmolete roftwarc technology? - 

3.13.3.1 For each significant application is 

thera a projqcfed assessment of ita 

technical statun relative to the 

State of the art for each remaining 

year of its full life cycle? - 

*Questions are similar but aru repeated here to provide stand 

alone answers for this section. 

- 46 - 
3.14 Identify the Potential for External Support 

Require from the head of each organizational unit a 

listing and individual description, including estimated cost, of ADP support which in his/her view 

may usefully be provided by an external source. 

3.14.1 Has the head of each organizational unit prepared a list of ADP applications available 

from an external source that would result 

in increased productivity or have some 

other "pay off" if acquired: i.e. 

0 from another Government aggncy 7 - 

o from a commercial vendor? [*1.7.5) - 

3.14.1.1 For each proposed external support 

ADP application, is there a requirement that the estimated cost 

be included? (*1.7.5.1) - 

3.14.1.2 Does the plan contain arrangements 

for 8oftware or hardware sharing with 

other Federal agencies? 

3.14.1.3 Where appropriate does the plan cover 

8uch contingencies as: 

o emergency response procedures for 

events such as fires, floods, 

natural disasters or threats to 

ADP facilities? 

o backup operations procedurea to 

48BUrO that essential ADP taak8 

can be conducted if there ia a 

dhruption to the primary facility? - 

o rscovery.actions to facilitate 1 

timely restoration of aervicee? - 

3.15 Perform an Economic Analysis \. 

A thorough economic analysis allows management to choose 

one proposed program over other alternatives based on 

the systems' projected costs and benefits. 

f 

i 

(*1.7.5) Questions are similar but are repeated here to provide 

(*1.7.5.1) stand alone anaware to this section. 

- 47 - 
This can only be accomplished when estimates for 

all systems' costs and benefits are stated in comparable quantitative terms. 

3.15.1 Is there a policy and guidance for the performance 

of an economic analysis? 

3.15.2 Do the guidelines require 

3.15.2.1 investigation of alternatives? 

3.15.2.2 costs and benefits for each alternative? 

3.15.2.3 dctennlnation of the relative btneflts of 

each alternatlve thtoufl a comparison of 

costs and benefits for both hardware and. 

software. 

3.15.2.4 a check to validate costs? 

3.15.2.5 documentation of 

o methodology? 

o source of costs? 

o rationale? 

o assumptions? 

o constraints? 

o priorities? 

i 

P 

3.15.2.6 identification of the key variables associated with the sensitivity to chang,,: 

3.15.2.7 determination and validation of the degree 

of risk or uncertainty in the results? 

3.16 Require a Risk Assessment 

!+ 

The agency head should require that a level of investment risk be assessed for each new system 01: 

major revision planned. This assessment should 

\ 

include risk factors for software applications, 

oprating system software, and hardware as well 

48 
as overall probability of success or failure. (One 

useful rule is that the probability of achieving 

that pay off is directly related to the degree with 

which the expected performance criteria of a system 

is quantified.) (*1.6) 

3.16.1 Haa the agency head been provided with some 

assessment of the risks associated with major 

changes or new system developments? 

Haa the agency head been provided with the 

e8timated costa and technical criteria that 

will be-used to reduce dependence on the 

manufacturer of the current hardware? 

3.16.2 

- 

3.17 Provide for Plan Implementation (Activation) 

The transition from "plan" to action normally begins 

with the allocation of funds as part of an approved 

agency budget. At this point the agency should formally designate an office or official as responsible 

and accountable for these resources. (*1.10) (*2.11) 

3.17.1 1s there a written document which identifies 

and hold6 responsible and accountable a 

apecific official or officials for plan 

implementation? 

3.17.2 Does that document or a separate one allocate 

or transfer funds or other raaources for that 

purpoae to the officiai'[s) identified? 

(*1.6) Questions are aimilar but are repeated here to provide 

('1.10) etand alone answers to this aection. 

I*?. 11) 

- 49 - 
4. CONTROL 

Because planning and control are inseparable, the control methods should be an integral part of the planning 

documents. While highly dependent on individual management 

styles, there are, nonetheless, minimum essential elements 

of management control for ADP planning. The most important 

of these essential elements is quantitative performance 

capabilities. Quantitative terms make it easier to maintain 

a focus on the progress toward achievement of the goals and 

objectives contained in both the ADP plan and the mission 

programs that the ADP plan supports* A visible, easy to 

understand, quantitative control method also assures 

effective communication and enhances the organization's commitment to the goals management has set. The essential elements of a quantitative method for management of ADP planning are presented in this section. The more specific 

reporting information needed to maintain the control focus 

is covered in section 5. 

4.1 State all Performance Criteria 

A meaningful statement of the conditions expected 

when objectives are achieved should be included in 

the strategy for accomplishment of each ADP goal. 

b~ 

4.1.1 Is there a description of the conditions expected 

if the objectives are met? 

t 

- 50 - 
4.1.2 Is the description in quantitative terms? 

4.2 Require that Performance Criteria be Quantified 

In each set of expected performance criteria; i.e.D 

for each objective and sub-objective, a quantitative change should be included which can be compared to the existing performance to measure progress. If a new or revised capability is being 

described, it should contain some quantitative 

information which can be used as a basis for 

assessing the "pay off" of the investment. 

4.2.1 For each objective and/or sub-objective in the ADP 

plan, is there an accompanying statement of the 

performance criteria expected when the objective or 

sub-objectives are achieved? ('1.6.11 

4.2.2 Where such per€ormance criterla are not included 

with the objectives or sub-objectives, is there 

some other basia in the planning documentation 

which communicates how achievement of the objective will be recognized? (21.6.3) 

4.2.3 Are the performance criteria which describe how the 

achievement of objectives will be recognized, presented in quantitative terms? 1(*1.6.4) 

p, t 

? 

Questions are similar but are repeated here to provide atand 

alone answers to thia section. 

(*1.6.1) 

{*1.6.3) 

(*1.6.41 

- 51 - 
4.2.4 Can existing performance criteria be campared with 

expected capabilities stated in ADP plans to identify the gap between present and planned capabilities? ( *l. 6.5) -. - 

4.2.4.1 Has a central planning group focused on 

those gaps as a means of identifying what 

the planned investment in ADP resources 

will buy? ('1.6.5.1) 

4.2.4.2 Has a central planning group reviewed the 

impact of this gap, or series of gaps, in 

ADP capabilities and reported in writing 

its assessment and recommendations to the 

agency head? ('1.6.5.2) 

4.3 -- Front end Planninq - Should be Quantitative 

Descriptions of functional users' requirements 

should be stated in words that show a quantitative 

gap between existing manual or automated capabilities and those that are needed. 

E 

4.3.1 Ks the existing system, or capability, described 

In quantitative terms? 

4.3.2 Are tne different organizational unit8 that receive support from the exiatiq capability, or 

system, identified91 

+ - .__-- 

(*1.6.5) Questions are similar but are repeated here to provide stand 

(*1.6.5.1) alone answers to this section. 

(*1.6.5.2) 

- 52 - 
4.3.3 

b.3.4 

4.3.5 

4.3.6 

Is the support received by each of these organizational units described in quantitative or 

other terms that provide an understanding of its 

impact on the duties and responsibilities of the 

units? 

Arc new requirements described in words that show 

quantitative gap between exieting capabilities, 

or ryitems, and tbec propoeed? 

-- 

- 

Do those organizational units that will be supported by the requirements for new or revised ADP 

capabilities agree with the need expressed? 

Were all of the requirements for new or revised 

ADP capabilities, or systems, written by the 

organizational units that will be supported by 

those systems? 

4.4 Quantify the-gx_ee_c_ted Benefits 

If the expected capabilities required by a new ADP 

System; i.e., a software application, a hardware 

configuration or a mix of both added to an existin4 

System, are achieved those results must contain 

identifiable benefits. Such benefits should be 

documented in terms that permit the agency head to 

assess the value to ..the organization of the investment performance. 

*. 

4.4.1 Is there a cost benefit study or similar document 

which describes the benefits of the system? 

- 53 - 
4.4.2 Are quantitative performance capabilities in the 

cost benefit study described Lor individual 

application programs? 

words like improved, better, faster, etc. We include numbers that can be compared with other 

numbers. ) 

(By quantitative we exclude 

4.4.4.2 If the answer is “no”, what percertage of 

the existing inventory of application programs has its performance capabilities 

described in quantitative terms? 

4.5 Quantify the Existing ADP -- Software Assets 

All computer programs should be described in 

simple, consistent, realistic quantitative terms 

that are understandable to all levels of the 

Organization. Two such criteria might include 

(1) the total number of instructions or lines of 

code per application, system - or other standardized component, and (2) the average cost per 

instruction. (See the Guide For a Software Inventory in Appendix I. 

4.5.1 I@ there an inventory of all the ADP scftware 

aasetr? - 

4.5.1.1 Ia the software inventory accounted 

for in the sane manner as are Other 

’. 

capital assets? (See footnote on 

\. 

page 63.) - 

- 54 - 
4.5.2 Da the record8 rhow that an overview of the software inventory was presented to the agency herd 

as purt of the long-range plan? 

4.5.2.1 Does the overview identify the programs in 

use, the users, the total coat, the number 

of dFEferent languages and other relevant 

items from the roftware inventory of the 

type illustrated in Appendix I? 

4.5.3 Do the records show that an overview of the fila 

inventory was presented to the agency head a8 part 

of the long-range plan? - 

4.5.3.1 DOeS the overview identiLy the filer, the 

users whose requirements generated the 

input to each file, the eize and c08t of 

the file, its growth trends and other 

rtlcvent information from a file inventory 

such as described in Appendix XI? -, 

4.6 Require --+------ that Proposed New or Revised 

Software Applications be QuantifT 

Unless some other basis is used to indicate the 

size of software applications, the estimated total 

number of lines of code per application and the 

estimated cost per line should be included in the 

4.6.1 I8 the number of line8 of code and the coat per 

linc'fot each propored new or revired application 

e8 t ira tad? - 

I 

i 

i 

! 

- 55 - 
4.6.1.1 

4.6.1.2 

4.6.1.3 

If estimates are not included, is there 

some other reasonable method of quantifying the projections for new or improved 

aof twate? 

Is this other method (4.6.1.1 above) 

consistent with the way software assets 

are quantified and valued for the organizat ion? 

Where there is no method for quantifying 

projected software applications (as per 

4.6.1 and 4.6.1.21, does the plan contain 

a reasonable method for estimating the 

cost and size of the software applicat ions? 

4.6.2 When the planned software applications are 

examined side by side with the existing software 

inventory, is there a year to year visible change 

in the size and value of the inventory? 

4.6.2.1 If the change is one of growth, can that 

growth be correlated with increased or 

new capabilities? 

4.6.2.2 If there is no growth in the size of the 

inventory, but there is still an increase 

in capabilities, can that increase be 

attributed .to enhanced productivity? \ 

4.7 Quantify the Existing ADP Hardware Assets 

\ 

All components of the entire hardware configuration should be recorded in an asset inventory so 

- 56 - 
that the total capital investment and other asset 

accounting information can be maintained up to 

date. 

4.7.1 

4.7.2 

4.7.3 

4.7.4 

Rre hardware acquisitions proposed in the plan 

justified on the basis of system capacity? 

4.7.1.1 Have performance monitors been used in 

these analyses? 

4.7.1.2 Is there a historical record of the 

system accounting data which was used in 

this analysis? 

Is there a historical record (at least 3 years) 

which shows the difference between system capacity available and that actually used? 

Is the annual size of the expected overage or 

shortage in system capacity gap estimated for 

the life of the plan? 

4.7.3.1 Are the alternative approaches that were 

analyzed to plan the operating capacity 

shown? 

(These approaches should be in cost 

benefit studies supporting the plan.) 

Are the studies of capacity overages or shortages 

presented in capability performance terms as well 

as system capacity terms? 

(That is, in terms that can be correlated 

di*ctly with the operational performance requirements of those who use the system output 

(see section 1.2.2). 

f 

Y 

- 57 - 
4. a 

4.9 

Require that Proposed Hardware 

Acquisitions be Quantified 

All costs for planned hardware should 

and aggregated in the same guantitati 

be estimated 

e terms as is 

used for the existing hardware inventory. 

4.8.1 Has the proposed hardware inventory been analyzed 

and an estimated agency-wide profile developed as 

to who will use it? 

4.8.1.1 Does this aggregation identify the cost 

of each major user's output as a percentage of the proposed system cost? 

4.8.2 Is each user required to acknowledge, in writing, 

the percentage so attributed? 

Quantify the Existing Products of the ADP Systems 

To provide a basis for correlating aggregate costs 

with specific types of runs (such as for application programs, maintenance or development) the output for the entire system should be identified. 

This identification should be in easily understood 

terms, such as the number of lines of print, pagesr 

Or other acceptable ynits of output. 

4.9.1 Is the e an estimate of the total cost or eacn r 

distinct output product produced by the current 

ADP operation? 

J 

- 58 - 
4.9.1.1 Can the output products of each 

dirtinctive ADP application system be 

totalled to indicate the coat of all 

products of that eyaten? 

4.9.1.2 In terms of the end users, can these output products be identified so that the 

overall cost of the ADP application system can be traced to one or a group of 

end users who receive the output 

PKOd UC t S? 

4.9.2 What percentage of the total current output is 

costed (as described in 4.9.1) above)? 

4.10 Require that the Proposed Products of 

the Planned ADP System be Quantified 

Itemize and describe the products expected of the 

planned ADP systems. These products can then be 

compared with those of the existing manual or automated procedure, being replaced, and the reasons 

for the investment made visible in quantitative 

terms. 

4.10.1 Is there an inventory of the output reports or 

screens expected from each computer application, 

contained in the plan? 

9 

4.10.1.1 Does this inventory show the expected 

user of each such product? \. 

I 

f 

- 59 - 
4.10.1.2 Is there an estimated cost shown for 

each type of output in the proposed output inven tory7 

4.10.1.3 Does each recipient of the output receive 

the estimated cost of that planned output? 

4.10.2 Does a comparison of the current and planned output 

inventories show the magnitude of planned changes 

in terms of the existinq output? 

4.10.3 Can the planned output inventory be correlated with 

the user requirements, see 1.2.1 - 1.2.2.4, to pinpoint management accountability? -- 

4.10.4 Does the record show that the central planning 

group examined the current and planned output 

inventories as part of their work? 

4.10.5 Does the record show that the steering committee 

reviewed and approved the existing and planned 

output inventories? 

4.11 Require that Development Risk be Quantified - -.- - * - - 

Research and developnent investments and any 

investment for which planned products are not quantified, as described in item 4.9, should have a 

confidence level asgigned and be supported by a 

narrative describing the risks. (*1.6) (*2.9) (*3.16) 

'. 

f 

f 

(*1.6) Questions are similar but are repeated here to provide stand 

(*2.9) alone answers to this section. 

(3.16) 

- 60 - 
i 

4.11.1 Are there any existing or planned computer 

applications, or systems, which have not 

been quantified as described above? 

4.11.1.1 Has a confidence level, identi- 

- 

fying the riak, been established? 

4.11.1.2 Is there a narrative explanation 

of the risk which includes the 

position of the chief sponsor of 

that effort? - 

4.11.2 Are these risk areas reviewed by the central 

planning group? - 

4.11.3 Were the risk areas reviewed and approved 

by the steering committee? - 

i 

a 

T 61 - 
E 

5. REPORTING 

The reporting system for ADP resource usage should be 

in the mainstream of information used by management to control all its resources. The feedback should be described 

in words that show the link to accomplishments projected 

in the plan. It should report actual against planned performance in such key areas as the (a) software that controls and coordinates the entire system (system software), 

(b) user specific application software that performs 

mission-related functions, (c) hardware components, and 

(d) total dollar resources used by accountable management. 

The use of quantitative criteria as the basis for this type 

of control information was emphasized in the previous 

section. 

In this section some types of reports which can assist 

management to detect deviations from planned accomplishments 

are described. Because most are quantitative, a sample 

graph or table reporting format can be used. They are 

applicable to all ADP systems and are essential for the 

control of ADP plan implementation. 

5.1 Require Organizatisn-wide ADP Resource 

Accountina and Control 

h. 

The senior financial officer should be held responf 

f 

sible for providing an organization-wide system of 
ADP resource accounting and control. This system 

should regularly provide top management with a current record of all ADP resources. It should show 

their status, use, use trends, costs, cost trends, 

and other analyses needed for developing plan 

starting points, projections and plan progress. In 

addition it should provide similar feedback to the 

head of each organizational unit who uses ADP support. - 1/ 

5.1.1 Is th. senior agency financial officer required to 

maintain an organization-wide accounting of ADP 

resources? 

5.1.2 Is the senior aqency financial ofeicer required to 

provide accounting information which can be used 

for planning and control of ADP resource investments and expenses to the 

o qeency head? 

o functional managers? -- 

5.1.2. I Is information provided on capital 

investments in 

o cumputor hardware? 

o new software (both applications and 

- 

oparatinq systems)? - 

o major conversions of existing softvare? - 

o major ,upgrudor I of existing software? - 

- I/ See Federal Gbvernment Accounting Pamphlet No. 4, “Guidelines 

for Automated Data Processing Costs, Illustrative Accounting 

Procedures for Federal Agencies" prepared by GAO during 1978. 

Copies may be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, 

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402. Spectfy 

Stock NO. 020-000-00162-3. 

i 
5.2 

5.1.3 Does the accounting aystem aaintain recorda in a 

form that permits the output of each application 

system to be quantified? 

5.1.3.1 Can the accounting system provide information needed to compute the cost per 

item of output for an ADP application 

system? 

5.1.3.2 Does the quantitative information maintained by the accounting 8ystem provide 

a data base which can be used to assist 

in determining whether forecasted output 

and estimated coats have been achieved? 

5.1.1 Is the manager of each oEganizationa1 unit routinely charged Lor all ADP services received or 

is otherwise routinely made aware of the co6t of 

services received? 

5.1.5 Is the manager of each organizational unit 

required to prepare a budget for the anticipated 

coats of hDP services? 

Provide Life Cycle Costing 

The agency accounting system should provide cumulative sums of actual costs for the life cycle of 

each application in the software inventory and the 

major components og the hardware system, 

5.2.1 Art costa accumulated over the life cycle of ADP 

o appl * icationa? 

I 
0 hardware? 

5.2.2 

5.2.3 

5.2.1 

5.2.5 

5.2.6 

Can the agency accounting system 

accumulation for a single phase 

f 

provide cost 

or a single 

year) within the life cycle of an ADP 

o system? 

o appl ica t ion? 

Ower the fulL life cycle of each significant 

application, are current costs recorded, future 

costs estimated, ad aggregate totals ccmptted for: 

0 maintenance? - 

o dificatiau? 

0 enhancats? 

- 

- 

0 redesigns? -- 

Are the actual ADP resource costs of each mayor 

organizational unit itemized and reported to the 

heads of those units on a routine basis? 

Are the costs of intradepartmental ADP applications or systems accumulated and aggregated across 

all departments to identify the full cost of such 

o systems? 

o applications? 

5.2.5.1 Are the life cycle costs of intradepartmental ADP systems available in the 

financial records? 

Can the accounting system be used by all levels 

of management to flag excessive costs for a life 

- 65 - 
cycle phaee (or some similar event) in time to 

take corrective management action and preclude 

unmt ic ipated resource expend iturea7 

5.3 Require Reports on Implementation 

ot the ADP Plan 

There should be a formalized reporting system 

which provides to top management, on a regular 

basis, information as to problems, opportunities, 

and deviations between planned performance and 

actual performance. (.*1.10) 

5.3.1 Is 'there an administrative procedure in use tnac 

extracts and translates the projected performance 

criteria contained In the plan Into tangible goalm 

againrt which progreaa can be compared? 

5.3.1.1 Ia thin infornation used a8 a baais for 

reporting progress toward Its achisvcaent? 

5.3.1.2 Is thin done for CPU time actually uecd 

in nome accepted standard unit? For 

example, is central processing unit (CPU) 

time actually used reported and compared 

with a performance goal for CPU use contained in the plan? 

'.I 

5.3.1.3 1s it done for revision of exirtinq 

(*1.10) Question 

alone answers to this section. 

is similar but is repeated here to provide rthd 

i 

- 66 - 
5.3.1.4 

5.3.1.5 

5.3-1.6 

applic .cion programs? For example, are 

the revisions planned for application 

programs translated into tangible performance goals for specific users? 

Is it done €or design and use of new 

application programs? For example, are 

the expected performance criteria for 

new applications translated into tang ible performance goals for specific users? 

Is it done for all major objectives 

established in the ADP plan? For 

example, are all major objectives in the 

Plan similarly translated into tangible 

performance goals for specific users (or 

other accountable managers) 7 

Does the status information contained in 

progress reports focus on the tangible 

performance goals such as those described 

above? 

5.4 Require a Software Inventory Report 

The agency head or his/her deputy should have a 

feel for the scope, composition, complexity, and 

impact of the total ADP resource. This report 

is as important as’khe inventory records for any 

major corporate asset. + 

-67 - 
5.4.1 

5-4.2 

5.4.3 

5.4.4 

Is 

(*4.5.1) 

there an inventory of Software applications? - 

5.4.1.1 Is the inventory updated on an annual 

basis? 

If a decision were made to upgrade of otherwise 

improve the ADP system, would the software inventory contain enough technical, operational, and 

cost detail to be usable In the developnent of an 

industry Request for Propeal (RFP)? 

(To assist in answering this question, see our 

separate guide in,Appendix I. It lists 29 

items which shauld be checked.) 

Is there an inventory of the files? (*4.5.3) 

5.4.3.1 Is the inventory updated on an annual 

basis? 

If deoirfon Yere 8ade to up#r.de, or otherUire modify the IO? Syltem, would the rile 

inventory aontmin enough trchniaal. operrtionwl, and oort lnform8tion to be uarbl. 

Ln the derelopuent Q? 01 RFP? &/ 

(To arrlrt in anruering tblr qurrtioa, nee 

our aepbrate guide in Appendlr 11 on thlr 

rubjeat. It lirtr 25 ftemr uhloh rhould 

be ohbokrd.) 

- l/?’he imporlano. of th%requirem,nt that ADP plana contain detailed 

8OftWlre Inventory lnrorartlon e10 be rppreaiated by roading the 

Review end Analyala of Converrion Coat fatisating feahnipues, 

&.port No. CSI/PCSC-Bl/OOl, April 1981 uaed by tho Federrl Conwrrion Support Center, 5203 Leerbut# Pike, Suite 1100, Pel18 

Cburah, Vir~inla 22011, rnd the htionil Bureau of Strndrrdr 

bpeoirl hbllortlon 500-90. Guide to Contraatin# Tor Softwrre 

conrerrion, S*rVieel+ irrued nry 1982. 

68 - 

t 
5.5 Require a Hardware System Inventory Report 

The agency head should receive an annual hardware 

inventory report which lists each different hardware component, its cost, the manufacturer, its 

age, its reliability, and other relevant factors 

such as the system software supplied by the manufacturer. The report should be formated in such 

a manner as to highlight (1) the cumulative changes 

from the previous year's report and (2) any trends 

in the composition and overall value of the inventory. ("4.7) 

5. 5.1 Is there an inventory of all ADP hardware? 

5.5.1.1 Is it kept up-to-date on at least an 

annual basis? 

5.5.1.2 Does it SI, .; changes from the previous 

-- year? 

5.5.1.3 Does it show changes projected for the 

next year? 

5.5.1.4 Does it show the age of each different 

componcn t? 

5.5.1.5 Does it shq the system software supplied 

with the hardware? 

k 

(4.7) Question is similar but LS repeated here to provide stand 

aLone answers to this section. 

- 69 - 
5.5.1.6 Dots it contain figures which indicate 

the costs of the various components? 

5.5.1.7 Does it contain one figure showing the 

total cost of the inventory that is 

actually on board? 

(NOTE: This is not the depreciated 

value. 1 

5.5.2 Does the agency head or his deputy indicate by 

signature or initals on the inventory report that 

the inventory report is seen at least once a year? , 

5.6 Require a Mission - Function - ADP Support 

Relationship Report 

Submitted annually by the manager of each orqanizational unit that receives a significant level of 

ADP support, this report should contain a formal, 

either written or tabular, linkage between the ADP 

support and the agency mission statement(s1. 

convenient form for this report is a matrix which, 

A 

if standardized, can be the basis for an agencywide picture of how ADP supports the entire agency. 

5.6.1 I8 there a written document that identifies the 

specific application programs that support each 

organizational dit that receives significant ADP 

auppor t 7 

b 

c 70 - 
5.6.1.1 I6 the principal user of each application 

program identified as auggcsted in item 6 

of Appendix I, the eoEtware inventory 

form? 

5.6.2 Is there a written document that identifies the 

mission-function($) that is being supported by 

each application in the inventory? 

5.6.2.1 Each ADP application is supposed to Contribute to the performance of some 

specific task or subtaek that stems 

directly, or indirectly, from the organization's missions and functions. Are 

such functions or tasks identified for 

each application? 

5.6.3 11 a report identifying the misoion - function - 

ADP support rehtion8hip submitted to the 

agency head or deputy ahnually? 

5.7. Show the Cost of ADP by Miasion and 

Function Statements 

The senior financial officer should be required 

to accumulate the annual costs of each ADP application and report these costs to the agency head 

in a format similar to that described in 5.6. 

above. By correlatbing such costs with missionfunction statements (as in 5.6 above) the agency head 

will be nade aware of the specific mission dependencies on ADP. 

+ 

- 71 - 
5.7.1 Does the coat accounting systemxapture and aggrcgate the total cost of each ADP application in the 

inventory? 

5.7.1.1 Is there an annual report which shows the 

aggregate cost of each ADP application in 

the software inventory? 

5.7.1.2 Are costs accumulated over the life cycle 

of the application? (*5.2.1) 

5.7.1.3 Is there an annual report which shows the 

aqgreqate cost for ADP support of individual functions? -__ .. 

5.7.1.4 Do functional managers receive this 

report? 

5.7.1.5 Is there some other way that functional 

managers are made aware of the ADP 8UppOct 

costs of each function? .-- 

5,8 Require d Summary of the Long-Ranqe 

Plan by Mission - Function 

i 

For each year of the long-range plan, require the 

manager of each major organizational unit and the 

controller to prepare d projection containing the 

information specified in 5.7. 

5.8.1 Is a long-range 8lan available which contains the 

estimates of ADP support required for each functicJn\L area supported by ADP? -- 

(45.2.1) Question is similar but i? repeated here to provide 

stand alone answers to thls section. 

- 72 - 
5.8.2 Does each functional manager r@VfeW the long-range 

plan for his area and assume accountability for 

the hDP support estimates? 

5.8.3 Does the controller combine the ADP support estimates for each functional area in the long-range 

plan and provide summaries for the agency head or 

his/her deputy? 

5.8.4 Does the agency head or the deputy review and 

make the decision to request funds for these 

long-range projections? 

5.9 Require Auditor Review and Report m ADP Plans 

The internal audit staff should review the planning 

structure, the cmpleted and proposed planning decisions, and provide an evaluation report to the 

agency head or hisher deputy. ?his report should 

provide an assesawnt of the degree to which plans 

support mission requiremnts. 

5.9.1 Are the internal auditors required to review and 

validate any por'tion oE the ADP plan for the 

agency on a regular basis? --- 

5.9.2 Are the reports of such audits available? 

5.9.3 Does agency head oa the deputy review these audit 

reports prior to making their decisions on the 

conteq of the long-range ADP plan? 

- 73 - 
5.9.4 Does the agency head or his deputy have some 

other methods for assuring that the acttimatea 

for ADP support are reasonable and baaed on 

factual information? 

S.9.5 Does the audit report adviae the agency head 

or hi8 deputy whether the projected ADP support 

ia directly or indirectly ctupportive of specific mission tasks? 

5.9.6 Does the audit report advine the agency head 

about the agency's compliance with policies 

and standards for Federal agencies to follow 

in ertablishing and maintaining internal 

controls in ADP rystems that rupport agency 

programs and administrative activitien? 

r 

- 74 - 
APPENDIX I 

~________

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROVIDING SOFTWARE _____ INVENTORY ___-----_ INFORMATION* ~ ____ ~- 

Application Progran Infornation - This infornation should 

be on record for each computer program (model, utility proqran, 

program system, special purpose program etc.) which is stored 

in the library, currently operational, or under development for 

the programs operated by the central ADP staff or the individual 

user organizations. Some organizations use the term "application 

system" which is an aggregate of coriputer program supporting 

one application. In that case the information in the appendix 

for the "application system. ' 

Name - the name of the program. 

Mnemonic Name - the mnemonic name of Program. 

Current Status - the status of the program system. 

Project Name - The mission related project or agency 

program under which this program system is being 

used, developed, or planned. 

* The information in this appgndix is intended as an illustrative 

guide. 

contains a number of significant details which must be documented, 

kept up to date, pggregated, and examined at intervals as is done 

for the effective 'management of any important resource. It should 

not be expected that the software inventory will comform to this 

illustrative guide. However, the procedure in use should be complete enough to provide management with enough information to 

maintain effective management awareness and control of this resource. 

The purpose is to indicate that the software inventory 

- 75 - 
(5) Project Accounting Number - The proper accounting 

number of the agency program under which this 

application program is being used, developed, or 

planned. 

(6) USER - Name of the primary customer who sponsored 

the program. List all others as secondary users. 

(7) Documentation - The title( s) of the program documentation which may be useful in a conversion process (i.e. flowcharts, listing, etc.). The degree 

of completeness of this documentation and the currentness with respect to the proqram as it now 

exists. This information should be given in terms 

of the following ratings: Excellent, Good, Average, Poor. Also the number of pages in the 

appropriate documents should be shown. 

(8) Program Components - the names of subprograms 

that make up the system. If only one program, 

so indicate. 

(9) If operated outside of the agency, show location. 

(1 

(10) Computer(s1 - Used - List the computer(s) used 

to run thb program. If installed on more than 

one, for concurrent development and operation, 

i 

i 

- 76 - 
indicate the operational computer. 

(11) Equipment Requirements - for each program listed, 

indicate the current equipment requirements for 

operating the program. 

(12) Unique Program Dependency - on Current Hardware - 

and Software - program dependency on hardware 

and contractor provided software should be shown. 

For example, if the program requires the use of a 

specific vendor's package, the name of the package should be shown: 

(13) Language -- of the Program - The language(s) of the 

prqram and the appropriate number of machine 

instruction and/or number of procedure oriented 

language instructions (i.e., FORTRAN, PL1, BASIC 

COBOL, ASSEMBLY etc. ) . 

(14) Files - Used - If a program is under development, 

indicate the name( s) of the file( s) , number of 

records, and number of characters per record 

expected to be used. For operational prqrams, 

indicate the name(s) of the file( s) , number of 

records and number of character(s1 per record 

used. h, 

L 

- 77 - 
DMS/DBMS - If the prcqram requires the use of a 

Data Base Management System (DBMS) or Data Management System (DMS), identify the DBMS or DMS. 

Operating System - The name and release of the 

operating system currently used. Indicate the 

number of linkage( s) instructions required. 

Also, the mode of operation, currently employed 

(i.e. Batch, On-Line, Interaction, etc.) 

should be shown. 

Frequency - of Operation - Number of times program 

is operated per month should be shown. 

Average Run Time - The average run time for the 

program system. If the program system consists 

of more than one program, all of which are not 

run at one time, indicate the average run time 

for a run regardless of the number of programs 

used. 

-- 

Life Expectancy - The year the requirement for 

the program is expected to expire or chanqe 

sufficiently to wavtant a new program. If 

requirement appears indefinite or unknown, 

that information should be shown. 

4 

- 78 - 
i 

Input Volume - The number of cards, tape size 

(characters) 8 or other factors that describe 

the input volume to the program system. 

Output Volume - The number of cards, tape size 

(characters), lines/page of printout, or other 

factors that describe the output volume of the 

i 

prog ram sys tern. 

Estimated -- Cost of Program Development - The cost 

and man-months required for development of the 

program. If program was developed by contractor 

or in-house, or if a combination percent of 

effort for each should be shown. 

Estimated Current Operating Cost Per Year - 

The estimated cost in terms of computer hours 

and prqrammer/analyst man-months required 

for operation of the program. 

--- 

Revision _. of Proqram - The number of revisions and 

man-months expended on the revisions for each 

year of the life of the program. Also, an estimate of the numbe~ and man-months required for 

revisions for the next 12 months. 

+ 

- 79 - 
(25) Programming Responsibility - Name, organization, 

and phone number. If program is maintained under 

contract, indicate the contractor and the responsible internal staff member. 

(26) Availability and Location - of Source -- Deck and 

Listings - Show who maintains the current source 

deck and listing. If located with a contractor, 

indicate name and location of contractor. 

(27) Proqram Function - A description of the operational function supported by the program. 

(28) Other Comments - Additional data or comments 

which could assist in the calculation of the 

cost of converting this program to the hardware 

of a different manufacturer should be provided. 

(continued on next page) 

3 80 - 
(29) OVERVIEW SUMMATIONS 

Totals for several of the above items can 

provide a fairly comprehensive overview of the 

software inventory. From this overview the 

agency head can obtain a quick assessment of the 

scope, complexity pervasiveness, impact, and 

cost of the software investment required for 

agency operations. Listings and/or totals are 

suggested for the below items to provide this 

overview: 

Does the record show that such an overview was 

presented to the agency head at least once a 

year? 

- 81 - 
APPENDIX II 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROVIDING FILE INFORMATION" 

File Information - This information is requested for 

each file stored in the library or which is currently 

operational or under development. 

-- File Name. 

Mnemonic Name. 

Project Number - The proper accounting number 

authorization under which this file was established and is being used. 

Current Status - Active or inactive. 

Location -- of File - The location where the file 

is kept. 

Computer( s) Used - List the computer( s) which have 

access to the file. 

* The information in this appendix is intended as an illustrative guide. The purpoe'is to indicate that the file 

inventory contains a number of significant details which 

must be documented, kept up-to-date, aggregated, and 

examined at reqaar intervals as is done for the effective management of any important resource. 

file inventory need not conform to this guide. However, 

the one in use should be complete enough to provide manaqement with enough information to maintain effective 

management awareness and control of this resource. 

The method of 

- 82 - 
Principal Users - The identity of the user who 

required the development of the file. Secondary 

users of the file should also be identified. 

Documentation - The title(s) of the program 

documentation which may be useful in a conversion 

process; i-e., flowcharts, listings, etc.). 

Indicate the degree of completeness of this 

documentation and the currentness with respect 

to the program as it now exists. This information 

should be given in terms of the following ratings: 

Excellent, Good, Average, and Poor. Also indicate 

the approximate number of pages in the document. 

(9) File Size - For each file the number of records 

and the number of characters per record for the 

file used should be shown. 

-- 

(10) Primary Storage Media - The media used for the 

primary storage of the file. 

(11) There is no number 11. 

(12) Estimated File Growth - The estimated file growth 

in terms of total characters for the time period. I 

- 83 - 
(13) Required Prcqrams Unique --- to the File - Show along 

with the name and language of the program, the 

number of machine instructions and/or the number 

of procedure oriented language statements for 

each program that is unique to the use of the 

file. There is no need to list the programs 

that belong to a data management system. 

(14) --- DBMS or DMS - Identify the Data Base Management 

System or Data Management System used with the 

files. 

(15) Estimated --- Cost of File Development - The approximate cost and the number of man-months needed to 

develop the file should be documented. 

(16) Date Operational - The date that the file became 

operational. 

(17) Update Frequency - How often the file is updated 

(hour/day/week/month/qtr ./year) 

(18) Output Report Frequency - The frequency of the 

output report of tge. file (hour/day/week/month/ 

qtr ./year) . .* 

b. 

(19) Query Frequency - The ad hoc (unscheduled) query 

i 

frequency of the file (if used this way). 

- a4 - 
(20) Data File Used - Programs which use the 

information from this file should be recorded. 

(21) File Function - Describe the mission function 

supported by the use of the file. If the 

description is contained in a general catalcq 

of files or other type reference, that 

information should be shown. 

(22) Other Comments - Additional data or comments 

which could influence the calculation of the 

cost of converting this file to the hardware/ 

software of another vendor should be shown. 

(23) Programming Responsibility - Name, organization, 

and phone number of persons responsible for and 

familiar with the use of the file. 

i 

1 

- 85 - 
APPENDIX I11 

Some Sample Uses of This Pamphlet 

The criteria in this pamphlet can be used, we believe, 

to assist agency management, auditors, and others with specific tasks related to the ADP planning process. Four examples 

of such uses, which illustrate also the flexibility of the 

reference base in this pamphlet, are presented in this appendix. 

Example 1: A - Manaqement Use 

Identifying key subjects of the ADP planning process 

that are of direct concern to the agency head 

Let's assume that an agency head with no background in ADP 

would like a summary of the direct involvement in the ADP planning 

process expected of his/her office. 

for different individuals,an example of a few of the questions 

While such a summary may vary 

from this pamphlet which might be useful for such a purpose are: 

2.2.1 Is there documentation which describes the 

plans to achieve the agency program goals? 

2.2.1.1 Does this documentation contain the 

short- and long-range objectives to 

be achieved for each program? 

2.2.1.2 Is there sufficient quantitative or 

other explicit information contained 

in the staeement of the program objectives (2.2.1.1) to provide an effective 

4 criteria for assessing when objectives 

are actually achieved? 

-86- 
2.2.3 Are assumptions included as an integral part 

of the agency's long-range ADP plan? 

2.2.3.1 Is there any evidence that the agency 

head reviewed the ADP planning assumptions and approved them? 

1.10.1 Does the agency head have a regularly scheduled 

review of the "expected" performance against 

"actual" performance contained in the ADP plan? 

1.10.1.1 Does the record show decisions made 

by the agency head as a result of 

these reviews? 

1.10.2 Are shortfalls between planned performance and 

actual performance identified on a system basis? 

1.10.2.1 Are the reasons for the deficiencies, 

if any, made visible in the record? 

1.10.3 Is there a standard set of decision points by 

which the actual performance against planned 

performance is followed? 

(This can be milestones such as those in the 

life cycle of a software application system). 

1.10.3.1 Does the record ahow adequate communications and understanding of these milestones? 

'.I 

1.9.1 Does the record show that the agency head reviewed aqd approved 

o the financial forecast contained in the longI_e_ 

range plan? 

o the priority of resource inveatmente contained 

in the long-range plan? - 

-87- 1 
Example 2: A Manaqernent Use 

Idsntifyinq some organizational duties and 

responsibilities for ADP planning 

Let's assume that an individual has been assigned to write 

the organizational charter for an ADP executive management committee 

(steering group) and an ADP central planning group. The paragraph 

numbers of questions that might be useful as reference information 

for this task are listed below. 

ADP -~~~ STEERING - GROUP 

REFERENCE QUESTIONS 

1.3.1.1 

1.2 

1.3.2 

1.3.2.1 

1.3.3.1 

1.3.3.4 

CENTRAL PLANNING GROUP 

REFERENCE QUESTIONS 

1.4 

1.4.1 1.5.2 

1.4.2 1.5.2.1 

1.4.3 1.5.3 

1.4.4 1.5.3.1 

1.5.1 1.5.4 

1.6 

ExamDle 3: An Auditor Use 

Evaluating the completeness of an ADP 

planning process 

As was mentioned in the introductory section,the criteria 8 

! 

in thie pamphlet represent idealized performance objectives and 

we doubt that any organization will meet all of them exactly as 

presented. Nevertheless, by using a procedure similar to the 

steps outlined below we believe a reviewer can use the contents 

of this pamphlet to help determine the cornpleteqess of an agency 

ADP planning process. 

Step 1: Prepare a target liat'of key subjects on ADP planninq 

Using this pamphlet, other reference material, past 

experience and knowledge of the agency prepare a target 

list of the key subjects that should be covered in the 

\ 

agency's ADP planning process. One view of such a target I 
list containing 5 key subjects is shown across the top row of 

figure III-1 (next page). 

Step 2: Analyze the key subjects 

Select from this pamphlet, as evaluation criteria, 

those questions whose answers will provide or help 

develop information about each of the key subjects 

identified in step 1 above. For example, figure 111-1 

shows how the questions from this pamphlet might be repackaged into separate lists for each of the 5 key subjects. 

Step 3: Prepare evaluation 

In context with the audit objectives, analyses of other 

materials and the answers to the above questions prepare the evaluation. In general the greater the number 

of answers to the questions that indicate unsatisfactory 

performance the more serious might be the management i 

problems. It might be useful also for the reviewer to 

identify critical questions where negative answers indicate specific problems which require correction before 

large investments are made. For example, negative answers 

to questions such as those below might indicate weak rnanagement control over expensive and critical software investments. 

3.2.5 ... do records show the current year expenditures for software development, maintenance 

and production? 

5.2.3 Can the agency accounting system provide com- 

’.\ 

parisons between cost estimates and actual 

qost accumulation for each phase (year) of the 

life cycle of an ADP system or application? 

Because use of all the criteria shown in figure 111-1 would 

result in a lengthy and expensive review,a preliminary evaluation 

might be developed by using only criteria considered most important 

to the review objectives. For example, in figure 111-1 we have marked 

-89- 
FIGURE 181-1 

SUMMARY OF PLANNING ELEMENTS BY KEY SUBJECTS 

The pupou of thb illusirrtlon h to ruggest one way th. planning elements in this pamphlet un ha ropackrged to 

h.lp detwmlnw ths compbt~noss ot an agency's ADP pbnning pr0~6sS. 

Numbered in the top row of aquerec me the 5 kep subjecls mentioned in example 3 of thia appendiz. Thmn in the bottom hlf of thb illustration. keyed to each of the 5 subjects and tha rub subhtS. are Iirted tha paragraph numbera of 

qdona from this pamphlet. Th. typsa of anawers obtained from these questions should be helpful in evaluating 

th. cmpkteneas of an agency ADP pknning process. 

While there key subjects and the Ilsca of questions were developed by an auditor experienced in reviews of large 

Federal agemi08 they arm prasentd for illustrative purpores only. They are not intended as nor ahould they be considered a General Accounting Office audit guide. 

1 2 3 4 5 

AGENCY.WIDE MISSION THE ADP PLANNING PROCESS REQUIREMENTS FOR MISSION IMPACT OF COST OF 

PLAN (NON ADP) AND PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AOP SUPPORT ADP SUPPORT ADP SUPPORT 

1 

I 

2(d 

THE ADP PLANNING PROCESS 

AND POLICIES 

\ 2lbl 

UFE CYCLE 

FORECASTS 

Zcl 

MILESTONE 

REVIEWS 1 

21dl 

PERFORMANCE 

EVALUATION 

CURRENT 

REQUIREMINTS 

FUTURE 

REQUIREMENTS 

1 

Ud 

CURRENT PERFORMANCE 

SHORTFALLS 

4 bl 

* 

FUTURE PERFORMANCE 

SHOmFACLS 

Ucl 

FUTURE PERFORMANCE 

IMPROVEMENTS 

CURRENT BUDGET 

FUTURE COST 

2.8.1' 13.1 1.6.1. 1.P 

57 ' 1.3.1. 2.82 ' 

2.1.1. 1.3.1.1 2.8.3 

2.2.1' 13.1.2 

22.1.1. 1.3.1.3 

22.11. 1.32 

226' 1.3.2.1 

1.3.3 

1.3.3.1 

1.3.4 

1.4.1 

1.42 

1.4.3 

1.4.4 

1.6.1' 

1 5.2 

1.6.2.1. 

1.5.3 

1.6.3.1 

1.6.4 

1.6.9 

1.85. 

2.5.1 

2.62 

2.6.3 

2.72 

2.8.10 

2.8.4 

2.8.6 

2.10.1 

2.102 

2.10.5 

2.10.8 

2.10.7. 

2.11.1 

2.112 

211.3 

2.11.4. 

3.1.1 

3.12 

3.1 1 

3.6.1' 

3.7.1 

3.73 

3.73 

3.16.1. 

3.162 

3.17.1 

3.172 

53.1. 

6.92 

6.9.3 

2.8.4' 1.10.3. 

32.1' 1.10.3.1 

3.32 2.6.3. 

3.4.1 2.6.3.1 

32.1' 

32x 

32.3.1 

3.4.1.1 

3.4.12 

3.4.1.3 

3.4.1-4 

6.3.1.6 

1.62 

1.8.3 

1.6.4 

1 .6J2 

1.72 

2.4.1 2 

2.4.1.4. 

210.4' 

2.10.4.1 

3.6.1.1 

35.12 

3.6.1.3 

5.3.1. 

5.3.1.1 

63.1 

5.3.1.6 

12.2 

2.3.1 

2.3.1.1 

2.6.1 

2.82. 

32.3 

3.11.1 

3.112 

4.3.1 

4.32 

4.4.4.2 

4.6.1* 

4.6.3.1 

4.62 

452.1. 

4.63 

4.6.3.1' 

4.10,l 

4.10.1.1 

6.4.1.1, 

6.43 

5.+.3.1 

:t 6.4.4 

55.1. 

6.6.1.1 

6.6.12 

6.6.1.4 

5.6.1.5 

6.6.1. 

6.6.1.1 

5.62 

6.62.1 

22.3 

221.1. 

2.4.1 

2.4.1.1 

2.7.1 

3.62' 

362.1 

3.6.3 

3.52.1 

3.532 

3.623 

3.6.4 

3.6.4.1 

3.6.1.4 

3.6.1.5 

3.11.3. 

3.11.4 

3.11.6 

4.1.1 

4.12' 

4.8.1 

4.8.1.1* 

4.82 

4.103 

4.10.4. 

6.5.1.3 

5.8.1. 

6.8P 

*INDICATES QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT BE USED IN A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION 

-9% 

t 22.3~ 

122.4' 

122.6 

1&6* 

1.6.6.1 

1.6.62 

1.7.1 

1.102 

3 2.4.1 

32.42 

3243 

324.4 

32.4.6 

33.1 

3.129 

3.12.1.1 

3.122 

4.3.5. 

4.3.4 

4.7.1.1 

4.7.12. 

4.72 

51.1 

1.6.7. 

1.103- 

2.3.12' 

23.1 

2.9.1,l 

2.9.12 

2.9.1.3 

29.1.4 

2.S.l.5 

29.11 

2.9.1.7 

2.9.3. 

3.6.43 

3.162.6 

3.1S.2.7 

3.16.1 

4.78. 

4.7.3.1' 

4.7.4 

4.11.1 

4.11.1.1 

4.11.12 

4.11.3 

S.9.6 

4Cl Sa) S(b 

wwm 

1.7.9.1. 32.5. 1.7.6.1 

1.7.4 

1.7.4.1 

1.7.6 

2.4.1.4 

2.92 

2.03 

2.10.3 

2.10.4 

2.10.4.1 

3.13.1' 

3.16.1 

3.16X 

3.16.1 

41.1 

422 

4A4* 

4.3.6 

43.6 

4.4.1 

4.42 

4.63.1 

4.622 

4.7.1 

4.102 

6.3.1 

6.3.1.3 

5.3.1.4 

5.3.1 .6 

5.9.6 

32.6 

4.9.1 

4.1.1.1' 

43.12 

4.92 

6.1.1. 

6.1 2 

5.151' 

5.1.3 

6.13.1' 

5.1.33 

5.1.4 

6.1.6. 

62.1 

52.2 

52.3. 

62.4 

52.6. 

52.6- 

5.6.1.6 

6.6.1.7 

6.62' 

6.7.1 

6.7.1.1 

5.7.13 

6.7.1.3 

6.7.1.4 

6.7.1.5 

6.8.1 

1.8.1 

1.81 

1.83 

1.8.4 

2.4.1.3 

263 

32.7 

4.6.1' 

4.6.1.1. 

4.6.2 

4.6.1 2 

4.6.1.3 

4.82 

4.8.1.1. 

4.82. 

4.10.12 

4.10.1.3 

5.8.3- 

6.8.4 

5.a.4 
with an asterisk about 82 questions that might be 

used in a preliminary evaluation. 

In developing the evaluation reviewers should be cautioned 

that in many cases substitute procedures, abbreviated measures or 

other approaches would be equally as effective as those identified 

in this document. An ability to recognize such substitutions and 

sufficient understanding about this area to make confident judgements about their effectiveness are essential for anyone who would 

use this publication. 

Example 4: Auditor and management use 

Evaluating a Particular Component of the ADP Planning Process 

Let's assume that a task is to determine if ADP support requirements can be linked to the achievement of specific agency 

mission objectives. Since neither of these subjects is identified 

explicitly in this pamphlet it is necessary to review the table of 

contents and the relevant sections to select the appropriate 

questions. The questions listed below illustrate what such a 

selection process can produce. 

Questions about agency mission objectives 

2.1.1 Is the agency mission, or its goals, available as 

a written document? 

(Note: OMB A-113 lt3.6 uses missions and goals 

to mean the same thing.) 

2.2.1 Is there documentation which describes the plans I 

to achieve the agency program goals? 

2.2.1.1 D0e.s this documentation contain the 

short- and long-range objectives to 

be achieved for each program? 

-91 - 
2.2.1.2 Is there sufficient quantitative or 

other explicit information contained 

in the statement of the program objectives (2.2.1.1) to provide an effective 

criteria for assessing when objectives 

are actually achieved? 

2.10.2 Does the ADP strategy consolidate the long-range 

objectives proposed by the heads of the different 

major functional units? 

Question8 about ADP support requirements 

2.3.1 Is there documentation which shows the ADP goals 

that support achievement of agency programs? 

2.4.1 Is there documentation for an ADP strategy to 

accomplish each ADP goal: i.e., a set of decisions which have been made? 

2.4.1.1 Does this strategy contain long-range 

objectives? 

2.4.1.2 Are these long-range objectives stated 

quantitatively? 

1.6.7 Is the central planning group required to 

establish a quantitative mission "payoff" ranking 

for each ADP application contained in the longrange plan? 

1.6.8 Is the manager of eact, major unit required to 

coordinate, or dissent, with the rniseion payoff 

assessment identified by the central planning 

group? 

i 

-92- 
5.9.5 Does the audit report advise the agency head or 

his deputy whether the projected ADP support 

is directly or indirectly supportive of specific 

mission task? 

- 93 - 

Y.t 00VEllWYLNT CIIINTW WfUE: 1982 361-643/2209 1-3