Electronic Government: Potential Exists for Enhancing Collaboration on Four Initiatives
Published: 2003-10-10T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In accordance with the President's management agenda, the Office of Management and Budget has sponsored initiatives to promote expansion of electronic government--the use of information technology, particularly Web-based Internet applications, to enhance government services. Each initiative demands a high degree of collaboration among organizations. For four of these initiatives, GAO was asked to determine, among other things, their implementation progress and the extent of collaboration among agencies and other parties involved.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: All four of the e-government initiatives that GAO reviewed have made progress in meeting the objectives and milestones of their early phases. Two of the initiatives have established Web portals--www.geodata.gov for the Geospatial One-Stop initiative and www.BusinessLaw.gov for the Business Gateway. The projects face additional challenging tasks, such as e-Payroll's objective of establishing governmentwide payroll processing standards and Geospatial One-Stop's goal of compiling a comprehensive inventory of geospatial data holdings. All four initiatives have taken steps to promote collaboration with their partner agencies, but none has been fully effective in involving all important stakeholders. For example, for the e-Payroll initiative, the Office of Personnel Management has taken steps to promote close collaboration with its four designated e-Payroll providers, but has not addressed the concerns of a key stakeholder that will be required to make changes to its payroll processes and policies. For Geospatial One-Stop, Interior has established a board of directors with broad representation, but has not taken steps to ensure that key stakeholders at the state and local levels are involved in the initiative. For the Integrated Acquisition Environment initiative, the General Services Administration is using a variety of tools to promote collaboration, but has not involved partner agencies' chief financial officers (CFOs). Finally, for the Business Gateway, the Small Business Administration has not taken key steps to facilitate effective collaboration with its partners and stakeholders, such as establishing a collaborative decision-making process and reaching formal agreements on partner roles and responsibilities. All four initiatives have faced short time frames to accomplish their major tasks, so that competing priorities have sometimes hindered full collaboration. However, without effective collaboration on the tasks that remain to be completed, these initiatives may be at risk of not fully achieving their objectives or the broader goals of the President's management agenda.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The term “electronic government” (or e-government) refers to the use of  information technology (IT), particularly Web-based Internet applications,  to enhance the access to and delivery of government information and  service to citizens, to business partners, to employees, and among agencies  at all levels of government. The President has identified the expansion of   e-government as one of the five priorities of his management agenda;  accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has sponsored  25 initiatives to implement this agenda. This report specifically reviews the  challenge of achieving effective interorganizational collaboration within   4 of these 25 OMB-sponsored initiatives:   e-Payroll, an initiative to standardize payroll operations across all   Geospatial One-Stop, an initiative to help coordinate the collection and  maintenance of geospatial data across all levels of government; Integrated Acquisition Environment, an initiative to create electronic  tools to improve federal agencies’ acquisition of goods and services; and  Business Gateway, an initiative to reduce the paperwork burden on  small businesses and help them find, understand, and comply with  federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
Each of these initiatives demands a high degree of interorganizational  collaboration. Both e-Payroll and Integrated Acquisition Environment need  to work with a broad array of federal agencies. Geospatial One-Stop  depends on broad state and local government participation, and the  Business Gateway aims to serve the small business community.
As agreed with your office, our objectives were to review four OMB- sponsored e-government initiatives and determine (1) the progress that has  been made to date in implementing the selected initiatives, (2) the major  factors that can affect successful collaboration on e-government initiatives,  and (3) the extent to which federal agencies and other entities have been  collaborating on the selected initiatives. To assess the progress of the  initiatives and the extent to which agencies were collaborating on them, we  reviewed capital asset plans, communications strategies, and other project  documentation; conducted interviews with project officials; and assessed  electronic services made available to customers to date. We identified key  practices affecting collaboration on e-government initiatives through a  review of government, academic, and private sector literature on  interorganizational collaboration. Details on our objectives, scope, and  methodology are provided in appendix I. Our work was conducted from  December 2002 to September 2003 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: In the context of electronic government, collaboration can be defined as a  mutually beneficial and well-defined relationship entered into by two or  more organizations to achieve common goals. It is an in-depth, managed  relationship that brings together separate and distinct organizations into a  new structure. Recent management reform efforts within the federal  government have focused on collaboration as a way to reduce duplication  and integrate federal provision of services to the public. Collaboration is a  key theme of the President’s management agenda, published in 2002, which  aims at making the federal government more focused on citizens and  results.
One of the key provisions of the management agenda is the expansion of  electronic government. To implement this provision, OMB identified and is  working on projects that address the issue of multiple federal agencies  performing similar tasks that could be consolidated through e-government  processes and technology. Specifically, OMB established a team, known as  the E-Government Task Force, that analyzed the federal bureaucracy and  identified areas of significant overlap and redundancy in how federal  agencies provide services to the public. The task force found that multiple  agencies were conducting redundant operations within 30 major functions  and business lines in the executive branch. Further, each line of business  was being performed by an average of 19 agencies, and each agency was  involved in an average of 17 business lines. To address these redundancies,  the task force evaluated potential projects, focusing on collaborative  opportunities to integrate IT operations and simplify processes within lines  of business across agencies and around citizen needs. As a result of this  assessment, the task force identified a set of 25 high-profile initiatives to  lead the federal government’s drive toward e-government transformation  and enhanced service delivery through collaboration.
As the lead agency overseeing the management of these initiatives, OMB  developed a strategy for expanding electronic government, which it  published in February 2002. In its strategy, OMB established a portfolio  management structure to help oversee and guide the selected initiatives  and facilitate a collaborative working environment for each of them. This  structure includes five portfolios, each with a designated portfolio manager  reporting directly to OMB’s Associate Director for IT and E-Government.  The five portfolios are “government to citizen,” “government to business,”  “government to government,” “internal efficiency and effectiveness,” and  “cross-cutting.” Each of the 25 initiatives is assigned to one of these  portfolios, according to the type of results the initiative is intended to  provide. Further, for each initiative, OMB designated a specific agency to  be the initiative’s “managing partner,” responsible for leading the initiative,  and assigned other federal agencies as “partners” in carrying out the  initiative. Figure 1 provides an overview of the e-government management  structure established by OMB.
Successful implementation of the 25 cross-agency e-government  initiatives—resulting in reductions in redundancies and overlap of federal  programs and services—requires effective collaboration. Recognizing that  collaboration is challenging, the President’s budget for fiscal year 2004  highlighted the continuing need to establish a collaborative framework for  cross-agency e-government initiatives. In November 2002, we reported that  despite the importance placed on collaboration in OMB’s e-government  strategy, less than half of the initial business cases for the OMB-sponsored  initiatives addressed a strategy for successfully collaborating with other  government and nongovernment entities. Based on these results, we  recommended that the OMB Director ensure that managing partners of the  25 initiatives work with partner agencies to develop and document their  collaborative strategies.
section_title: E-Government Initiatives Have Made Progress in Their Initial Stages
paragraphs: All four of the e-government initiatives that we reviewed have met  milestones for the early phases of their planned activities. For example,  Web portals were established for two of the initiatives—www.geodata.gov  for the Geospatial One-Stop initiative and www.BusinessLaw.gov for the  Business Gateway. In addition, the Integrated Acquisition Environment  initiative established an online capability that federal customers can use to  access a variety of available interagency contracts. However, while the  projects are continuing to make progress, some of the tasks they face are  increasingly challenging, such as e-Payroll’s objective of establishing  governmentwide payroll processing standards or Geospatial One-Stop’s  goal of compiling a comprehensive inventory of geospatial data holdings. In  July 2003, OMB refocused one initiative, the Business Gateway, which had  been making slow progress on its previous objectives. OMB tied the  project’s objectives and milestones more closely to the Small Business  Paperwork Relief Act’s goal of reducing the burden of federal paperwork  on small businesses.
The goal of the e-Payroll initiative is to substantially improve federal  payroll operations by standardizing them across all agencies, integrating  them with other human resource functions, and making them easy to use  and cost-effective. To achieve this goal, plans are to consolidate the  operations of 22 existing federal payroll system providers; simplify and  standardize federal payroll policies and procedures; and better integrate  payroll, human resources, and finance functions across federal agencies.  OPM, the managing partner for e-Payroll, chose four agencies to be  providers of payroll services to all 116 executive branch agencies. The four  selected providers are GSA and the Departments of Defense, Interior, and  Agriculture. The initiative is divided into two major phases: (1) migrating  each of the 18 nonselected payroll system providers to one of the four  selected providers by September 2004 and (2) defining an enterprise  architecture consistent with the Federal Enterprise Architecture model and  identifying technology solutions to replace legacy systems. Figure 2 shows  the partners and affected parties for the e-Payroll initiative.
Of the 22 executive branch agencies that currently operate payroll systems,  6 also provide payroll services to other agencies. The four providers  selected by OPM—GSA, Defense’s Defense Finance and Accounting  Service, Interior’s National Business Center, and Agriculture’s National  Finance Center—handle more than 70 percent of all federal civilian payroll  processing and accommodating more than 190 different pay plans.  According to OPM, many of the 22 current providers use custom-built  systems that have been in operation for many years and need to be  replaced. Two of the largest providers needing system replacement  estimated the costs of implementing new systems at $46 to $600 million per  system. Conversely, OPM estimates that consolidating current federal  payroll systems would yield savings of approximately $1.1 billion over the  next 10 years. These savings would result from reducing operating costs,  eliminating duplicative systems investments, and simplifying payroll  processing.
According to OPM project management documents, major phase one  objectives of the initiative include (1) defining governance for the initiative,  (2) standardizing payroll policies, (3) establishing an e-Payroll enterprise  architecture, and (4) overseeing consolidation of agency payroll  operations. The first major project deliverable—establishing governance— was completed in June 2002, as scheduled. The providers have been  selected and a migration schedule established for nonselected agencies.  However, the other actions have been delayed. Standardization of policies,  originally scheduled for completion in June 2002, is currently ongoing. The  enterprise architecture planning task and the initial phase of agency  consolidations were both scheduled to begin in October 2002 but were not  initiated until January 2003. According to the project manager, these  schedule deviations have not led to a significant delay in the overall  progress of the initiative toward the goal of consolidating the 22 payroll  providers to 4 by September 2004. However, migrating the operations of the  18 nonselected providers to the selected providers, which began in  February 2003, could pose new challenges, because previously unidentified  discrepancies among agency policies may come to light.
subsections: section_title: Geospatial One-Stop
paragraphs: Geospatial One-Stop is intended to promote coordination of geospatial data  collection and maintenance across all levels of government. Geospatial  data—data associated with a geographic location—can be analyzed and  displayed through geographic information systems (GIS) to aid decision  makers at all levels of government. For example, the Department of Health  and Human Services uses GIS technology to analyze data on population  and topography (including roads, streams, and land elevation) in order to  track the spread of environmental contamination through a community.  Using the power of GIS to coordinate and integrate disparate kinds of  geospatial data can lead to better-informed decisions about public  investments in infrastructure and services—including national security, law  enforcement, health care, and the environment—as well as a more effective  and timely response in emergency situations. The specific objectives of the  Geospatial One-Stop initiative include (1) deploying an Internet portal for  one-stop access to geospatial data; (2) developing a set of data standards  for seven types of geospatial data; (3) creating an inventory of federal data  holdings; and (4) encouraging greater coordination among federal, state,  and local agencies about existing and planned geospatial data collection  projects.
The Department of the Interior is the managing partner agency for the  initiative. Other federal partners include the Departments of Agriculture,  Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, and Transportation; the  Environmental Protection Agency; and the National Aeronautics and Space  Administration. Stakeholders include nonpartner federal agencies, the  International City/County Management Association, the Intertribal GIS  Council, the National Association of State Chief Information Officers, the  National States Geographic Information Council, the National Association  of Counties, the National League of Cities, and the Western Governors  Association. Figure 3 shows the partners and affected parties for the  initiative.
The Geospatial One-Stop initiative has made progress toward achieving its  four objectives. In June 2003, the first publicly available version of the  Internet portal was made available online at www.geodata.gov. The portal  is intended to serve as a single access point for users seeking links to  geospatial data that were previously online but not as easily accessible. The  portal was originally scheduled to go online in 2004, based on work being  performed by the Open GIS Consortium. However, OMB accelerated this  schedule by requiring that the portal be operational by May 2003. In order  to have a portal operational within this time frame, the board agreed to turn  near-term work over to ESRI, Inc., which developed the portal based on  modifications to an existing portal it had built for Interior’s Bureau of Land  Management. Project officials now plan to make use of the Open GIS  Consortium’s development work to enhance www.geodata.gov in 2004.
Regarding the second objective—data standards development—project  officials developed draft versions of each of the planned standards on  schedule in 2003. In most cases the drafts are simplified version of older  standards developed by and for federal agency use. The draft standards  were provided for informal public review and comment on the Geospatial  One-Stop Web site. By the end of September 2003, project officials had  submitted these drafts to the American National Standards Institute, where  formal public review will be conducted and the standards will be finalized.  Project officials expect the standards to be approved in 2004.
Progress in developing an inventory of federal geospatial data holdings— Geospatial One-Stop’s third objective—has been limited. OMB Circular   A-11 required that by the end of February 2003, agencies make accessible  and searchable for posting on the Internet metadata about all data sets  with a replacement cost exceeding $1 million. Potential users of geospatial  data sets need metadata to determine whether the data are useful for their  purposes and to be aware of any special stipulations about processing and  interpreting the data. An initial inventory of 256,000 existing federal data  sets was assembled and made available through the Geospatial One-Stop  portal when it was implemented in June 2003, and the Geospatial One-Stop  Web site provides an online tool to assist agencies in documenting their  geospatial metadata. However, the extent to which agencies have met  requirements for submitting metadata is unknown. According to the  project’s metadata coordinator, agencies may not be aware of their  responsibilities for posting metadata about their geospatial submissions. To  address this issue, the project team is planning to take steps to improve  communication with federal agencies to help ensure that they understand  their responsibilities for making geospatial data publicly accessible.
To encourage greater coordination among federal, state, and local agencies  about existing and planned geospatial data collection projects (the  initiative’s fourth objective), an intergovernmental board of directors was  established. The purpose of the board is to help ensure collaboration  among potential stakeholders from all government sectors. In addition, a  Geospatial One-Stop Web site (www.geo-one-stop.gov) was created to  provide information about the project, its progress, and its benefits; the  project’s management staff and executive director provide briefings across  the country to facilitate coordination with states and localities; and an  outreach coordinator was appointed to further communication and  coordination among partners and stakeholders.
section_title: Integrated Acquisition Environment
paragraphs: The overall goal of the Integrated Acquisition Environment initiative is to  create a secure suite of electronic tools to facilitate cost-effective  acquisition of goods and services by federal agencies, while eliminating  inefficiencies in the current acquisition process. To meet this goal, plans  are to (1) consolidate common acquisition functions through a shared  services environment; (2) leverage existing acquisition capabilities within  agencies to create a simpler, common, integrated business process for  buyers and sellers that promotes competition, transparency, and integrity;  and (3) develop cross-agency standards to eliminate duplication of effort  and redundancy of data. GSA is the managing partner agency. In addition,  31 other federal agencies are considered participating partners in the  initiative. Figure 4 shows the partners and affected parties for this  initiative.
Regarding its first objective of consolidating common acquisition functions  through a shared services environment, the project was generally on  schedule at the time of our review, although several interim milestones  were completed later than scheduled. An example of one of the tasks  within this objective is the development of “eMarketplace,” an online  capability intended to provide federal customers a single access point to  interagency contracts and electronic catalogs for goods and services. In  July 2002 an initial operational directory structure for interagency  contracts was completed, and in May 2003 the directory was made  available online for agencies to populate with their contract data. The  development of the directory structure had been scheduled for December  2002, but it was delayed because the approval process required to make  changes to federal acquisition regulations was lengthier than had been  anticipated.
Overall there have been no significant deviations from the planned  schedule for tasks within the second objective, leveraging existing agency  acquisition capabilities to create a common, integrated business process  for buyers and sellers. For example, the Integrated Acquisition  Environment’s Business Partner Network, based on the Department of  Defense’s Central Contractor Registration system, is intended to provide a  single point of registration, validation, and access for grantees, federal  entities, and companies seeking to do business with the federal  government. Since March 2002, the project team has been working to  develop this network to serve as a single source for vendor data for the  government, to integrate data with other vendor-based systems in the  government, and to establish a process for verifying vendor information  with third parties, such as vendors’ Taxpayer Identification Numbers with  the Internal Revenue Service. In February 2003, as scheduled, the Business  Partner Network completed the development of an online system that  allows contractors to enter their representations and certification  information once for use on all government contracts. Previously, vendors  were required to submit representations and certification individually for  each large purchase contract award.
Initial work addressing the project’s third objective—developing cross- agency standards to eliminate duplication of effort and redundancy of  data—was also on schedule at the time of our review. The standards to be  developed under this objective include data elements, business definitions,  interfaces, and agency roles and responsibilities regarding government  acquisition data. These standards are expected to serve as a foundation for  redesigning the current inefficient process of government-to-government  transactions by streamlining ordering, billing, and collection and improving  reconciliation of intragovernmental transactions. Since March 2002, the  project team has been working on the first task of the standards  development process—developing a map of current acquisition practices  and defining future acquisition processes. According to project managers,  the project team completed this task by the end of September 2003.
The implementation phase for the Integrated Acquisition Environment  project is scheduled for completion by December 2004. While GSA had  successfully completed several scheduled milestones at the time of our  review, other major tasks lie ahead. These tasks include (1) ensuring that  the online directory of contracts is populated and kept up to date, which  will require all federal agencies to submit their data into the directory in a  standardized format; (2) deploying commercial standards to facilitate  interaction among shared acquisition systems, between shared systems  and agency systems, and between shared systems and vendor systems; and  (3) redesigning and deploying government-to-government transactions,  which calls for standard procedures and common data elements to  integrate disparate systems and processes across the federal government.
section_title: Business Gateway
paragraphs: The Business Gateway is a cross-agency, intergovernmental effort to  create a Web services portal that reduces the burden on small businesses  by making it easier for them to find, understand, and comply with  governmental laws and regulations. It is intended to provide small  businesses with one-stop access to information about federal, state, and  local laws and regulations and how to comply with them. More specifically,  the Business Gateway is intended to help businesses find information on  laws and regulatory requirements, provide assistance through automated  tools designed to help businesses understand their regulatory obligations,  and transact business by supporting online permit applications and  licensing tools. The initiative is focused on four functional areas— environmental protection, workplace health and safety, employment, and  taxes—as well as several specific industries, including trucking and mining.  SBA is the managing partner agency. Other federal partners include the  Environmental Protection Agency; the Department of Labor and its  component agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration;  GSA; the Internal Revenue Service; and the Departments of Transportation,  Energy, Interior, and Homeland Security. Nonfederal partners include trade  associations and state chief information officers from Washington, Illinois,  Georgia, Missouri, Iowa, and New Jersey. Figure 5 shows the partners and  affected parties for this initiative.
The initiative was originally planned to be implemented in two separate  phases. Phase one was to consist of implementing www.BusinessLaw.gov, a  Web portal intended to serve as a single place for finding “plain English”  legal guides and legal and regulatory information links from all 50 states  and compliance assistance in 17 areas, such as workplace safety or  environmental protection. This phase was completed when the portal  became operational in December 2001. The second phase was to make the  portal more interactive and broader in focus. More specifically, phase two  objectives included (1) developing a navigation tool known as a “portal  maximizer,” intended to enhance access to laws and regulations by helping  users to quickly find relevant information from large amounts of data;  (2) offering a range of automated compliance assistance tools for specific  kinds of regulations, as well as a “profiler” to identify applicable tools; and  (3) prototyping a transaction engine for integrated business registration,  online licensing, and permitting.
Before the project was refocused in July 2003, SBA had made only limited  progress toward achieving phase two objectives and was not on track to  meet its planned 2003 milestones. A pilot version of the planned portal  maximizer had been implemented, but only four of the planned automated  compliance assistance tools had been developed. Project plans called for  up to 30 additional compliance assistance expert tools to be developed  during the second phase of the project. The profiler was also behind  schedule, with only mockups of the planned user interface developed.  Work on three specialized portals for the trucking, food, and chemical  industries was also behind schedule. The project manager attributed the  incomplete progress to a funding shortfall within SBA for fiscal year 2003.
On July 1, 2003, OMB announced that it was refocusing the project to  reduce the paperwork burden on small businesses. The decision was based  on the findings of an interagency task force created by OMB in response to  requirements of the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002. In its  final report, the task force stated that it believed the initiative showed  promise as a means for achieving the purpose of the Small Business  Paperwork Relief Act, since it was intended to ultimately provide small  businesses a single point of entry for regulatory compliance information.  The refocused project is now aimed at creating a gateway for compliance  assistance and online transactions that would reduce the paperwork  burden through integrated electronic forms. One of the stated goals of the  planned gateway is to increase federal agencies’ compliance with the  Government Paperwork Elimination Act to at least 75 percent by  September 2004. This was to be achieved by creating, with the help of GSA,  a central online repository for federal forms and by consolidating  information collections and forms with similar data elements. Another goal  is to reduce redundant data and the overall number of federal forms by at  least 10 percent.
According to several participating agency representatives, it is unclear how  the change in the project’s focus will affect implementation of the  previously planned modules, such as the profiler and the compliance tools.  At the time of our review, no decision had been made about what funding  or other resources would be made available to continue development  efforts that had been previously under way as part of phase two of the  project.
section_title: Key Practices Facilitate Interagency Collaboration
paragraphs: With the increasing focus on collaboration brought about by the move  toward e-government, there has been a need to identify key characteristics  that contribute to the success of cross-organizational collaborative   e-government projects. Based on a review of government, private sector,  and academic research and guidance, we identified five broad key  practices that can have a significant impact on the effectiveness of  collaboration across disparate organizations. These key collaboration  practices could have a significant impact on whether the 25 OMB- sponsored e-government initiatives are successful. Taken as a whole, these  factors can provide an interorganizational project team with the  fundamentals for an effective collaborative process.
Establishing a collaborative management structure. Building a  collaborative management structure across participating organizations  is an essential foundation for ensuring effective collaboration.  According to the literature we reviewed, strong leadership is critical to  the success of intergovernmental initiatives. Involvement by leaders  from all levels is important for maintaining commitment and keeping a  project on track. Defining a comprehensive structure of participants’  roles and responsibilities is also a key factor. For example, according to  a 1998 study by the Intergovernmental Advisory Board, a project to  develop a nationwide law enforcement information system was  successful due to the establishment of a policy board responsible for  coordination and partnership within the law enforcement community.  The board’s members represented law enforcement organizations at all  levels of government, and the board provided a structure and process to  ensure a voice for each member of the partnership.
Maintaining collaborative relationships. Once a collaborative  management structure is in place, well-defined, equitable working  relationships must be developed and take root in order to ensure  effective ongoing collaboration. Researchers have found that all the  partners in a collaborative undertaking need to share a common vision  and work in a climate of trust and respect in order to elicit full  participation. An important element of establishing effective  collaborative relationships is to reach formal agreements with each  partner organization on a clear purpose, expected outputs, and realistic  performance measures. For example, in an intergovernmental project  led by the state of Pennsylvania to enhance its vehicle emissions  program, a broad coalition of stakeholder groups representing  government, private businesses, and special interest groups were  directly involved in selecting a strategy and designing the program.  According to a GSA study of the project, the participants worked well  together and endorsed the process primarily because all views were  considered seriously and many suggestions were incorporated.
Contributing resources equitably. The responsibility for meeting a  project’s resource requirements needs to be equitably distributed among  project participants. In order to facilitate a collaborative environment,  each participating organization should contribute resources in the form  of human capital or funding to demonstrate its commitment to the  success of the project. In addition, formal processes to collect these  resources from partner agencies—such as written agreements to  document the resource contributions expected from each partner—are  useful to support this practice. According to a study performed by the  Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, a collaborative group needs to  consider the resources of its members. Similarly, partner organizations  must be prepared to devote substantial staff hours to the collaborative  effort.
Facilitating communication and outreach. Another key element of  effective collaboration is developing and implementing effective  communication and outreach mechanisms. Tools that clearly  communicate the project status and needs among all partners should be  used continuously, targeting all partner organizations and their key  decision makers. In addition, effective outreach mechanisms are  important to keep other stakeholders informed who may not be actively  involved in developing systems or business processes, and an outreach  plan may be needed to specify tasks and mechanisms to help promote  interest and participation in the project. For example, while working on  a collaborative project to reduce highway fatalities, the Department of  Transportation implemented a knowledge-sharing management portal  to facilitate the exchange of information and ideas between the Federal  Highway Administration and the states. This communication tool  proved to be effective in ensuring widespread and frequent  communication and was subsequently implemented in other  transportation communities.
Adopting a common set of standards. Developing a common set of  standards that are agreed to and used by all project partners is a key  factor for effective collaboration. Such standards provide a basis for  more seamless systems, data, and business process integration on  collaborative projects, and help to ensure that those systems and  processes can work together. Specifically, ensuring that there are  processes in place by which project partners can select and agree upon  standards and that all partners are adopting them are key factors in  establishing these essential common standards. In GSA’s Government  Without Boundaries program, which provided a virtual pool of  government information and services, all stakeholders agreed to a  technical approach for interoperability and implemented a  demonstration to prove the concept.
These five key practices and their major elements are summarized in   table 1.
section_title: Initiatives Have Achieved Varying Degrees of Collaboration
paragraphs: The four initiatives we reviewed have all taken steps to promote  collaboration with their partner agencies. However, none of the initiatives  has been fully effective in collaborating with important stakeholders. In  comparing the four initiatives’ ongoing and planned activities with the key  collaboration practices, we identified significant accomplishments as well  as shortcomings and potential challenges. For example, regarding two key  practices (establishing a collaborative management structure and  contributing resources equitably) we found that three of the four  initiatives—e-Payroll, Geospatial One-Stop, and Integrated Acquisition  Environment—had taken actions that met planned objectives or that  stakeholders found to be effective. However, regarding another key  practice—facilitating communication and outreach—an equal number  (Geospatial One-Stop, Integrated Acquisition Environment, and Business  Gateway) had not taken all the steps they could. The four initiatives have  all faced short time frames to accomplish their tasks, and they generally  have not fully adopted key collaboration practices because of other  competing priorities. However, without involving important stakeholders,  the initiatives increase the risk that they will not fully achieve their  objectives or the broader goals of the President’s management agenda.
OPM has taken positive steps to facilitate collaboration among the   e-Payroll initiative’s partners, such as (1) establishing a management  structure with well-defined partner agency roles and responsibilities and  (2) including the four provider agencies in its effort to identify a common  set of payroll standards for the federal government. However, OPM has not  fully addressed concerns raised as part of the collaborative process,  including concerns about potential changes to payroll standards that may  be required for the final migration to the two provider partnerships.  Interagency collaboration on developing a common set of payroll standards  is particularly important because federal agencies operate under a variety  of legislative mandates that have complex requirements for payroll  processing, all of which must be fully addressed in the new standards. In  table 2, we provide an overview of the initiative’s implementation of the key  collaboration practices that we identified earlier, followed by a discussion  of each of the practices.
Establishing a collaborative management structure. OPM has provided  guidance to its partner agencies that defines roles and responsibilities  and specifies those partners’ responsibilities with respect to their  collaborative relationships with their payroll customers. For example, in  memorandums of agreement with the four selected payroll providers,  OPM defined the structure that would be used to manage the project.  The management structure includes the four provider agencies, a  payroll advisory council with 11 representatives from different federal  agencies, different functional areas (such as human resources, IT, and  financial management), and OMB. In addition, OPM developed a plan  that outlines the content of service level agreements between payroll  providers and their agency clients. According to the plan, such  agreements should detail both the scope of client services and  performance expectations for the service provider and should  specifically address issues such as change management, billing  procedures, and support services. Officials from the Department of  Agriculture’s National Finance Center and the Department of the  Interior’s National Business Center, two of OPM’s four partner agencies,  cited this project management approach as successful in promoting  collaboration on the e-Payroll project.
Maintaining collaborative relationships. OPM has taken steps to  develop and maintain collaborative relationships with its partners and  other federal stakeholders. OPM established a group with  representatives from the four payroll providers, which holds regular  meetings to address project status and other initiative issues. Officials  from three of the four provider agencies told us that this group has been  very effective in affording them the opportunity to discuss common  issues and concerns. Specifically, Interior’s National Business Center  representative told us that this forum allowed the federal payroll  providers to discuss standardizing and implementing two recent  governmentwide payroll actions—the initiation of flexible spending  accounts (a program of optional pretax health and dependent care  savings accounts for federal employees) and a retroactive federal pay  raise for the first part of 2003—resulting in a consolidated  governmentwide time frame for the availability of these features.
In order to elicit full participation, all partners in a collaborative  undertaking need to share a common vision and work in a climate of  trust and respect. One way to create such an environment is by ensuring  that all stakeholder concerns are articulated and fully addressed.  However, according to one stakeholder, OPM has not always effectively  addressed concerns by agencies being affected by e-Payroll  consolidation. Specifically, the director of the Payroll/HR Systems  Service at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) told us that his  department was not allowed enough time to make a complete  evaluation of payroll providers before OPM finalized its decision to align  the department with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. VA  had advised OPM in writing that it had concerns that needed to be  resolved before the selection of a provider was finalized. According to  VA projections, migrating to the Defense Finance and Accounting  Service would be both costly and inefficient, because VA would have to  separate its payroll system from its human resources system. However,  OPM’s written responses did not directly address VA’s concerns but  instead emphasized that time available to reconsider the decision was  short. For example, in a letter dated January 14, 2003, OPM informed VA  that a business case justifying VA’s position would have to be prepared  and submitted within 2 days. While OPM exercises the ultimate  authority in deciding how payroll operations are to be consolidated, it  could put e-Payroll’s overall schedule at risk by not fully considering and  responding to stakeholder concerns.
Contributing resources equitably. OPM has instituted a collaborative  strategy for financing the e-Payroll project that includes guidance  identifying the responsibilities of partner and other participating  agencies for contributing resources for the e-Payroll initiative. For  example, OPM’s plan for financing the consolidation of payroll service  providers and the migration of agency payroll operations to designated  service providers states that the provider agencies are to recover the  costs of their operations from fees levied on their customers as defined  in service level agreements. In addition, OPM’s plan relied on OMB to  apportion funds to the providers for migration expenses by identifying  agency funding contributions in fiscal years 2003 and 2004. The intent  was to redirect funding that had been planned for upgrades or other  payroll system operations and maintenance to support the  governmentwide effort. In keeping with this intent, officials from  Energy, Health and Human Services, and the Nuclear Regulatory  Commission reported that they were using funds earmarked for upgrade  and maintenance of payroll systems to finance migration costs.
Facilitating communication and outreach. The e-Payroll management  team has taken steps to facilitate effective communication of project  status and needs. For example, OPM began by inventorying  stakeholders to identify those affected by the initiative and then  developed a plan for communicating with them. The resulting  communications plan identified a variety of methods for conveying  project information to affected parties, including direct meetings,  workshops, telephone contact, and formal letters to agency heads  regarding significant decisions relating to the initiative. OPM also held a  governmentwide forum intended to provide information about e-Payroll  to agencies and facilitate interaction among the executive branch  agencies and the selected providers. In addition, three of the four  designated payroll providers reported that attending the quarterly  provider conferences and participating in biweekly conference calls  sponsored by OPM were effective communications mechanisms.
Adopting a common set of standards. Consolidating the existing 22  federal payroll systems into a single system requires that OPM develop a  common set of payroll standards that will meet the requirements of  multiple federal agencies with different missions and legislated payroll  constraints. OPM has taken steps to help ensure that federal agencies  have input on development of a common set of standards. For example,  OPM commissioned a study to identify significant differences among the  payroll processes of the existing 22 providers. Representatives of  agencies from a cross section of the executive branch, including all four  of OPM’s partners—the selected payroll providers—participated in the  study. The resulting 87 payroll standardization opportunities were  provided to federal agencies for review and comment. OPM received  approximately 250 comments and suggestions for action from federal  agencies on the standardization opportunities that it identified. These  agencies’ comments show the complexity of the standardization tasks  that OPM and its partners have yet to undertake—from proposing new  legislation to addressing union negotiations. According to OPM officials,  a focus group was established in July 2003 to further analyze the  previously identified opportunities and develop recommended  solutions. Officials told us that standardizing the payroll process is an  ongoing process and that work to develop a single payroll standard  would continue with input from other federal agencies.
Although OPM has involved its partners and other federal agencies in  the process of identifying opportunities for standardization, it still faces  the challenging task of getting federal agencies to reach agreement on a  single payroll standard that they all can use. As agencies migrate to  consolidated payroll providers, changes may need to be made either to  the providers’ payroll processes and standards—so that the various  payroll mandates can be accommodated—or to the mandated  requirements themselves, so that agencies can conform to a single  standard. Fully identifying and assessing the impact on agencies of  potential payroll standards will be a challenging effort. For example,  VA’s Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Finance expressed concern  that OPM officials might not appreciate the complexities of  administering payroll systems under Title 38 of the United States  Code—the legislation that governs VA’s payroll processes—and that  changes would be necessary to support VA’s payroll processing once it  migrates to its new payroll provider. According to an OPM study, in  addition to Title 38, there at least 13 other sets of legislated federal  payroll provisions that will need to be reviewed and addressed before  consolidated federal payroll systems can be implemented. Without  effective interagency collaboration, changes mandated by OPM may not  fully address agencies’ individual payroll processing requirements,  increasing the risk that agencies will not be able to migrate as planned  to their new payroll providers. In commenting on a draft of this report,  OPM officials stated that they have taken steps to ensure that a  collaborative process was in place for payroll standards development,  based on establishing a focus group of cross-agency representatives  within the Payroll Advisory Council. If supported by a detailed strategy,  OPM’s action may help to address this issue.
The e-Payroll initiative has achieved initial progress based in part on an  effective collaborative management structure and collaborative  relationships with its designated payroll providers. However, the issue  regarding consideration of VA’s concerns could have an adverse impact on  the success of the project as migration of agency payroll operations  progresses. Furthermore, unless OPM places increased emphasis on  collaboration as governmentwide standards are developed and  consolidation of payroll systems progresses, it will be at increased risk that  the consolidated systems will not meet the needs of all federal agencies.
subsections: section_title: Geospatial One-Stop
paragraphs: Ensuring effective collaboration on Geospatial One-Stop is a significant  challenge. In addition to the eight federal agencies designated as partners,  the project’s stakeholders include thousands of state and local  governments, as well as other nonpartner federal agencies. State and local  agencies perform key functions in collecting and managing geospatial  data—it is estimated that about 90 percent of geospatial data is collected by  state and local governments, and that those governments invest over twice  as much as the federal government to collect and maintain such data.  Consequently, states’ and localities’ participation in the Geospatial One- Stop initiative is critical. Interior has taken steps to include nonfederal  stakeholders on the project. For example, it established an  intergovernmental management structure, conducted briefings at meetings  and conferences across the country to promote stakeholder participation,  appointed an outreach coordinator to facilitate communication with  stakeholders, and included states and localities in drafting national  geospatial data standards. However, given the large number of  stakeholders, Interior has not yet ensured that many states and localities  are involved in the project. In addition, although Interior has collaborated  with its partners and other stakeholders in developing draft geospatial  standards, it has not taken steps to ensure that those standards will be used  by a majority of the project’s federal, state, or local stakeholders. Table 3 is  an overview of the key collaboration practices as implemented by the  Geospatial One-Stop initiative, followed by further discussion.
Establishing a collaborative management structure. Geospatial One-  Stop includes eight federal partners and thousands of other  stakeholders—over 3,000 counties, over 18,000 municipalities, and the  50 states, as well as other federal agencies that are not partners on the  project. To help ensure that nonfederal stakeholders have a voice in the  direction of the project, Interior established an intergovernmental board  of directors that votes on significant decisions, such as selection of the  portal architecture and establishment of project schedule dates.
Two-thirds of the votes are held by state, local, and tribal  representatives, and one-third by federal partner agencies.  Establishment of the board has worked well to facilitate collaborative  intergovernmental management and oversight of the Geospatial One- Stop initiative. For example, at recent board meetings, members  discussed issues such as the status of the initiative, standards concerns,  and the management structure of the initiative as reflected in its most  recent business case. The representative to the board from the National  States Geographic Information Council told us that state, county, and  municipal levels of government were well represented and played a  useful role in providing alternative views about the direction of the  initiative.
Maintaining collaborative relationships. While Geospatial One-Stop  has established a management structure to facilitate collaboration, it  has made less progress in defining working relationships among its  collaborative partners. One positive step was the development of a  charter for the project’s board of directors, which discusses authority,  responsibilities, voting procedures, and coordinating mechanisms for  the board members. The charter was signed by each of the board’s  members. However, at the time of our review, other than this charter,  only one memorandum of understanding had been established regarding  collaborative relationships—an agreement on coordinating GIS  standards related to homeland security, which was signed by the  Federal Geographic Data Committee, the U.S. Geological Survey, and  the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. Without formal agreements  among the Geospatial One-Stop project partners, it may be difficult to  sustain a shared vision for the project and ensure that progress is being  made toward achieving its objectives.
Contributing resources equitably. While Geospatial One-Stop initially  had difficulty obtaining resource contributions from federal partner  agencies, these early problems have largely been resolved. According to  the executive director, partner agencies did not contribute funds for  fiscal year 2002 as had been projected in the project’s capital asset plan,  even though the agencies had been involved in preparing the plan.  Instead, Interior provided all fiscal year 2002 funds for the project. For  fiscal year 2003, the capital asset plan estimated that Interior would  contribute about $2.2 million, while the other seven partner agencies  would contribute the remaining $6.2 million. According to a project  official, all agencies have made their planned contributions. The  availability of funds from partner agencies in fiscal year 2003 has  allowed Geospatial One-Stop to complete several tasks on schedule,  such as deploying the initial version of the www.geodata.gov portal and  submitting draft national geospatial data standards to the American  National Standards Institute.
Facilitating communication and outreach. The Geospatial One-Stop  project team uses a number of different mechanisms to communicate  information about the project to potential stakeholders and the public.  For example, the project management team established a Web site that  provides information such as minutes of the board of directors  meetings, links to partners’ and other stakeholders’ Web sites,  geospatial data standards, and the most recent Geospatial One-Stop  business case. The executive director and other Geospatial One-Stop  project members also provide briefings and question-and-answer  sessions at conferences and participate in other forums to provide  information about the project to other stakeholders. The project’s  executive director attended the midyear meeting of the National States  Geographic Information Council, where he provided a briefing and a  luncheon talk about Geospatial One-Stop to all attendees and addressed  the attendees’ questions and concerns. In addition, the initiative’s  project team, in conjunction with the National Association of Counties,  the National League of Cities, and the International City/County  Managers Association, conducted a survey of local governments to  gather information about the extent of respondents’ use of geospatial  data and the reasons why such data are not being used more extensively  by those governments.
Despite these measures, according to state GIS officials the project has  not yet gained participation from other governments because they may  not perceive it to be beneficial to undertake the effort and expense of  documenting and making available local geospatial data for inclusion in  the www.geodata.gov portal. For example, the executive director of  Vermont’s Center for Geographic Information, Inc., told us that he did  not know whether Vermont’s geospatial data holdings were being  considered for inclusion in Geospatial One-Stop and that the benefits of  participation had not been well communicated. In addition, Montana’s  GIS coordinator told us that Montana had not yet committed to  participate in the project and that state government officials did not  understand the benefits of participating. According to the Geospatial  One-Stop Capital Asset Plan, Interior is planning to provide incentives  for state, local, and tribal governments to participate, although the  project’s executive director told us that carrying out these plans is  contingent on approval of funding. Also, in a draft of Interior’s fiscal  year 2005 plan, several planned actions to accomplish these tasks have  been identified. Planned actions include providing funding to help state,  local, and tribal organizations to become more engaged in  intergovernmental geospatial activities and establishing a liaison  program with funding to local stakeholder associations to work with  Geospatial One-Stop and serve as a liaison between federal agencies and  those associations. In addition, according to the Geospatial One-Stop  outreach coordinator, other efforts not provided in the initiative’s capital  asset plans include identifying opportunities to promote geospatial  information as part of the state and local government policy efforts and  enhance outreach in other areas of the project, such as standards  development and management of the portal. However, there are no  plans to develop a formal outreach plan for the Geospatial One-Stop  initiative. Unless a detailed plan is documented and implemented for  conducting effective outreach, state and local geospatial information  may remain inaccessible through the Geospatial One-Stop portal,  significantly reducing the usefulness of the portal as a central access  point for such data.
Adopting a common set of standards. Interior has taken steps to  collaboratively develop a set of basic standards to support the collection  of interoperable geospatial data for the Geospatial One-Stop initiative.  Specifically, project participants have drafted standards for seven types  of data as well as a base standard, with participants from other federal  agencies, states, localities, the private sector, and academia  participating in their development. However, participation in the  standards-setting process has been limited. Several large nonpartner  federal agencies—such as the Departments of Treasury, Justice, and  Health and Human Services—were not represented on the standards  development effort. In addition, local government representation  included only 23 counties and 3 cities. As a result, the risk is substantial  that many federal and local stakeholders may not adopt the proposed  standards because those standards may not meet their needs.
Further, definition of the standards is only the first step in realizing their  benefits; Geospatial One-Stop has not addressed the challenge of  gaining consistent implementation of the standards across  governments—a key factor in effective collaboration. Many states and  localities have already established Web sites that provide a variety of  location-related information services, such as updated traffic and  transportation information, land ownership and tax records, and  information on housing for the elderly, using existing commercial  products that are already meeting their needs. Hence these  organizations are likely to have little incentive to adopt potentially  incompatible standards that could require substantial new investments.  According to Arizona’s state cartographer, many local governments  currently do not comply with existing federal standards because most of  their GIS applications were created primarily to meet their internal  needs, with little concern for data sharing with federal systems. If  designated standards are not widely adopted, geospatial data could  continue to be collected in incompatible formats and systems,  preventing officials from gaining the benefits of better-informed  decisions about public investments in infrastructure and services based  on an integrated view of geospatial information.
While the Geospatial One-Stop project established a significant  collaborative management structure in its broadly representative board of  directors, the project has not fully adopted other key collaborative  practices. It faces significant challenges in obtaining participation from  thousands of potential project stakeholders and obtaining their agreement  on and implementation of geospatial data standards. Such participation  will be difficult to achieve without a more structured and rigorous outreach  effort to involve federal, state, and local government agencies.
section_title: Integrated Acquisition Environment
paragraphs: The General Services Administration has taken steps to ensure that a  variety of mechanisms are in place to facilitate collaboration on the  Integrated Acquisition Environment initiative. For example, the project  team developed a formal charter outlining the objectives, tasks, and roles  and responsibilities of project partners, and it is in the process of  completing implementation of memorandums of agreement with all  participating agencies to further define their roles and financial  responsibilities. In addition, GSA has developed a communication strategy  for the initiative to help ensure that partners and stakeholders are  informed. However, that strategy does not include key financial decision  makers throughout the government, although our research shows that such  officials should be informed of project status and needs on a continuous  basis. Finally, GSA’s plans for developing standards for the federal  acquisitions process are in line with the key practices that we identified.  Table 4 provides an overview of the initiative’s collaboration practices,  followed by further discussion.
Establishing a collaborative management structure. The project team  established a charter for the Integrated Acquisition Environment  initiative that all partners and stakeholders agreed to during the initial  phase of the project. According to the project manager, the interagency  development of and agreement to the initiative’s charter allowed the  project team to collectively establish a common foundation for working  collaboratively on the initiative. In addition, the project management  team established a structure of subteams responsible for leading  development within each of five project modules defined in the charter.  The subteams consist of representatives from at least 22 agencies who  are tasked with serving as the primary liaisons between their agencies  and the project management team. This well-defined subteam structure  can contribute to effective collaboration at the working level among the  many agencies involved in the project. Further, GSA is in the process of  developing a comprehensive change management plan to be completed  in early 2004. This plan is to address stakeholder involvement through  the use of multi-agency, cross-functional teams at the executive level  and collaborative design of the system through business area teams  populated with partner agency representatives.
Maintaining collaborative relationships. The project management  team is in the process of establishing memorandums of agreement with  each partner agency; these agreements further define each partner’s role  and expected funding contributions. As of September 2003,  memorandums of agreement had been signed with 21 agencies, 3 were  near completion, and 7 remained to be completed. In addition, GSA  officials reported that several collaborative forums for Integrated  Acquisition Environment stakeholders were in place. For example,  business area teams and project managers hold regular weekly  meetings, which serve to reinforce collaborative relationships that cut  across organizational boundaries. In addition, an Industry Advisory  Board provides industry perspectives on priority needs, requirements,  best practices, and trends. Officials from 10 partner and stakeholder  agencies that we contacted indicated that the project’s collaboration  mechanisms were effective.
Contributing resources equitably. To date, the project has been  successful in obtaining resource contributions from most of its partner  agencies. According to GSA officials, as of September 2003, 94 percent  of requested funds had been received. According to the project  managers, GSA anticipates that all participating partner agencies will  contribute their allotted amounts in fiscal year 2004.
Facilitating communication and outreach. The Integrated Acquisition  Environment’s project team has taken a number of concrete steps to  build communication and outreach among partners and stakeholders.  For instance, the team has developed a detailed communication plan  that clearly identifies their audience, as well as various communication  tactics, such as creating e-mail news updates, participating in “industry  days,” meeting with agencies’ senior officials, and contributing content  to the press. Project officials also established an online workspace  where participants can share information, organize conferences to share  information with private industry, and hold regular team meetings.  According to comments from several participants and interested parties,  these strategies are effective in providing necessary information  regarding the initiative. Interior’s deputy assistant secretary for  performance and management, for example, noted that these measures  have been effective at promoting collaboration by focusing on sharing  information and generating agency support for the initiative.
However, the project team has not included all stakeholders that it could  in its communication and outreach efforts. Specifically, Chief Financial  Officers (CFO) of partner and stakeholder agencies, who make key  decisions about financial contributions to the initiative, said they had  not been included and consequently have not been kept up to date about  the objectives and requirements of the initiative. Representatives of the  partner agency CFOs provided suggestions that highlighted  shortcomings in GSA’s communications with the financial community to  date. For example, Treasury’s CFO noted that the specific objectives of  the initiative should be communicated to senior financial managers so  that they understand how the initiative will support the missions of their  organizations. According to the assistant CFO for the Department of  Housing and Urban Development, the project team could more  effectively reach the financial community by interacting regularly with  the federal CFO Council, a mechanism established as a focal point for  financial management issues in the federal government. According to  the Integrated Acquisition Environment’s project managers, increased  support from the CFOs could increase the likelihood of partner agencies  contributing funds to the initiative. These officials told us that they are  working to better include financial decision makers in future project  communications by updating the project’s communication plan to  include agencies’ CFOs and coordinating more actively with the CFO  council as new project modules are developed. In commenting on a  draft of this report, GSA officials stated that GSA has scheduled  discussions about the initiative with a cross section of CFOs and plans  to invite a representative of the CFO Council to participate in the  Integrated Acquisition Environment governance body. However, at the  time of our review, these actions had not yet been completed. Without  taking such an inclusive approach, the project could be at greater risk of  not meeting its objectives due to future funding shortfalls.
Adopting a common set of standards. The lack of standardization in  government-to-government transactions adds to the complexity and  inefficiency of the current process. A primary objective of the Integrated  Acquisition Environment initiative is to establish standard data  elements, business definitions, interfaces, and roles and responsibilities  for government acquisitions. Achieving this objective is likely to be  challenging. Once agreed upon, the new standards are expected to  streamline the data handling processes, reduce workload, improve  billing accuracy, and help enforce data stewardship roles and  responsibilities. The project team’s standards development strategy  includes obtaining comments from as many affected federal agencies as  possible, which is in line with the key collaboration practices that we  identified. Having begun by mapping the process currently in place, the  project team intends in October 2003 to begin using commercial  standards to develop proposed standard interfaces. As proposed  standards are developed, the project team plans to distribute them to all  members of the federal procurement community—128 agencies—for  comment. The process of addressing these comments and reaching final  agreement on standards is likely to be challenging, given the number of  affected agencies.
GSA has adopted a variety of effective collaborative practices that have  contributed to progress in advancing the goals of the project. Like the other  initiatives, Integrated Acquisition Environment still faces additional  challenging tasks, especially in setting standards. Involving agency  financial decision makers could help reduce the risk that agencies may not  contribute resources in future years.
section_title: Business Gateway
paragraphs: Collaboration on the Business Gateway project is critical at two broad  levels. First, several key federal agencies that are responsible for business  regulation—such as the Departments of Labor and Transportation and the  Environmental Protection Agency—must collaborate to make it easier for  businesses to access and comply with their regulations. Second, the  Business Gateway project team must collaborate with industry-specific  groups that are the subject of business regulation—such as truckers and  miners—to ensure that the planned gateway will meet their needs. In  specific areas, such as development of the gateway’s profiler module,  collaboration has been successful. However, on the whole, SBA’s actions to  involve its partners and other stakeholders in the Business Gateway  initiative have not addressed many of the areas that we found to be  essential to achieving effective collaboration. SBA has not yet taken steps  to document project responsibilities in interagency agreements, achieve  equitable resource contributions among partners, or provide adequate  outreach to partners and potential stakeholders to ensure that they are  kept fully informed about the project. Table 5 is an overview of the key  collaboration practices as implemented by the Business Gateway initiative,  followed by further discussion.
Establishing a collaborative management structure. To facilitate  collaboration on the Business Gateway initiative, SBA developed a  project charter that addresses the goals of the initiative, its benefits,  project components, and critical success factors. However, the charter  does not define an interagency approach to managing the initiative,  discuss participants’ roles and responsibilities, or establish  collaborative decision-making processes. According to the Internal  Revenue Service’s (IRS) representative to the project, the charter  contains no specific assignment of responsibilities—it was developed  only to document general support for the concept of the initiative.  Without a well-defined decision-making process, including specified  roles and responsibilities, designated partner agencies may be unwilling  to make significant commitments to supporting the goals and objectives  of the initiative.
Maintaining collaborative relationships. SBA has not yet established  mechanisms to maintain effective relationships with its agency partners  or other stakeholders. Although it reached agreements in 2002 with four  of its nine federal partner agencies, those agreements specified single,  limited-scope project tasks rather than establishing working  relationships with a common vision for the initiative. For example,  SBA’s memorandum of understanding with IRS was to develop a pilot  program under which small businesses could apply for Federal  Employer Identification Numbers via the Internet rather than by mail or  fax. Similarly, SBA’s agreement with the Occupational Safety and Health  Administration was to develop a tool to help small businesses comply  with emergency standards. Further, SBA has not yet established formal  agreements with organizations that represent small businesses, such as  the American Trucking Association, the Owner-Operator Independent  Drivers Association, or the National Private Truck Council—all of whom  represent the ultimate intended beneficiaries of the initiative’s services.  According to the OMB portfolio manager for government-to-business  initiatives, the project has not been able to establish formal  collaboration agreements because key management components, such  as partner agency roles and responsibilities, have not yet been defined.  Without well-defined mechanisms for collaboration, the project risks  not meeting the needs of partner agencies or gaining their commitment  to continue supporting the project.
Contributing resources equitably. SBA also has not developed a  strategy for sharing resource commitments across its partner agencies.  On the contrary, the project manager’s strategy has relied solely on SBA  to fund the initiative. According to the OMB government-to-business  portfolio manager, SBA’s strategy was to promote collaboration by not  burdening potential partners with financial responsibilities for the  initiative. However, in taking on all financial responsibility, SBA also  took control of decision-making responsibility, which reduced agency  collaboration. Officials from designated partner agencies told us that  because they did not provide funds for the initiative, they have had little  input in the decision-making process and, as a result, do not have a  strong incentive to participate in the Business Gateway. Without the  involvement of partner agencies, the initiative risks not being able to  achieve its broader objective of providing small businesses with a single  integrated source for compliance with federal regulations.
Facilitating communication and outreach. The Business Gateway  initiative has produced examples of effective communication and  outreach. For example, SBA designated the Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA) to take the lead in developing the profiler, which is  intended to gather information about a user’s business (such as type of  business, number of employees, and so on) to aid in providing focused  assistance. Based on comments from participating agency  representatives, EPA has been effective at leading communication and  outreach for that task. EPA established a cross-agency workgroup that  meets weekly to discuss progress, make decisions, and address the next  steps with regard to development of the module. The profiler module  workgroup members also routinely coordinate via e-mail and telephone,  and EPA communicates updated information on development of the  profiler module at projectwide team meetings. Participants in the  workgroup told us they found that these meetings and briefings by EPA  were an effective means for collaboration. For example, according to  the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s representative on  the profiler workgroup, EPA did an excellent job of facilitating  consensus as to next steps, specifying what tasks were to be done by  participants, following up on performance, and relaying information or  requests from SBA.
However, despite subgroup examples such as this, communication and  outreach by SBA to partners and stakeholders projectwide remain  limited, with key decision makers not having access to up-to-date  information about the initiative. For example, according to the trucking  module leader, key agency decision makers were not involved in  meetings, conference calls, and monthly workgroup meetings, and  therefore agency participants were limited in their ability to support the  initiative because they could not make resource commitments. More  specifically, federal agency decision makers were often not present at  meetings where decisions, such as those on the costs and schedule,  were made for the initiative. As a result, project issues could not be  effectively discussed and resolved, slowing progress and hindering  collaboration.
Adopting a common set of standards. The Business Gateway project  team has adopted existing data and technical standards when they were  available. For example, the team examined the technical reference  model associated with the OMB-sponsored Federal Enterprise  Architecture to identify relevant standards and ensure that technical  elements of the gateway were compatible with the Federal Enterprise  Architecture. In cases where standards were not previously defined, the  project team either reached agreement or began a process to reach  agreement on ad hoc standards. For example, EPA and the Department  of Energy agreed to use the same set of basic key words to direct  inquiries by users on topics related to environmental protection  regulations. These practices are in line with key practices that we  identified for adopting common sets of standards.
The collaboration challenges faced by the Business Gateway project may  have contributed to the slow progress on recent work. Specifically, the lack  of well-defined roles and responsibilities may have inhibited the  stakeholder participation necessary to complete tasks on schedule. The  lack of shared responsibility for funding the project may have also limited  stakeholder commitment. In addition, limited communication and outreach  left key partners and stakeholders ill-informed about the initiative’s  progress and development issues.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Each of the four e-government initiatives has made progress toward  achieving its overall objectives. A number of early goals have been  achieved, including establishing Web portals such as www.geodata.gov for  the Geospatial One-Stop initiative and www.BusinessLaw.gov for the  Business Gateway project. All four initiatives rely on cross-agency  collaboration, and they still have a number of tasks to complete, some of  which require extensive interorganizational cooperation and could be very  challenging.
In our assessment of previous research into cross-organizational  collaboration, five broad key practices emerged as being of critical  importance. These practices include establishing a collaborative  management structure, maintaining collaborative relationships,  contributing resources equitably, facilitating communication and outreach,  and adopting a common set of standards.
When assessed according to these practices, the record for the four   e-government initiatives is mixed. In some cases, the practices were  effectively used, whereas in other cases project managers did not take full  advantage of them. For example, while OPM has taken steps to promote  close collaboration with its four designated e-Payroll providers, it has not  fully addressed the concerns of a key stakeholder that may be required to  make costly changes to its payroll processes and policies in response to  OPM’s decisions. Interior has instituted a board of directors for Geospatial  One-Stop that includes certain state and local representatives, but it has  not yet established formal agreements with all of its federal partners or  developed an outreach plan to encourage a broad range of states and  localities to participate in the initiative. GSA has adopted a variety of  effective collaboration practices on the Integrated Acquisition  Environment project, but it has not yet fully involved CFOs from partner  agencies. Finally, SBA has not yet taken important steps—including  defining roles and responsibilities, establishing formal agreements with  federal partner agencies, and establishing a funding strategy based on  shared resource commitments—to facilitate effective collaboration with its  partners and stakeholders. Until these issues are addressed, the initiatives  may be at risk of not fully achieving their goals.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To enhance the effectiveness of collaboration as a tool for the four   e-government initiatives to use in achieving their goals, we recommend that  the Director of OPM (1) institute a review and feedback process with VA  to ensure that its concerns are reviewed and addressed before decisions  are made that could have a policy or resource impact on agency payroll  operations, and (2) ensure that a collaborative process is in place for  development of governmentwide payroll standards;  the Secretary of the Interior establish formal agreements with federal  agency partners to clarify collaborative relationships and develop an  outreach plan for the Geospatial One-Stop initiative that includes  specific tasks for contacting and interacting with a wider range of state  and local government GIS officials to facilitate and explain the benefits  of broad participation in the initiative and promote the use of federal  geospatial data standards;   the Administrator, GSA, modify the structure of its working groups and  other communication mechanisms for the Integrated Acquisition  Environment initiative to fully include the CFOs of partner agencies and  better ensure that agreed-upon partner resource contributions are  made; and  the Administrator, SBA, establish a more collaborative management  structure for the Business Gateway initiative by defining roles and  responsibilities, establishing formal collaboration agreements with  federal agency partners, developing a shared funding strategy, and  implementing projectwide communication and outreach mechanisms to  ensure that key decision makers at partner agencies are kept informed  and involved in the management of the project.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We received written comments on a draft of this report from the Director of  OPM; Interior’s Assistant Secretary Policy, Management and Budget; and  SBA’s Program Executive Officer for e-Government. We also received oral  comments from the Administrator of GSA. All four agencies generally  agreed with our discussion of the collaboration challenges facing   e-government initiatives. In addition, each of the agencies provided  comments and additional or updated information about collaboration  activities associated with their initiatives, as well as technical comments,  which have been incorporated into the final report where appropriate.
OPM stated that it was concerned with our assessment that e-Payroll had  not been fully effective in taking steps to promote collaboration with  partner agencies. In the report, we noted that OPM has taken steps to  develop and maintain collaborative relationships with its partners and  focused our concern on OPM’s relationship with VA. Concerning our  recommendation that OPM institute a review and feedback process with  VA to ensure that concerns are addressed, OPM reported that such a  process has been established and that it would continue to hold  discussions with VA. In addition, concerning our recommendation that  OPM ensure that a collaborative process is in place for the development of  governmentwide payroll standards, we noted in the final report OPM’s  position that it has taken steps to help ensure a collaborative standards  development process by establishing a cross-agency focus group to address  standards setting issues. If supported by a detailed strategy, OPM’s actions  may help to address the issues we raised. OPM also provided technical  comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate.
Interior stated that it agreed with our assessment that e-government  projects face many challenges and that Geospatial One-Stop had made  substantial progress in achieving its initial objectives and goals. Interior  also acknowledged that it had not resolved all the challenges in gaining  greater collaboration on the part of the potential stakeholders at the state  and local levels. Interior stated that, in several ways, the draft report had  mischaracterized the Geospatial One-Stop project as being “federal- centric.” We do not believe that the report characterizes the initiative in this  way. Rather, the focus is on the challenge of gaining as broad participation  as possible from state and local representatives, a task that Interior agrees  is challenging. Interior’s Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management and  Budget, also stated that the agency disagreed that the existence of formal  agreements is key to sustaining a vision and making progress. However,  Interior noted in its comments that it had established memorandums of  agreement or funding agreements with each of its partner agencies.  Further, our research into key collaboration practices revealed that formal  agreements with a clear purpose, common performance outputs, and  realistic performance measures are useful in providing a firm management  foundation for collaboration.
GSA concurred with our recommendation regarding the Integrated  Acquisition Environment initiative. GSA provided additional information  about its planned activities to address our recommendation as well as  updated information about the status of the initiative. This information has  been incorporated in the final report as appropriate.
SBA provided several suggested technical corrections to the draft report,  and we have made those corrections in the final report where appropriate.  In its comments, SBA officials stated that the project manager believed that  slow progress in 2003 was due primarily to lack of funding from within SBA  and the addition of tasks by OMB, rather than to any shortcomings in  collaboration, and that efforts at collaboration had been made until funding  for the project became problematic. We have clarified in the final report  that the funding shortfall was within SBA and not due to a lack of funding  contributions from partner agencies. However, as noted in the report, the  fact that partner agencies did not share resource commitments for the  Business Gateway limited their overall commitment to and involvement in  the project, thus putting the project at risk of not meeting its objectives.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the  date of this report. At that time, we will send copies to the Ranking  Minority Member, House Committee on Government Reform, and the  Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Technology, Information  Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census. In addition, we will  provide copies to the Directors of OMB and OPM, the Secretary of the  Interior, and the Administrators of GSA and SBA. Copies will be made  available to others on request. In addition, this report will be available at no  charge on the GAO Web site at www.gao.gov.
If you should have any questions concerning this report, please call me at  (202) 512-6240 or send e-mail to koontzl@gao.gov. Key contributors to this  report were Shannin Addison, Neha Bhavsar, Barbara Collier,   Felipe Colón, Jr., Larry Crosland, John de Ferrari, and Elizabeth Roach.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to assess (1) the progress that has been made to date  in implementing the selected initiatives, (2) the major factors that can  affect successful collaboration on e-government initiatives, and (3) the  extent to which federal agencies and other entities have been collaborating  on the selected initiatives.
We considered several factors in selecting the four initiatives for our  review. These factors included the number of potential collaborating  agencies, reported costs of the initiatives, variety among the types initiative  categories (i.e., “government to citizen,” “government to business,”  “government to government,” “internal efficiency and effectiveness,” and  “cross-cutting”), potential cost savings from implementing the initiatives,  variety among managing partners, and variety among the kinds of  stakeholders. Based on a consideration of these factors, we selected the  following four initiatives: e-Payroll, Geospatial One-Stop, Integrated  Acquisition Environment, and Business Gateway.
To assess the progress of the initiatives, we reviewed capital asset plans  and other project documentation, conducted interviews with project  officials, and assessed electronic services made available to customers to  date. In addition to determining the status of planned milestones, we  evaluated the progress that had been made in achieving the overall  objectives of each initiative within the framework of the e-government  strategy of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
To identify key practices affecting collaboration on e-government  initiatives, we developed criteria through a review of government,  academic, and private sector literature on interorganizational  collaboration. We provided these criteria to officials of OMB’s Office of  Information and Regulatory Affairs, who agreed that the criteria were  reasonable for assessing collaboration on e-government initiatives. Based  on these criteria, we summarized individual key practices (i.e., those  practices that were most commonly cited among our sources) into five  broad practices: establishing a collaborative management structure,  maintaining collaborative relationships, contributing resources equitably,  facilitating communication and outreach, and reaching agreement on a  common set of standards.
To assess the extent to which federal agencies and other entities were  collaborating on the selected e-government initiatives, we reviewed project  documents related to collaboration, such as communication strategies and  memorandums of understanding. We conducted interviews with project  managers for each of the initiatives we reviewed, as well as with officials  from the four managing partner agencies and OMB’s portfolio managers, to  determine collaborative management practices that were in place. We also  contacted project officials from the initiatives’ partner agencies, as well as  the National States Geographic Information Council (regarding Geospatial  One-Stop) and representatives from small business associations (regarding  Business Gateway). We collected information from these entities to  determine the extent to which key collaboration practices were being used  effectively for the four initiatives we studied.
Our work was conducted from December 2002 to September 2003 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Source Materials for Key Collaboration Practices
paragraphs: Following are the source documents that we consulted in identifying the  key collaboration practices described in the body of the report.
subsections: section_title: GAO Reports
paragraphs: Program Evaluation: An Evaluation Culture and Collaborative  Partnerships Help Build Agency Capacity. GAO-03-454. Washington, D.C.:  May 2, 2003.
Results-Oriented Management: Agency Crosscutting Actions and Plans  in Drug Control, Family Poverty, Financial Institution Regulation, and  Public Health Systems. GAO-03-320. Washington, D.C.: December 20, 2002.
Results-Oriented Management: Agency Crosscutting Actions and Plans  in Border Control, Flood Mitigation and Insurance, Wetlands, and  Wildland Fire Management. GAO-03-321. Washington, D.C.: December 20,  2002.
September 11: More Effective Collaboration Could Enhance Charitable  Organizations’ Contributions in Disasters. GAO-03-259. Washington,  D.C.: December 19, 2002.
At-Risk Youth: School-Community Collaborations Focus on Improving  Student Outcomes. GAO-01-66. Washington, D.C.: October 10, 2000.
Head Start and Even Start: Greater Collaboration Needed on Measures of  Adult Education and Literacy. GAO-02-348. Washington, D.C.: March 29,  2002.
Human Services Integration: Results of a GAO Cosponsored Conference  on Modernizing Information Systems. GAO-02-121. Washington, D.C.:  January 31, 2002.
Defense Health Care: Collaboration and Criteria Needed for Sizing  Graduate Medical Education. GAO/HEHS-98-121. Washington, D.C.:   April 29, 1998.
Federal Agency Studies Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress. Federal  Interagency Coordination Mechanisms: Varied Types and Numerous  Devices. July 22, 2002. http://www.congress.gov/erp/rl/pdf/RL31357.pdf  (viewed July 2003).
Federal Enterprise Architecture Working Group. E-Gov Enterprise  Architecture Guidance. Draft-Version 2.0. July 25, 2002.  http://www.feapmo.gov/resources/E-Gov_Guidance_Final_Draft_v2.0.pdf  (viewed July 2003).
Federal Highway Administration, Office of Travel Management, Office of  Operations (Department of Transportation). The Practice of Regional  Transportation Operations Collaboration and Coordination. May 7, 2003.  www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/RegionalTransOpsCollaboration/note.htm (viewed  August 2003).
Food and Drug Administration (Department of Health and Human  Services). An Agency Resource for Effective Collaborations: The  Leveraging Handbook. June 2003.  www.fda.gov/oc/leveraging/handbook.pdf (viewed July 2003).
General Services Administration. Building Blocks for Successful  Intergovernmental Programs. August 29, 2001.  www.gsa.gov/Portal/content/pubs_content.jsp?contentOID=119122&conte ntType=1008 (viewed July 2003).
Hodges, S., T. Nesman, and M. Hernandez. Promising Practices: Building  Collaboration in Systems of Care. A special report prepared at the request  of the Department of Health and Human Services. 1999.  www.mentalhealth.org/cmhs/ChildrensCampaign/PDFs/1998monographs/v ol6.pdf (viewed July 2003).
Institute for Educational Leadership. Building Effective Community  Partnerships. A special report prepared at the request of the Office of  Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs,  U.S. Department of Justice.  www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/resources/files/toolkit1final.pdf (viewed July 2003).
Intergovernmental Advisory Board (General Services Administration).  Federal, State and Local Government Experiences: Foundations for  Successful Intergovernmental Management. October 1998.  www.gsa.gov/cm_attachments/GSA_PUBLICATIONS/Main_8_R2AV262_0Z 5RDZ-i34K-pR.doc (viewed July 2003).
Joint Chiefs of Staff (Department of Defense). Concept for Future Joint  Operations: Expanding Joint Vision 2010. May 1997.  www.dtic.mil/jointvision/history/cfjoprn1.pdf (viewed July 2003).
Joint History Office, Joint Chiefs of Staff (Department of Defense). The  History of the Unified Command Plan 1946–1993. February 1995.  www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/history/ucp.pdf (viewed July 2003).
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Department of  Transportation). Keys to Success: State Highway Safety and EMS  Agencies Working Together to Improve Public Health. August 2000.  www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/ems/pub3/index.htm (viewed July 2003).
Office of Intergovernmental Solutions, General Services Administration,  Government Without Boundaries: A Management Approach to  Intergovernmental Programs (May 23, 2002).
Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration (Department of  Health and Human Services). Partnership Agreements. October 2002.  www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/ems/pub3/index.htm (viewed July  2003).
Rinehard, Tammy A., Anna T. Laszlo, and Gwen O. Briscoe. Collaboration  Toolkit: How to Build, Fix, and Sustain Productive Partnerships. A  special report prepared at the request of U.S. Department of Justice, Office  of Community Oriented Policing Services. 2001.  www.cops.usdoj.gov/default.asp?item=344 (viewed July 2003).
section_title: International, State, and Local Agency Studies
paragraphs: Biedell, Jeff, David Evans, Daniela Ionova-Swider, Jonathan Littlefield,  John Mulligan, and Je Ryong Oh. Facilitating Cross Agency Collaboration.  Smith School of Business, University of Maryland. December 2001.  www.estrategy.gov/documents/fall_report-collaboration_121101.pdf  (viewed July 2003).
Center for Technology in Government. Tying a Sensible Knot: Best  Practices in State-Local Information Systems, Executive Briefing, 2001.  University at Albany/SUNY.
Collaboration: Because It’s Good for Children and Families: A Wisconsin  Resource Manual. www.collaboratingpartners.com/CollabManDemo.pdf  (viewed August 2003).
Dawes, Sharon S., Theresa A. Pardo, David R. Connelly, Darryl F. Green,  and Claire R. McInerney. Partners in State and Local Information  Systems: Lessons from the Field. Center for Technology in Government.
University at Albany/SUNY. October 1997.  www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/reports/partners_in_sli/partners_in_sli.p df (viewed July 2003).
Industry Advisory Council. Cross-Jurisdictional Government  Implementations. September 2002. www.iaconline.org/pdfs/X- Juris_eGov.pdf (viewed July 2003).
La Vigne, Mark, David R. Connelly, Donna S. Canestraro, and Theresa A.  Pardo. Reassessing New York: A Collaborative Process. Center for  Technology in Government. University at Albany/SUNY. June 2000.  www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/reports/reassessing_ny/reassessing_ny.p df (viewed July 2003).
Treasury Board of Canada. The Federal Government as “Partner”: Six  Steps to Successful Collaboration. November 1995. www.tbs- sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/opepubs/TB_O3/dwnld/fgpe_e.rtf (viewed July 2003).
UK Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR)  and JSS Pinnacle (now Pinnacle psg). Partnership: A Working Definition.  Partnership Series, Paper Number 1. October 1998 www.pinnacle- psg.com/documents/consultancy/so_consultancy_publications_detr_paper 1.pdf (viewed July 2003).
section_title: Private Sector Studies
paragraphs: Axner, Marya, and Bill Berkowitz. Promoting Coordination, Cooperative  Agreements and Collaborative Agreements Among Agencies. Community  Tool Box. University of Kansas.  ctb.ukans.edu/tools/en/sub_section_main_1229.htm (viewed July 2003).
Bailey, Darlyne, and Kelley McNally Koney. Interorganizational  Community Based Collaboration: A Strategic Response to Shape the  Social Work Agenda. Social Work, Volume 41, Issue 6, 1996.
Bardach, Eugene. Getting Agencies to Work Together: The Practice and  Theory of Managerial Craftsmanship. Brookings Institution Press, 1998.
Baum, C., and A. Di Maio. Sharing Risk: Government/Business  Partnerships. Gartner (www.gartner.com), October 25, 2002.
Cameron, Marsaili, and Steve Cranfield. Unlocking the Potential: Effective  Partnerships for Improving Health. NHS-Executive North Thames,  September 1998. www.doh.gov.uk/pub/docs/doh/unlomain.pdf (viewed July  2003).
Chrislip, David D., and Carl E. Larson. Collaborative Leadership: How  Citizens and Civic Leaders Can Make a Difference. San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1994.
Gray, Barbara, and Eric Trist. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for  Multiparty Problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1989.
Keller, B. Breaking Down the Walls: Collaboration in the Public Sector.  Gartner (www.gartner.com), October 5, 2001.
Keller, B., F. Caldwell, and C. Baum. Mr. President, Take Down Those   E-Government Roadblocks. Gartner (www.gartner.com), March 2, 2001.
Mahoney, J. Public Sector: Beware of Incompatible Partners. Gartner  (www.gartner.com), September 18, 2002.
Mattessich, Paul W., Marta Murray-Close, and Barbara R. Monsey.  Collaboration: What Makes IT Work, 2nd ed. Saint Paul, Minnesota: Wilder  Publishing Center, 2001.
Peterson, K. Determining Your Role in C-Commerce Relationships.  Gartner (www.gartner.com), October 12, 2001.
Phelan, P. Implementing Best Practices for Collaborative Processes.  Gartner (www.gartner.com), October 22, 2002.
Scardino, L., and G. Kreizman. Innovation Funds: A Model for   E-Government. Gartner (www.gartner.com), February 16, 2001.
Schumaker, Alice, B. J. Reed, and Sara Woods. “Collaborative Models for  Metropolitan University Outreach: The Omaha Experience.” Cityscape: A  Journal of Policy Development and Research, Volume 5, Number 1, 2000.
Smith, Alan. Collaboration between Educational Institutions: Can  Various Individual Successes Translate into a Broad Range of Sustained  Partnerships? University of Southern Queensland.  www.com.unisa.edu.au/cccc/papers/refereed/paper44/Paper44-1.htm  (viewed July 2003).
University of Vermont. Strengthening Community Collaborations:  Essentials for Success. crs.uvm.edu/nnco/cd/collabh3.htm (viewed July  2003).
section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of  Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities  and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government  for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal  programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other  assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding  decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of  accountability, integrity, and reliability.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is  through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site  daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this  list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to   e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs