Land Management Systems: BLM's Actions to Improve Information Technology Management
Published: 2001-02-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: GAO reviewed steps taken by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to strengthen its information technology (IT) investment management and acquisition capabilities. The Bureau took these actions to address recommendations made in an earlier report on the failure of the Automated Land and Mineral Record System (ALMRS) to meet BLM's business needs.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO found that since 1999, BLM has been working to implement GAO recommendations to determine the usefulness of ALMRS and to assess and strengthen its IT investment management and acquisition capabilities. Although the bureau has not yet finished these efforts, it has begun to apply improved management strategies for selecting IT investments, develop processes and practices for controlling and evaluating investments, and build a more mature systems acquisition capability. However, before completing and institutionalizing new investment control processes, the Bureau has begun moving forward with an IT acquisition. As a result, BLM's efforts may be subject to the same project management and management oversight risks that adversely affected the ALMRS/Modernization.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: This report presents the status of actions taken by the Bureau of Land  Management (BLM) to strengthen its information technology (IT)  investment management and acquisition capabilities. The bureau has been  taking these actions to address recommendations we made when we  reported that the Automated Land and Mineral Record System (ALMRS)  Initial Operating Capability (IOC)—the major software component of  BLM’s ALMRS/Modernization—failed to meet BLM’s business needs and  was not deployable. We made the recommendations to help BLM reduce  the risks that future IT efforts would fail.
At your request, we reviewed BLM’s actions to implement our  recommendations and improve its management of IT. Accordingly, our  objectives were to determine whether BLM (1) has adequately assessed  ALMRS IOC and other alternatives to meet its business needs, (2) has  adequately strengthened its investment management practices, (3) is using  sound system acquisition processes, (4) has integrated its investment  management and systems acquisition improvement projects and developed  an overall plan and schedule for completing this integrated improvement  work, and (5) is planning to undertake any sizable systems acquisition or  development efforts before strengthening its information technology  program. Our objectives, scope, and methodology are presented in  appendix I. We performed our work from February 2000 through  December 2000 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. We requested comments on a draft of this report from  the Department of the Interior. The Acting Assistant Secretary for Lands  and Minerals provided us with written comments that are discussed in the  “Agency Comments” section and reprinted in appendix II.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: BLM’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of public  lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The  bureau is responsible for approximately 264 million acres of public land in  28 states and public resources, including rangelands, timber, minerals,  watersheds, wildlife habitats, wilderness and recreation areas, and  archeological and historical resources. It also manages the subsurface  mineral resources underlying another 300 million acres of land  administered by other government agencies or owned by private interests.  The bureau has 189 offices that maintain over 1 billion paper documents,  including land surveys and surveyor notes, records of land ownership,  mining claims, and oil and gas leases. According to BLM, most of the paper  documents are deteriorating and are becoming increasingly difficult to  read.
In the mid-1980s BLM began planning to acquire a land and mineral case  processing system to keep up with its increasing workload and automate  its manual records and case processing activities. By 1993, BLM decided on  the scope and functionality of the project, called the  ALMRS/Modernization. The project consisted of three major components:  the ALMRS IOC, a geographic information system, and the modernization  of BLM’s computer and telecommunications infrastructure and rehost of  selected management and administrative systems. ALMRS IOC—the  flagship of the ALMRS/Modernization—was to provide the capability to  more efficiently record, maintain, and retrieve land description, ownership,  and use information to support BLM, other federal programs, and  interested parties.
Since 1995 we have issued several reports and made numerous  recommendations to address the problems and risks that threatened the  successful development and deployment of the ALMRS/Modernization. In  October 1998 an operational assessment test and evaluation showed that  ALMRS IOC was not ready to be deployed because it did not meet BLM’s  business needs. The bureau subsequently stopped the ALMRS project. At  the time the project was terminated, BLM estimated that from 1983 through  1998 it had obligated about $411 million for the ALMRS/Modernization  project, of which over $67 million was spent to develop ALMRS IOC  software.
In 1999, we testified on the long-standing project weaknesses at BLM that  threatened the ALMRS/Modernization and increased the risks that future  efforts would result in a similar outcome. We recommended that BLM  assess the usefulness of ALMRS IOC and other alternatives to meeting the  bureau’s business needs, and strengthen its investment management  processes and systems acquisition capabilities. In February 2000, we  reported that BLM was in the early stages of addressing our  recommendations, and we further recommended that BLM develop a plan  to integrate all these corrective actions and establish a schedule for  completing them.
section_title: Preliminary ALMRS IOC Analysis Completed; Final Analysis Is Still Planned
paragraphs: Because of the enormous investment made in ALMRS IOC and the failure  of the software to meet BLM’s needs, we recommended that the Secretary  of the Interior ensure that BLM thoroughly analyze the ALMRS IOC  software to determine whether it could be cost beneficially modified to  meet the bureau’s needs. We pointed out that this analysis should be part of  an overall effort to identify and assess all alternatives, including  (1) modifying the ALMRS IOC software, (2) modifying existing land and  recordation systems, (3) acquiring commercial, off-the-shelf software, or  (4) developing new systems. We also stated that the alternatives analysis  should clearly identify the risks, costs, and benefits of each alternative and  should be performed after BLM is assured that it has verified its current  business requirements.
In February 2000, we reported that BLM had prepared a preliminary report  on its technical and functional analysis of ALMRS IOC, and concluded that  ALMRS IOC was not operationally ready for deployment because it did not  meet the bureau’s business needs. This conclusion was based on the  determination that ALMRS IOC (1) was difficult to use and labor-intensive,  (2) was poorly integrated into BLM’s business processes, (3) was too slow,  and (4) would be difficult and costly to maintain and operate. The bureau  stated that although some of these problems could be solved, ALMRS IOC  could not be repaired without a major technical effort and significant costs.  At that time, BLM’s CIO told us that the bureau planned to complete its  analysis of ALMRS IOC and other alternatives after it established the  bureau architecture and its business needs were known. The CIO noted  that establishing an architecture is a necessary precursor to completing the  analysis of ALMRS IOC and other alternatives because the architecture  would document the bureau’s business processes and information needs.  As part of its final analysis, BLM planned to determine whether parts of  ALMRS IOC could be useful for future IT efforts.
BLM developed an initial version of the bureau architecture in early 2000. It  has also used non-software portions of ALMRS IOC, such as system  specifications and documentation, to support other, ongoing information  systems efforts. BLM’s CIO told us that the bureau does not plan to  complete a final analysis of ALMRS IOC and other alternatives until it  finishes additional work to complete the bureau architecture. The bureau  expects to complete its work on the architecture by the end of 2003.
section_title: Corrective Actions to Strengthen BLM’s Investment Management Practices Continue
paragraphs: The absence of adequate investment management processes and practices  at BLM was a significant factor contributing to the failure of ALMRS IOC.  To reduce the risk that future IT efforts would fail and to help establish  disciplined investment management as required by the Clinger-Cohen Act,  we recommended that the Secretary of the Interior ensure that BLM assess  and strengthen its investment management practices to help avoid future  problems. Sound investment management practices include (1) developing  a capital asset plan, (2) developing strategic plans, (3) establishing an  investment management board, (4) developing and implementing  investment selection, control, and evaluation processes, (5) assessing staff  skills, and (6) developing an information technology architecture to help  properly manage new and ongoing IT projects.
subsections: section_title: IT Capital Asset Planning Is Under Way, but Not Yet Finished
paragraphs: The Clinger-Cohen Act requires agencies to use capital planning to guide  the acquisition and management of IT, and the Office of Management and  Budget (OMB) has issued guidance to assist agencies in developing a  disciplined capital planning process. OMB’s guidance describes the key  elements of an agency capital asset plan, including a statement of the  relevant agency strategic plans, an analysis of existing systems and planned  acquisitions, a gap analysis that identifies the agency objectives that cannot  be met with existing IT assets, and justification for new spending.
BLM approved an IT capital asset plan, dated October 25, 1999, which  outlines capital planning procedures for major IT acquisitions. The plan  specifies the relationship between BLM’s IT assets and the program  performance goals identified in its strategic business plan. However, the  plan is not yet complete, in that it does not include an analysis of the IT  assets already owned by the agency and assets being acquired, an analysis  of the gap between actual and planned performance, or justification for  new acquisitions proposed for funding, as recommended by OMB guidance.  According to BLM’s Deputy CIO, the bureau expects to revise and  restructure its capital asset plan now that an initial version of the bureau  architecture has been developed. The Deputy CIO added that BLM is  planning to incorporate OMB’s recommended analyses and justifications in  its revised plan. The analyses and justifications should help to guide the  acquisition and management of BLM’s IT assets and investments. BLM  expects to finish revising the capital asset plan by the end of fiscal 2001.
section_title: Improvements to BLM’s Strategic IRM Plan Are Under Way, but Not Yet Complete
paragraphs: The Clinger-Cohen Act requires agencies to ensure that IT is acquired and  information resources are managed in a manner consistent with the  Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The Paperwork Reduction Act requires  agencies to develop and maintain a strategic IRM plan that integrates IT  investment processes with their processes for making budget, financial,  and program management decisions. OMB has issued guidance to assist  agencies in developing strategic IRM plans that are consistent with the  requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
BLM is revising its 1997−2002 strategic IRM plan, dated March 12, 1998. Our  review of a draft of BLM’s 2001−2005 strategic IRM plan showed that the  draft plan includes a section on organizational effectiveness. The plan also  shows how BLM’s IRM goals relate to, and support, bureauwide goals and  objectives. However, the plan is not yet complete in that it does not  describe how IRM activities will help accomplish BLM’s mission, nor does  it ensure that IRM decisions are integrated with decisions on organizational  planning, budget, procurement, financial management, human resources  management, and programs, both of which are recommended by OMB in its  strategic planning guidance. BLM’s Deputy CIO told us that the bureau is  revising its draft strategic IRM plan now that an initial version of the bureau  architecture has been developed. According the Deputy CIO, the revised  strategic IRM plan will be completed by the end of fiscal year 2001 and will  include the information recommended by OMB. Inclusion of the  information recommended by OMB should help ensure that BLM’s strategic  IRM plan will support IT investment management at the bureau.
section_title: Information Technology Investment Board Has Been Established and Its Role Is Evolving
paragraphs: The Clinger-Cohen Act requires agencies to manage IT investments by  using processes and information to ensure that IT projects are  implemented at acceptable costs and within reasonable and expected time  frames, and are contributing to tangible and observable improvements in  mission performance. OMB’s and our joint guidance identifies attributes  that are critical for achieving successful investment management practices,  including senior management attention to those practices.  Senior  managers should have the authority to make key business and funding  decisions on IT projects and use a disciplined and structured management  forum for making key IT investment decisions with the authority to  approve, cancel, or delay projects, mitigate risks, and validate expected  returns. This guidance also describes key phases that should be part of a  mature IT investment management process that provides for the continual  selection, control, and evaluation of information technology investments.
BLM has established an Information Technology Investment Board (ITIB)  composed of senior-level program, IRM, and financial managers, with a  charter that clearly defines the board’s roles, responsibilities, and  functions. For example, the charter specifies that the board is responsible  for decisions regarding the initiation, development, implementation, and  evaluation of major IT investments. The charter also outlines the functions  of the board, including (1) developing an information technology  architecture, (2) selecting IT investments, (3) managing and controlling IT  activities, and (4) evaluating IT investments after implementation. On  August 24, 2000, BLM revised the ITIB charter to help further improve the  bureau’s selection, control, and evaluation processes. The charter revisions  included (1) adding project life-cycle costs as selection assessment criteria,  (2) adding progress reports on key project milestones and expenditures as  part of the ITIB’s management and control processes, and (3) plans to  better align the schedule of ITIB meetings and activities with the bureau’s  budget cycle.
Since its creation in 1998, BLM’s ITIB has approved 17 projects for funding  based on criteria it established to select IT projects. These criteria include  evaluating whether projects (1) support BLM’s core business functions,  (2) address work processes that have been simplified or redesigned to  reduce cost and improve effectiveness, (3) demonstrate a projected return  on investment that is equal to or better than alternative uses of available  resources, (4) are consistent with the bureau architecture, and (5) include a  risk reduction strategy.
While these actions represent improvements, BLM has not yet established  criteria and processes to properly control and evaluate IT investments. For  example, the ITIB reviews ongoing projects at major project milestones or  when additional funding is needed, while our guidance recommends and  best practices suggest that in the control phase, information should be  continually collected, updated, and provided to decisionmakers so they can  identify projects that are at risk and act early to mitigate those risks or  terminate the project. The ITIB also has not yet developed criteria for the  evaluation phase that would measure actual versus projected performance  and identify benefits that were achieved by an IT investment. Without  identifying control and evaluation criteria and implementing such  processes, BLM does not yet have in place all the elements necessary to  properly manage its IT investments. BLM’s CIO told us that the ITIB has  worked to first establish and implement processes to select IT projects and  establish selection criteria, including whether a project adequately  supports the bureau’s architecture. Now that those processes and criteria  are in place, the board is beginning to focus on establishing processes to  control ongoing IT projects. For example, the bureau is currently  developing a tracking system to help ensure that the ITIB can review and  control approved projects.
The ITIB also has not yet incorporated the bureau’s strategic planning,  capital planning, or budget cycle as part of the project selection, control, or  evaluation criteria. For example, the ITIB charter does not recognize the  bureau’s strategic or annual performance plans as part of its selection,  control, or evaluation processes. In addition, although the charter indicates  that the ITIB will use BLM’s capital asset plan or strategic plan as guidance  in identifying the bureau’s business needs, the charter focuses only on the  bureau’s architecture to identify those needs. BLM’s CIO told us that the  ITIB’s charge, as identified in the board’s charter, will be revised and  updated as the bureau’s investment management processes mature. BLM  plans to include strategic and capital planning criteria as part of its  selection, control, and evaluation cycle, and also plans to coordinate the  cycle as part of its budget planning process.
section_title: Investment Management Processes Are Being Documented, but Efforts Are Not Yet Complete
paragraphs: BLM has drafted a document that is intended to describe the bureau’s IT  investment management process and provide the bureau with consistent  and documented policies and procedures for managing information  technology investments. The draft document, dated November 28, 2000,  describes roles and responsibilities for investment management, provides  detailed, project-oriented policies and processes for each phase of the  selection, control, and evaluation process, and provides guidance for  developing a business case for an IT project.
The draft document focuses primarily on the management of individual  projects. The document lacks policies and procedures for managing all of  BLM’s IT systems and projects as a comprehensive portfolio that would  help ensure that the bureau meets its goals and carries out its mission. For  example, the document focuses on the requirements for managers,  sponsors, and proponents of planned and ongoing projects to manage  projects throughout the selection, control, and evaluation processes. It  does not yet provide comprehensive and strategic policies and procedures  for senior managers and decisionmakers that take into account the budget  cycle, strategic goals and objectives, capital planning, and bureau  architecture with BLM’s management of its IT investments. BLM’s CIO told  us that the draft investment management document is evolving to describe  a more comprehensive, portfolio-based approach to managing IT  investments. The CIO said the bureau plans to identify its portfolio of  investments and plans to begin more comprehensive reviews of those  investments as part of the annual budget cycle.
section_title: BLM’s IRM Organization and Staffing Assessment Has Been Completed
paragraphs: The Clinger-Cohen Act requires agency CIOs to assess staff IRM knowledge  and skills. BLM has assessed its IT staffing and skills needs and  restructured its national IRM organization based on that assessment. BLM’s  national IRM organization consists of its IRM headquarters in Washington,  D.C., and National IRM Center (NIRMC) in Denver. In October 1999, BLM’s  CIO tasked a team of field managers and technical, program, and personnel  specialists with assessing NIRMC, including its staffing and skill levels,  mission and functions, and organizational structure. The team issued its  final report in January 2000. Subsequently, in April 2000, a team of field  managers and IRM specialists completed an assessment of BLM’s  headquarters-based IRM organization. Based on recommendations made  by the assessment teams and validated by a BLM management team, the  bureau made significant changes to its IRM organization.
According to the Director of BLM, implementing these recommendations  has resulted in a new role for NIRMC, a reduction in force, and the  reassignment of key IT functions to the headquarters IRM office. For  example, before the reorganization, BLM’s systems operations, systems  engineering, and IRM management functions were located at NIRMC. Now,  NIRMC’s new role includes responsibilities for systems operations and  systems engineering. The IRM management functions have been moved to  BLM’s headquarters offices in Washington, D.C., and restructured to  include an investment management group and a policy and records group.  A systems coordination group was also created to ensure adherence with  system life-cycle management principles. In addition, two key positions  were added to BLM’s IRM organization—a lead information technology  architect and a systems development manager. According to BLM’s CIO,  the reorganization and new technical positions will better enable the IRM  organization to meet the information technology needs of the bureau.  BLM’s new organization took effect on July 2, 2000.
section_title: Work to Develop BLM’s Bureau Architecture Continues
paragraphs: The Clinger-Cohen Act requires agency CIOs to develop, maintain, and  facilitate the implementation of a sound and integrated information  technology architecture. The architecture should be an integrated  framework for evolving or maintaining existing IT and acquiring new  technology to achieve the agency’s strategic and IRM goals and better  support its business needs. According to OMB, to develop an enterprise  architecture, agencies should identify and document business processes,  information flows and relationships, applications, data descriptions and  relationships, and the agency’s technology infrastructure. In addition, OMB  recommends that agencies include a technical reference model and  standards profile as part of an architecture.
BLM has developed an initial bureau architecture, which contains guiding  principles and descriptions of some of BLM processes, data, and  applications, and six strategic initiatives to improve the architecture and  support its future development. As part of this effort, BLM also developed  the first volume of a technical reference model that contains principles and  recommended best practices for selecting and deploying system and  network hardware and software. In addition, the bureau has developed a  plan to broaden and further develop the bureau architecture over the next  3 years, because the architecture is not yet complete: It lacks a complete  and accurate inventory of all of BLM’s application software, data, business  processes, and network and system hardware and software. For example,  major components of the initial bureau architecture are limited to the 13  information systems that are managed by NIRMC.
BLM’s acting lead architect told us that BLM is planning to complete a  comprehensive analysis that will extend and validate the scope of the  current bureau architecture for software applications and for systems and  network hardware and software in all state offices. In addition, many tasks  that are essential to the development of an architecture have yet to be  completed by BLM. For example, BLM has not yet finished the business  process analyses, data architecture and standards, and systems and  network hardware and software standards as recommended by OMB.  BLM’s multiyear architecture plan includes these tasks, and shows that the  bureau plans to complete them by the end of 2003.
section_title: Corrective Actions to Strengthen Systems Acquisition Processes Are Continuing
paragraphs: As stated in our March 4, 1999, testimony, BLM did not have key  management controls in place for the ALMRS IOC project to help ensure  that the project would result in a system that would meet BLM’s business  needs. Accordingly, we recommended that the Secretary of the Interior  ensure that BLM obtain an independent assessment of its systems  acquisition capabilities and ensure that it use sound systems acquisition  processes.
BLM subsequently obtained an independent, high-level assessment of its  systems acquisition capabilities, based on the Software Engineering  Institute’s (SEI) Software and Software Acquisition Capability Maturity  Models (CMM)SM criteria. BLM’s software acquisition processes were  found to be immature—level 1. According to SEI, the characteristics of a  level 1 organization include (1) lack of a stable environment for developing  and maintaining software, (2) overcommitment of staff and resources, and  (3) abandonment of planned procedures when executing projects.  Research by SEI has shown that defined and repeatable processes for  managing software acquisition are critical to an organization’s ability to  consistently deliver high-quality information systems on time and within  budget. The critical management process areas that SEI deems necessary  for an organization to reach CMM level 2 include (1) software acquisition  planning, (2) solicitation, (3) requirements development and management,  (4) project management, (5) contract tracking and oversight,  (6) evaluation, and (7) transition to support.
BLM is taking action to address weaknesses in its systems acquisition  processes. For example, it has drafted a process improvement plan that  includes improvement activities for all of the 13 key process areas included  in both software and software acquisition CMMs—including the critical  management processes required to reach CMM level 2 (listed above).  According to the plan, the bureau will define activities for each key process  area, define methods, policies, and procedures, obtain tools to support and  automate the activities in each key process area, and provide training. BLM  plans to complete these efforts in February 2002. The plan indicates that  about 6 months will be devoted to using the improved processes and  demonstrating the attainment of CMM level 2 capabilities.
BLM is also sponsoring a 6-week project-management training program to  further strengthen its system acquisition capabilities. The training program  consists of six courses, including software risk management, software  quality management, and project scheduling and cost control. Thirty-one  BLM staff completed the program in calendar year 2000, and BLM’s CIO  anticipates that many more BLM staff, including some not in the IT  organization, will complete this training in 2001. BLM’s CIO also told us that  the bureau is committed to training as many BLM staff as necessary to  support the successful management of new projects throughout the agency.
section_title: An Integrated Plan and Schedule Are Being Developed for BLM’s Investment Management and Systems Acquisition Improvement Projects
paragraphs: To help ensure that BLM’s improvement actions will succeed, we  recommended that the Secretary of the Interior direct BLM to develop a  comprehensive and integrated information technology investment  management program by integrating the bureau’s projects to strengthen its  investment management and systems acquisition processes and practices.  We also recommended that BLM establish an overall project plan, schedule,  and milestones for these actions. We have developed a methodology and  guidance, called Information Technology Investment Management (ITIM),  to assist agencies in analyzing IT investment management processes and  determining the maturity of those processes. ITIM is structured using a  maturity framework similar to SEI’s CMM, and includes a roadmap that  agencies can use for improving their IT investment management processes.
To address our recommendations, the bureau is using a contractor to assist  in integrating its investment management improvement projects and has  drafted an IRM process improvement plan. The draft plan, issued on  October 10, 2000, is intended to be the primary planning document for  BLM’s IRM process improvement effort and is considered by the bureau to  be a document that will be developed incrementally. The plan contains  strategic goals for BLM’s process improvement effort, describes the  organizations responsible for carrying out the effort, contains an  improvement agenda with guiding principles and a process improvement  roadmap, discusses risks and BLM’s planned responses, and shows high- level criteria for the success of the effort. The plan focuses on eight  improvement areas, including BLM’s information technology architecture,  investment management, project management, and data management.
However, the draft plan does not yet integrate these individual projects and  identify the interdependencies among the planned improvement areas. For  example, BLM’s plans to improve its information technology architecture  and its data management are described separately. Although these efforts  are dependent upon each other, the draft plan does not address the  relationships and management of the interdependencies between the two  improvement efforts. As a result, BLM does not yet have a complete plan  that shows the relationships and interdependencies of the projects aimed  at strengthening its IRM program.
BLM’s draft process improvement plan also contains a high-level schedule  with milestones for completing its improvement work. The plan outlines  four major objectives to be accomplished within 18 months: (1) defining an  information technology architecture, (2) establishing stable investment  management processes and practices to attain level 2 of our ITIM  framework, (3) establishing project management and software acquisition  best practices to attain CMM level 2, and (4) establishing policies and  procedures to identify business-critical data sets, measure and improve  data quality, reduce data duplication, and promote reuse of commonly used  data.
However, the schedule does not contain the detailed tasks and  interdependencies necessary to ensure that all of BLM’s planned process  improvement work could be completed on schedule. For example, the  schedule includes a task to “define policies and procedures” to help  improve the bureau’s investment management processes. But the schedule  does not include any of the lower level tasks that would identify exactly  which policies and procedures would be defined, or the time and resources  necessary to carry out the tasks. In addition, the schedule does not include  interdependencies between this task and other related tasks such as  “defining project management policies and procedures” or “piloting  improved processes.” These details and interdependencies are necessary to  establish milestones and a critical path to help ensure a reliable schedule.  According to BLM’s CIO, the bureau will continue its planning efforts and  further define all of its improvement projects and integrate them.
section_title: System Acquisition Is Beginning Before Investment Management Processes and Practices Are Strengthened
paragraphs: Because of the IT investment management and systems acquisition  problems identified during the ALMRS/Modernization, we recommended  that BLM not undertake any sizable systems acquisition or development  efforts until the assessments we recommended were completed and  corrective actions taken.
At the time of our February 2000 report, BLM had temporarily suspended  all major systems acquisition and development projects. However, the  bureau continued work on several ongoing systems maintenance projects  as well as planning for a major system called the National Integrated Land  System (NILS). NILS is a joint project with the United States Forest Service  to develop a common data model and tools in a geographic information  system environment for managing cadastral and land record data. NILS  consists of four modules called GeoCommunicator, Survey Management,  Measurement Management, and Parcel Management and is estimated to  cost about $16.7 million through project completion. Each module is being  planned as a separate project. We reported in February 2000 that, according  to BLM’s CIO, planning for NILS would continue but development would  not begin until after the bureau architecture was sufficiently complete and  its business needs documented.
Since that time, BLM has completed the initial bureau architecture and  issued an interim architectural policy for bureauwide IT projects which is  intended to guide and constrain new project development until  development and implementation of the bureau architecture is sufficiently  complete. In addition, BLM has begun work on the first of the four NILS  modules—GeoCommunicator—estimated to cost about $1.9 million. BLM  plans to use GeoCommunicator to establish an Internet web site using its  current information systems to facilitate data sharing and collaborative  work among BLM staff.
Although the GeoCommunicator project is a small part of the NILS effort,  we determined whether sufficient controls are in place to properly guide  and manage the project. BLM’s initial bureau architecture and interim  policy provide adequate architectural guidance for the NILS  GeoCommunicator module. However, the bureau’s investment  management processes are not yet sufficient to properly track and assess  the progress of the GeoCommunicator project. For example, the bureau is  only now beginning to identify and implement the investment processes  and criteria necessary to control approved projects. By moving forward  with development of the GeoCommunicator module before strengthening  its investment management processes and practices, the bureau is  increasing the risk that the project may not adequately meet its needs or be  delivered as planned.
In addition, BLM has not assessed the potential risk and impact of the  workload that GeoCommunicator may have on BLM’s current computing  environment. GeoCommunicator users will be able to view, download, and  store land data in graphic formats, which would necessitate BLM having  adequate computing capacity to support new hardware and  communications requirements resulting from new uses of BLM land data.  In addition, GeoCommunicator will facilitate the downloading of land  record data from external sources into BLM’s databases. BLM users could  then combine external data with BLM’s own data, with few controls over  the use or quality of external data, and without timeliness standards for the  external data. Without an understanding of the impact of  GeoCommunicator on BLM’s systems and data, BLM has no assurance that  the project will produce expected results and meet the bureau’s needs.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: BLM continues taking corrective actions to implement the  recommendations we made in 1999 and 2000. While these actions are not  yet complete, the changes made thus far should help to improve the  acquisition and management of IT investments. The bureau has begun to  improve the selection and management of its IT investments and develop  more mature systems development and acquisition capabilities. The bureau  is also developing a plan and schedule to integrate its improvement actions,  developing plans and actions to properly control ongoing and evaluate  completed IT projects, and establishing an enterprise architecture.  However, more needs to be done to fully address our recommendations.  BLM recognizes this and said it will continue to work diligently on these  areas.
BLM has also taken steps to acquire a component of a major information  system before completing improvement actions to its investment control  processes. Without sufficient management controls in place, BLM is  increasing the risk that this new system effort will fail to meet the bureau’s  needs or will not be delivered as planned.
section_title: Recommendations
paragraphs: We recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct BLM to take the  following actions to help mitigate risks associated with moving forward  with the GeoCommunicator acquisition:  Adopt procedures to ensure proper management and control over the  GeoCommunicator project. The procedures should include (1)  consistent project monitoring by senior managers to ensure that cost  and schedule are being controlled, benefits are being accomplished,  risks are being managed, and strategic bureau needs are being met and  (2) comparison of interim results against project estimates through each  stage to ensure that the project is progressing as expected and to  indicate when actions should be taken as problems arise, including  modifying, canceling, continuing, or accelerating the project.
Determine the additional workload and other impacts that  implementing the GeoCommunicator module will have on BLM’s  current computing environment. This assessment should be completed  as quickly as possible and evaluated by the ITIB immediately upon its  completion.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: In commenting on a draft of this report, the Acting Assistant Secretary for  Land and Minerals Management stated that the Department of the Interior  concurs with our findings and recommendations. The department reported  that BLM has been endeavoring to improve IT management, recognizes that  there are areas that need further improvement, and will continue to work  diligently in those areas. The key corrective actions include (1) filling  several important positions in the next 6 months, (2) continuing the efforts  to complete its IT investment management processes, (3) instituting a  review of NILS to more accurately identify the risks, mitigation measures,  and advisability of continuing with the projects as currently planned, and  (4) applying new control and assessment criteria to the GeoCommunicator  project. The department’s comments are reprinted in their entirety as  appendix II.
We are sending copies of this report to Senator Conrad Burns, Chairman,  and Senator Robert C. Byrd, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Interior  and Related Agencies, Senate Committee on Appropriations. We are also  sending copies of this report to Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., Director, Office of  Management and Budget; Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the Interior; and  Nina Rose Hatfield, Acting Director, Bureau of Land Management. Copies  will also be made available to others upon request and will be available on  our home page at http://www.gao.gov.
Should you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-6240, or David G. Gill, Assistant Director, at  (202) 512-6250. We can also be reached by e-mail at koontzl@gao.gov and  gilld@gao.gov, respectively. Major contributors to this report are listed in  appendix III.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: As requested by the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies,  Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, our objectives  were to determine whether BLM (1) has adequately assessed the usability  of the ALMRS IOC software and other alternatives to meet its business  needs, (2) has adequately strengthened its investment management  practices, (3) is using sound systems acquisition processes, (4) has  integrated all of its investment management and systems acquisition  improvement projects and developed an overall plan and schedule for  completing this integrated work, and (5) is planning to undertake any  sizable systems acquisition or development efforts prior to strengthening  its information technology program.
To meet our first objective, we reviewed BLM’s technical and functional  analysis of ALMRS IOC as well as supporting documentation and reports.  We also interviewed bureau officials to determine BLM’s plans to conduct  further analyses.
To meet our second objective, we reviewed BLM’s draft IT management  plans, including its capital asset and strategic IRM plans, and compared the  plans to OMB’s and our guidance for developing such plans. To assess the  composition and actions of BLM’s ITIB, we compared the board’s charter to  our investment management guidance, attended ITIB meetings at BLM, and  reviewed the results of the ITIB meetings to determine the extent to which  BLM has implemented a sound investment management process. We also  reviewed BLM’s draft investment management process document and  compared the bureau’s draft process to our information technology  investment management guidance. We reviewed the bureau’s IRM  reorganization and staffing assessment, and compared it with the Clinger- Cohen Act’s requirement that agency CIOs assess the extent to which  personnel meet the agencies’ organizational IRM requirements. To assess  BLM’s architecture, we analyzed the bureau’s architectural models and  data, and the methodology used to develop the architecture, and compared  them to OMB’s guidance for developing and documenting enterprise  architectures. We interviewed BLM officials, including the CIO and Deputy  CIO, acting lead architect, and NILS project manager to identify BLM’s  planned and ongoing actions to strengthen its investment management  processes.
To address our third objective, we analyzed BLM’s plan to strengthen its  investment management capabilities and compared the plan to the SEI’s  Software and Software Acquisition CMM criteria. We also interviewed  bureau officials to determine what actions BLM has taken and plans to take  to strengthen its systems acquisition capabilities.
To address our fourth objective, we analyzed BLM’s integrated plan and  schedule for managing all of its investment management and systems  acquisition improvement projects to determine whether the plan fully  integrated these projects and to assess the reliability of the schedule. We  also interviewed bureau officials to determine BLM’s plans for further  integrating these projects and establishing a reliable project schedule.
To address our final objective, we analyzed NILS and GeoCommunicator  project plans and documents, and interviewed project and contractor  officials. We also compared the project’s progress to BLM’s progress in  developing and implementing IT investment management controls to  determine whether the current controls are sufficient to properly track and  control the GeoCommunicator project.
We performed our work at BLM and Department of the Interior  headquarters in Washington, D.C., and BLM’s National Information  Resources Management Center headquarters in Denver. We performed our  work from February 2000 through December 2000 in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Comments From the Department of the Interior
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Elizabeth A. Roach,  E. Randolph Tekeley, and Eric D. Winter made key contributions to this  report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Land Management Systems: Status of BLM’s Actions to Improve  Information Technology Management (GAO/AIMD-00-67,  February 24, 2000).
Land Management Systems: Major Software Development Does Not Meet  BLM’s Business Needs (GAO/AIMD-99-135, April 30, 1999).
Land Management Systems: Major Software Development Does Not Meet  BLM’s Business Needs (GAO/T-AIMD-99-102, March 4, 1999).
Land Management Systems: Actions Needed in Completing the Automated  Land and Mineral Record System Development (GAO/AIMD-98-107,  May 15, 1998).
Land Management Systems: Information on BLM’s Automated Land and  Mineral Record System Release 2 Project (GAO/AIMD-97-109R,  June 6, 1997).
Land Management Systems: BLM Faces Risks in Completing the  Automated Land and Mineral Record System (GAO/AIMD-97-42,  March 19, 1997).
Land Management Systems: Progress and Risks in Developing BLM’s Land  and Mineral Record System (GAO/AIMD-95-180, August 31, 1995).
subsections: section_title: Ordering Information
paragraphs: The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of  reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to  the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit  cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are  discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC  20013 Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders by phone: (202) 512-6000 fax: (202) 512-6061 TDD (202) 512-2537 Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and  testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list  from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone  phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain  these lists.
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, or Abuse in Federal Programs
paragraphs: Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm  e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov  1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)