Financial Management Systems: OMB's Financial Management Line of Business Initiative Continues but Future Success Remains Uncertain
Published: 2009-05-07T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In March 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) launched the financial management line of business (FMLOB) initiative, in part, to reduce the cost and improve the quality and performance of federal financial management systems by leveraging shared service solutions and implementing other reforms. In March 2006, GAO reported that OMB's approach did not fully integrate certain fundamental system implementation-related concepts and recommended OMB take specific actions. This report discusses (1) OMB's progress in addressing GAO's prior FMLOB recommendations and implementation challenges and (2) the effectiveness of OMB's monitoring of financial management system modernization projects and their costs. GAO's methodology included reviewing OMB's FMLOB-related guidance and reports and interviewing OMB and Financial Systems Integration Office (FSIO) staff.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: OMB has made progress toward implementing the FMLOB initiative. In March 2006, GAO recommended that OMB place a high priority on fully integrating four key concepts into its approach. As shown in the table, OMB has completed actions to fully address 5 of GAO's 18 recommendations. Although OMB has made progress toward completing the remaining 13 recommendations, extensive work remains before the goals of the FMLOB initiative are achieved. For example, OMB has yet to finalize a financial management system concept of operations, the first and foremost critical building block on which the remaining three concepts will be built. In addition, development of a migration timeline reflecting agencies' commitment for migrating to shared service providers has not yet been completed. Further, agencies are not required to consider migrating until the next major release of their core financial system and much work remains before the software used by shared service providers will incorporate the standard business processes currently under development. Accordingly, FSIO officials stated it could take 15 years or more before software that incorporates these standard business processes is in use governmentwide. We recognize that the FMLOB initiative represents a long-term effort; however, expediting efforts to address our prior recommendations could help achieve more effective and timely benefits. Until OMB fully integrates the four key concepts into its approach, the extent to which FMLOB goals will be achieved is uncertain. The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 and other information technology (IT) reform legislation contain requirements related to OMB's oversight of agency financial management systems modernization and other IT projects. Achieving FMLOB goals requires effective OMB oversight of agency modernization projects, but OMB has yet to fully address GAO's previously reported oversight-related recommendations such as taking actions to define and ensure that agencies effectively implement disciplined processes and develop a more structured review of agency efforts. In addition, OMB does not obtain and report complete and accurate data concerning agencies' spending on financial management system modernization projects. The lack of sufficient information and processes to effectively monitor agency modernization efforts and their costs limits OMB's ability to evaluate and help reduce the risks associated with financial management system implementations as well as achieve FMLOB goals.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The federal government’s ability to efficiently and effectively manage and  oversee its day-to-day operations and programs relies heavily on the ability  of agency financial management systems to produce complete, reliable,  timely, and consistent financial information for use by executive branch  agencies and Congress. Agencies continue to spend billions of dollars on  maintaining, developing, and implementing financial management systems  throughout the federal government. Although modernization of these  systems is expensive, these efforts represent a critical element in  facilitating agencies’ ability to institute strong financial management as  called for by the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990, Federal  Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA), and other  financial management reform legislation.
Over a number of years, we have reported that modernizing federal  financial management systems has been a challenge at many federal  agencies due, in part, to the past practices of each federal agency  attempting to implement its own systems which have all too often resulted  in failure, have been delayed, and cost too much. Recognizing the  seriousness of this problem, in March 2004, the Office of Management and  Budget (OMB) launched the financial management line of business  (FMLOB) initiative, in part, to improve the outcome of governmentwide  financial management system modernization efforts and provide timely  and accurate data for decision making through the use of more cost- effective shared service solutions. Under this approach, agencies are to  consider the use of certain shared service providers for meeting common  support services, such as information technology (IT) hosting and  application management, rather than investing in costly and redundant  agency-specific solutions.
In March 2006, we made 18 recommendations to help reduce the risks  associated with financial management system implementation efforts and  facilitate the implementation of the FMLOB initiative across the  government. Specifically, we recommended that OMB place a high  priority on fully integrating into its approach four key concepts:   (1) developing a concept of operations that articulates the  interrelationships among financial management systems and how the  shared service provider concept fits into the overall federal financial  management framework, (2) defining standard business processes to  promote consistency within and across agencies, (3) developing a strategy  for ensuring that agencies’ financial management systems are migrated to  a limited number of service providers, and (4) defining and effectively  implementing applicable disciplined processes necessary to properly  manage financial management system implementation projects.
Because of your continuing interest in transforming the federal  government’s financial management systems and the broad-reaching  impact of the FMLOB initiative, you asked us to study a range of issues  related to the FMLOB initiative as well as efforts at shared service  providers and agencies involved in migrating to those providers. As agreed  to with your office, this report provides the results of the first phase of our  work, including our efforts to determine (1) OMB’s progress toward  addressing our prior recommendations related to the FMLOB initiative and  other challenges that impede its implementation and (2) the effectiveness  of OMB’s monitoring of FMLOB and financial management system  modernization projects, including their costs. We will address the  remaining aspects of your request primarily related to FMLOB-related  efforts at shared service providers and agencies involved in migration  activities during the next phase of our work.
We reviewed and analyzed FMLOB-related policies, guidance, reports, and  memoranda obtained from OMB and the Financial Systems Integration  Office (FSIO) related to their respective efforts to address our prior  recommendations as well as efforts to monitor, and measure the costs of,  financial management system modernization projects. In addition, we  conducted interviews with key OMB and FSIO officials as well as officials  with other selected organizations knowledgeable about large financial  management transformation initiatives to obtain views on FMLOB efforts  and related challenges. We also interviewed knowledgeable officials of  two agencies from among those agencies spending the most on financial  management modernization projects to obtain information on agency  reporting of such costs. We conducted this performance audit from  February 2008 through May 2009 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and  perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a  reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit  objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.  Details on our scope and methodology are included in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Modernization of agency financial management systems has been an  ongoing challenge due, in part, to federal agency attempts to develop and  implement their own stovepiped systems that all too often have resulted in  failure, been delayed, or cost too much. Recognizing the need for a more  holistic approach to address the seriousness of these problems, OMB  launched the FMLOB initiative in March 2004, in connection with the 2001  President’s Management Agenda (PMA).
In part, the FMLOB initiative is intended to reduce the cost and upgrade  the quality and performance of federal financial management systems by  leveraging shared service solutions and implementing other  governmentwide reforms that foster efficiencies in federal financial  operations. According to OMB, the goals of the FMLOB initiative are to   (1) provide timely and accurate data for decision making; (2) facilitate  stronger internal controls that ensure integrity in accounting and other  stewardship activities; (3) reduce costs by providing a competitive  alternative for agencies to acquire, develop, implement, and operate  financial management systems through shared service solutions;   (4) standardize systems, business processes, and data elements; and   (5) provide for seamless data exchange between and among federal  agencies by implementing a common language and structure for financial  information and system interfaces.
In connection with this initiative, OMB developed an approach for  agencies to migrate financial management systems to a limited number of  application service providers, such as OMB-designated shared service  providers or private sector entities, which is intended to avoid costly and  redundant agency investments in “in-house” financial management  systems. These providers are third-party entities that manage and  distribute software-based services and solutions to customers across a  wide area network from a central data center. This concept has commonly  been used in the private sector and in other foreign governments where  application service providers provide services such as payroll, sales force  automation, and human resource applications to many clients. OMB is the  executive sponsor for the FMLOB initiative and in conjunction with FSIO,  provides oversight and guidance for the initiative. In addition to serving as  the program manager for the FMLOB initiative, FSIO is responsible for  core financial systems requirements development, testing and product  certification, supporting the federal financial management community on  priority projects, and other activities.
Although the FMLOB initiative was launched in 2004, modernizing federal  financial management systems so they can produce reliable, useful, and  timely financial data needed to efficiently and effectively manage the day- to-day operations of the federal government has been a high priority for  Congress for many years. In recognition of this need, and in an effort to  improve overall federal financial management, Congress passed a series of  financial management reform legislation dating back to the early 1980s.  Some of the notable legislation included in this series are the (1) Federal  Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA), (2) CFO Act of 1990,  (3) Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, (4) Government  Management Reform Act of 1994, (5) FFMIA, (6) Clinger-Cohen Act of  1996, and (7) Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002. FFMIA, in  particular, requires the departments and agencies covered by the CFO Act  to implement and maintain financial management systems that comply  substantially with (1) federal financial management systems requirements,  (2) applicable federal accounting standards, and (3) the U.S. Government  Standard General Ledger at the transaction level. In addition to the  specific requirements related to financial management systems contained  in FFMIA, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 requires the head of each  executive agency to establish policies and procedures to ensure that,  among other things, the agency’s financial systems are designed,  developed, maintained, and used effectively to provide financial or  program performance data.
OMB plays a central role in governmentwide efforts to meet the  requirements included in these reforms including the establishment of  federal financial management policy and guidance, as well as overseeing  the implementation and management of federal financial management  systems and other IT investments. Specifically, the CFO Act of 1990  established OMB’s Office of Federal Financial Management (OFFM) to  carry out various financial management functions, including (1) providing  overall direction and leadership to the executive branch on financial  management matters by establishing financial management policies and  requirements, and by monitoring the establishment and operation of  federal government financial management systems; (2) reviewing agency  budget requests for financial management systems and operations; and   (3) monitoring the financial execution of the budget in relation to actual  expenditures, including timely performance reports.
The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 expanded OMB responsibilities further to  include establishing processes to analyze, track, and evaluate the risks and  results of major capital investments in information systems made by  executive agencies. In addition, in implementing the E-Government Act of  2002 OMB’s Office of Electronic Government and Information  Technology is responsible for, among other matters, providing overall  leadership and direction to the executive branch on electronic  government; overseeing the development of enterprise architectures  within and across agencies; and overseeing implementation of IT  throughout the federal government, including monitoring and consulting  on agency technology efforts, as well as identifying opportunities for joint  agency and governmentwide IT projects.
subsections: section_title: OMB’s IT Investment Oversight Efforts
paragraphs: In connection with these responsibilities, OMB reviews and evaluates IT  spending and other information submitted by the agencies during the  budget formulation process. Specifically, in accordance with OMB  Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget,  agencies are required to provide information related to their IT investment  projects. As part of this process, agencies submit Capital Asset Plans and  Business Cases (exhibit 300s) and Agency IT Investment Portfolios  (exhibit 53s) that provide information useful for evaluating agency  financial management system projects. Agency exhibit 300s are intended  to describe the business case for each investment and serve as the primary  means of justifying IT investment proposals as well as monitoring IT  investments once they are funded. Further, as a reporting tool, exhibit  300s are intended to help demonstrate to agencies’ management, as well as  to OMB, that major projects have strong business cases for the investment  and meet other administration priorities in defining the proposed cost,  schedule, and performance goals.
Similarly, information included on agency exhibit 53s is designed, in part,  to help OMB better understand the amounts agencies are spending on IT  investments as well as provide information in support of cost analyses  prescribed by the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996. For example, agencies are  required to classify investment projects into one of six categories as well  as specify how much of these amounts are for development and  modernization of IT versus operating and maintaining the status quo for  IT. In addition, agencies are required to report amounts being spent on  each investment over a 3-year period including the current and prior fiscal  years as well as the amount included in the agencies’ budget request for  the next fiscal year. As part of the Budget of the United States  Government, OMB publishes a Report on IT Spending for the Federal  Government representing a governmentwide compilation of exhibit 53  data submitted by agencies across the federal government.
As part of its efforts to oversee federal IT investments during the last few  years, OMB has taken steps to identify IT projects that warrant additional  attention by including them on either its Management Watch List and High  Risk List, or both. OMB places major IT projects it considers to be poorly  planned on the Management Watch List based, in part, on its detailed  review of agency exhibit 300s and agencies are to submit remediation  plans addressing the weaknesses identified. OMB updates the  Management Watch List quarterly and projects are removed from the list  as agencies remediate the weaknesses identified with these projects’  business cases. Figure 1 shows OMB’s process for developing the  Management Watch List.
In addition to the Management Watch List, OMB requires agencies to  identify high-risk projects that require special attention from oversight  authorities and the highest levels of agency management and OMB places  them on its High Risk List. These projects are not necessarily at risk of  failure, but may be on the list because they meet criteria specified by  OMB for inclusion. Further, agency Chief Information Officers (CIO) are to  assess, confirm, and document each of these projects’ performance based  on whether the project was meeting one or more of four performance  evaluation criteria and identify those with performance shortfalls. Figure  2 shows OMB’s process for developing the High Risk List.
section_title: Progress Continues but Achieving FMLOB Goals Requires Much More Work and Time
paragraphs: OMB and FSIO efforts to implement the FMLOB initiative continue to  show progress and have effectively addressed 5 of the 18  recommendations and made progress toward addressing the remaining 13  recommendations we made related to four areas considered key building  blocks for governmentwide financial management systems—a concept of  operations, standard business processes, migration strategy, and  disciplined processes. Table 1 summarizes the status of efforts to address  our prior recommendations in each of these four areas. Additional  information on the progress and remaining actions we believe are needed  to address each recommendation can be found in appendix II. For  example, OMB and FSIO have developed guidance to assist agencies’  efforts in selecting shared service providers and preparing for migration,  and have taken steps to encourage agencies to embrace standard business  processes that will help provide consistency as they are adopted across  federal agencies.
While guidance and communication-related efforts are important, OMB  and FSIO efforts have not yet fully integrated any of the four key building  blocks into the FMLOB implementation approach. Further, the  recommendations not yet completed, in particular, involve critical  elements integral to success and will require much more extensive work  before the promised benefits of the FMLOB initiative can be fully realized.  OMB has not completed development of a concept of operations  representing the first and foremost building block on which all system  planning processes as well as the remaining building blocks are built. This  critical tool is essential for providing an overall road map for FMLOB  efforts by describing the interrelationships among financial management  systems and how information is to flow from and through them, within  and across agencies, and ensuring the validity of each agency’s  implementation approach. Even if FMLOB-related activities proceed as  planned, efforts to address our recommendations related to this and other  key concepts involve a variety of challenges which, in some cases, could  take years to fully resolve. For example, according to FSIO officials, it may  take as many as 15 years or more before software that incorporates the  standard business processes currently under development is in use  governmentwide. In addition, development of a migration timeline  reflecting agencies’ commitment to migrating to shared service providers  has not yet been completed. OMB officials stated that a draft migration  timeline as well as a draft concept of operations have been developed and  are under internal review. Until OMB finalizes these critical tools, the  extent to which its efforts to date address our recommendations remains  unclear.
As previously reported, we believe OMB has correctly recognized that  enhancing federal financial management systems needs to be addressed as  a governmentwide solution, rather than individual agency stovepiped  efforts designed to meet a given entity’s needs. However, given the  implications of this initiative and the extended time frames involved, we  emphasize the need to expedite efforts to address our remaining  recommendations. Such efforts are essential to help facilitate FMLOB  implementation and achieve a more effective and timely realization of  benefits. Achieving the goals of the FMLOB initiative and reducing the  risks associated with continuing individual agency stovepiped efforts will  depend, in part, on continued strong executive leadership and  commitment and the effectiveness of efforts to address our  recommendations and other challenges facing this initiative.
subsections: section_title: Efforts Remain to Finalize a Concept of Operations
paragraphs: Given the far-reaching impact of the FMLOB initiative on governmentwide  financial management systems, an effective governmentwide concept of  operations that identifies the nature of and interrelationships among  federal financial management systems is an essential tool to ensure that  both system implementation and other FMLOB-related efforts achieve  intended results. Although this initiative began in 2004, and we reported  that efforts were under way to develop a concept of operations in our 2006  report, as shown in table 2, none of our four prior recommendations  related to this area have been completely addressed. Further, developing a  concept of operations was not included as a priority in OMB’s January  2008 memorandum to agency CFOs that summarized FMLOB priorities  through December 2009. OMB officials stated that a draft concept of  operations is in internal review; however, they did not provide us an  estimated date for its completion. OMB officials stated that finalizing a  concept of operations has been a challenge due to limited resources  available to devote to this effort, as well as the need to ensure that the  various elements of a concept of operations are appropriately linked to  relevant guidance, policy documents, and requirements such as the core  financial system requirements. We agree with OMB’s recognition of this  need and believe it helps to illustrate the importance of finalizing this  critical tool. Given the importance of articulating how the shared service  provider concept fits into the overall federal financial management system  framework and how systems operated at the agency and governmentwide  level should be integrated, we believe efforts should be taken to expedite  the completion of a clear concept of operations.
OMB and FSIO officials, as well as knowledgeable officials from other  selected organizations, and our recent work related to financial  management system implementations, confirm the need for an effective  governmentwide concept of operations to guide FMLOB efforts. For  example, identifying the interrelationships among financial management  systems within and across agencies would help to identify and avoid  additional stovepiped efforts designed to meet their unique needs when  common solutions to address their common needs are more effective. A  clear understanding of the flow of information from and through these  systems is also needed to ensure that the FMLOB initiative goal of  providing accurate and timely data for decision making is achieved.
The federal government is one of the largest and most complex  organizations in the world and its agencies use a variety of financial  management systems and other systems that interrelate with them to meet  their needs. As a result, defining the nature and scope of the systems  involved in transformation initiatives, such as FMLOB, is an important  aspect for ensuring that efforts are properly aligned and focused toward  meeting clearly articulated goals. Officials at the Department of Defense’s  (DOD) Business Transformation Agency considered this a critical element  of the lessons they learned in achieving progress toward developing a  framework for DOD efforts to transform a multitude of business systems  to better meet its financial management needs. We concur with this  assessment and, as we testified in February 2008, we believe DOD is  making progress toward establishing a framework to guide its business  transformation efforts.
While we are in broad agreement with the goals of OMB’s FMLOB  initiative, it appears that OMB is not looking broadly enough as it frames  its efforts. According to OMB and FSIO officials, FMLOB-related efforts  are initially focused on addressing agency core financial systems needs  and therefore may not currently fully address the existing  interrelationships between core financial systems and the financial portion  of mixed systems. Recent revisions to OMB’s Circular No. A-127 issued in  January 2009 confirm our concerns that the importance of these  interrelationships is not adequately incorporated into OMB’s approach.  Specifically, OMB’s revised guidance states that federal financial  management system requirements for determining substantial compliance  with FFMIA include computer security requirements and internal controls  as well as FSIO core financial system requirements but explicitly do not  include the existing financial management systems requirements related to  mixed systems.
Due to the magnitude of efforts and challenges associated with  modernizing financial management systems across government,  knowledgeable officials at other selected organizations we spoke with  stated that focusing on addressing agency core financial system needs first  may be appropriate. Nonetheless, an essential part of developing an  effective, comprehensive concept of operations includes identifying the  interrelationships between core financial systems and other systems, such  as payroll or inventory systems, which perform financial functions. In  addition, agencies are increasingly considering the use of large, complex,  and costly enterprise resource planning (ERP) programs to provide an  integrated solution for addressing both financial and mission-related  business needs. DOD, in particular, has been making significant  investments in a number of ERPs to take advantage of the enterprisewide  features that address various financial management and other business  needs. We have reported that, as envisioned, DOD’s Navy ERP program is  expected to cost approximately $2.4 billion over its 20-year life cycle and  to be fully operational in fiscal year 2013. As we previously reported, a  concept of operations should have a clear definition and scope of the  financial management activities to be included and identify the  interrelationships of core financial and other systems such as ERPs.
The ability to properly align governmentwide and agency efforts also  depends, in part, upon the availability of effective concepts of operations  at the governmentwide level as well as the agency level. We have  reported the lack of adequate concepts of operations associated with  agency financial management system projects, including selected projects  at the Army, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the  Department of the Treasury. For example, in connection with the Army’s  efforts to achieve total asset visibility, we reported that, without a  concept of operations, the Army is hindered in its ability to apply an  enterprise view in (1) making decisions as to how certain systems will  individually and collectively enhance the Army’s asset accountability and  (2) determining what changes are needed in its related business processes.  As a result, we also reported that the Army failed to take advantage of  business process reengineering opportunities, perpetuating the use of  some of its cumbersome and ineffective business processes used in  existing legacy systems.
Finally, participants at a Comptroller General’s forum held in December  2007 on improving federal financial management systems confirmed our  concerns regarding the need for a concept of operations, pointing out that  OMB’s various lines of business initiatives are serving to preserve  existing stovepipes. For example, participants said it is unclear why  separate lines of business are needed for budget and financial  management. OMB officials stated that FSIO has been working with OMB  staff knowledgeable of the federal enterprise architecture (FEA) to  better understand and document the relationships between mixed and core financial systems as well as communicate with the various line business initiatives and help ensure they are effectively coordinated.
section_title: OMB’s Current Priorities Focus on Standardization and Transparency
paragraphs: Adopting standardized processes is a fundamental step needed for all  financial management system implementations. Recognizing the  importance of this step in connection with implementing the FMLOB  initiative, we made five recommendations, as shown in table 3, related to  identifying, defining, and implementing standard business processes to  help facilitate greater efficiency and consistency, lower the cost, and  improve the quality and performance of financial management operations  across government. OMB and FSIO efforts have effectively addressed two  of our five recommendations by encouraging agencies to embrace, and  requiring shared service providers to adopt, standard business processes  in support of the FMLOB initiative. For example, in a July 2008  memorandum, OMB encouraged the federal financial management  community to begin preparations for adopting standard business  processes by taking several actions, including using such processes as a  framework for system implementation projects.
Much work remains before the standard business processes needed to  realize the goal of optimizing financial management practices across  government become operational. According to FSIO officials, the process  of developing the first set of standard business processes and  incorporating them into software products certified as meeting FSIO core  financial system requirements may take up to 3 years to complete under  existing plans. We also recognize that incorporating standard business  processes into operational systems will be a much longer-term effort since  OMB is not requiring agencies to consider migrating to a shared service  provider until upgrading to the next major release of their core financial  systems, and adoption of these standards is not required until migration  occurs. Accordingly, FSIO officials stated it may take up to 15 years to  incorporate the standards currently under development into software,  subsequently test and certify the software, and implement the certified  software governmentwide. According to OMB officials, this approach  reflects OMB’s recognition of the long-term nature of agency  modernization efforts and the need to provide agencies time to adequately  assess FMLOB migration risks.
Due to the wide array of current business processes in use across agencies  to address common and agency-specific needs, OMB and FSIO officials  acknowledge that developing standard business processes that can be  used across all federal agencies is a significant challenge. Thus far, their  efforts to increase standardization have resulted in the development and  issuance of three standard business processes, and OMB expects two  more to be finalized by September 2009. In a January 2008 memorandum  to agency CFOs, OMB acknowledged that efforts during the transparency  and standardization stage of the FMLOB initiative have taken longer than  expected. However, OMB added that the additional time has allowed for  the preparation of more comprehensive material and greater buy-in and  support for the initiative. Nonetheless, expediting efforts to address our  prior recommendations related to standard business processes is essential  since the ability to operationalize these standards, and begin realizing their  benefits, depends on their completion.
The extended time frame for implementing the FMLOB initiative involves  other challenges, such as responding to changes in stakeholder needs or  new financial reporting requirements. For example, FSIO officials stated  that financial management systems currently used to compile and report  financial information on a governmentwide level will face unique  transition-related challenges as agencies begin to use systems that  incorporate the recently developed common governmentwide accounting  classification structure and FMLOB-compliant standard business  processes. Specifically, modernization efforts under way at Treasury will  need to ensure that certain centralized systems will receive, process,  report, and transmit financial data to and from these agencies’ systems. In  addition, these centralized Treasury systems will need to continue to  interface with and convert information received from agency legacy  systems to ensure the overall consistency of consolidated information  used for government financial reporting and other purposes. To ensure  that these issues are properly identified and managed during the transition  period, FSIO officials stated that they are working with Treasury data  architects to facilitate the data standardization effort and develop a joint  plan that includes Treasury system update milestones. However, these  challenges and the risks associated with agency legacy systems that  produce financial management information using inconsistent business  processes will continue until the standardization envisioned by the  FMLOB initiative is actually implemented across the federal government.
section_title: Migration Strategy Developed, but Timetable for Migration Is Unclear
paragraphs: Recognizing the historical tendency for agencies to view their needs as  unique and resist standardization, we made five recommendations, as  shown in table 4, related to developing a strategy for ensuring that  agencies are migrated to a limited number of shared service providers.  OMB has effectively addressed two of these recommendations, including  developing guidance to assist agencies in their migration efforts. In  addition, OMB has taken steps toward addressing the remaining three  recommendations in this area related to developing a migration strategy,  articulating a clear goal and criteria for ensuring that agencies are  migrated, and developing a timeline, or migration path, for when agencies  should migrate to a shared service provider. However, efforts to develop  such a timeline are taking longer than expected and this important tool  has not yet been finalized. Until a reliable, detailed timetable for  migrations across the federal government is developed, the ability to  assess when governmentwide migrations will be completed remains  limited.
As previously noted, we plan to address key issues related to OMB’s  migration strategy in the second phase of our work and therefore are  deferring an assessment of OMB’s efforts in this area. Specifically, we plan  to review the implementation of OMB’s strategy at shared service  providers and agencies involved in migration activities during the next  phase of our work. OMB’s Competition Framework for FMLOB  Migrations (Competition Framework) and Migration Planning  Guidance, provided important guidance to agencies to support and  facilitate shared service provider migration activities. This guidance  includes principles agencies must use when acquiring new financial  management systems and best practices for managing organizational  changes and developing effective change management strategies to ensure  that migrations achieve intended results. Agencies are required to comply  with OMB’s stated migration strategy and OMB relies, in part, on  information agencies provide with their budget submissions to ensure they  are planning their migration activities accordingly. In addition, OMB  officials stated that they hold meetings with agencies to discuss this and  other information regarding FMLOB-related activities such as the life cycle  of existing agency financial management systems, IT investment plans,  and ongoing migration activities.
While we plan to perform an in-depth analysis of OMB’s strategy as part of  our follow-on work, we found that additional efforts are needed to develop  a timeline for agency migrations, as well as efforts to continue refining and  developing additional tools to facilitate the effectiveness of agency efforts.  A migration timeline reflecting agencies’ IT investment plans that are  aligned with existing financial management system life cycles and their  commitment toward migrating their financial management systems to  shared service providers would help to ensure that agencies do not  continue developing and implementing their own stovepiped systems.  Such a timeline would provide greater assurance that the migrations will  actually occur as planned and help guide and assess governmentwide  progress. OMB officials told us they are working with agencies to develop  an overall migration timeline and expected to have it in place by the end of  2008. However, this important tool has not yet been finalized and OMB  could not provide an estimated completion date. As a result, the reliability  of targets reported by OMB for migrating agencies, including its February  2008 estimate that many migrations are expected through 2015, is  unclear. In addition to a migration timeline, FSIO and OMB officials  acknowledged that agencies need additional migration guidance and tools  in more specific areas that will further improve the efficiency and  effectiveness of agency migration activities—such as tools for navigating  the acquisition process for shared financial services, providing templates  for developing agency service-level agreements, and providing agencies  with change management support and training.
section_title: Additional Actions Needed in Defining and Implementing Disciplined Processes
paragraphs: To help reduce the risks associated with financial management system  implementations, we highlighted the importance of incorporating  disciplined processes into implementation efforts and made four  recommendations, as shown in table 5, to ensure that they are more  effectively used to properly manage and oversee specific projects. OMB  has issued guidance, such as the Competition Framework and the  Migration Planning Guidance, which effectively addresses our  recommendation to provide a standard set of practices to guide migrations  from legacy systems to new systems and shared service providers.  Additional efforts are needed to fully address the remaining three  recommendations in this area.
OMB officials expressed the belief that existing guidance provides  sufficient descriptions and requirements to agencies involved in federal IT  capital investment projects and system implementations regarding the use  of disciplined processes. Further, they stated that additional guidance is  not needed since agencies will be migrating to an established shared  service provider with a proven track record and would therefore  incorporate the disciplined processes used by the provider, which would  reduce or eliminate the traditional project management tasks associated  with system implementations. Although the use of such providers may  help reduce risks related to core financial system migrations, this position  does not address the need for more effective guidance to clearly  communicate the extent to which agencies are required to ensure that  disciplined processes are incorporated into all financial management  system implementations. Our review of OMB guidance indicates that its  existing guidance does not adequately define specific disciplined  processes nor adequately specify agency requirements concerning their  use in connection with financial management system implementations.  For example, our analysis of OMB guidance related to requirements  management, risk management, data conversion, and testing activities that  agencies should follow during system implementations shows that the  guidance describes the purpose and high-level descriptions of these  activities, but does not adequately describe and provide sufficient  guidance regarding the methods agencies could use to incorporate certain  critical disciplined processes into their implementation efforts.
For example, sound requirements management processes, in part, should  ensure that requirements are stated in clear terms that allow for  quantitative evaluation and traceability among various requirements  documents. With regard to traceability, OMB guidance states that “a  complete set of requirements that maintain traceability throughout the  Design, Development and Testing phases will contribute to the system’s  success.” However, this and other OMB guidance does not provide  detailed guidance on how agencies are to ensure traceability is to be  attained (e.g., through the use of a requirements traceability matrix) nor  does it include specific guidance requiring test plans to include links to the  specific requirements they address.
For data conversions, OMB guidance does not address the need to  consider specific issues that apply uniquely to converting data as part of  the replacement of a financial system, such as identifying specific open  transactions and balances to be established through automated or manual  processes, as well as using different conversion options for different  categories of data. Data conversion issues can also result in problems  beyond financial reporting such as those we previously reported in June  2005 in connection with the Army’s implementation of its Logistics  Modernization Program (LMP) involving excess items being ordered and  shipped to one of its depots. Specifically, we noted that three truckloads  of locking washers (for bolts) were mistakenly ordered and received, and  subsequently returned, because of data conversion problems.
Further, the guidance does not specifically address or require agencies to  incorporate characteristics typically found in successful disciplined testing  efforts, such as processes that ensure test results are thoroughly inspected  and test cases that include exposing the system to invalid and unexpected  conditions. Without specific guidance on the use of these and other  disciplined processes during financial management system  implementations, agency projects may not achieve their intended results  within established resources (costs) and on schedule.
In addition to guidance, officials at OMB, FSIO, and other organizations  cited challenges associated with the lack of appropriate resources to  ensure disciplined processes are implemented in connection with financial  management system projects. For example, officials at FSIO and DOD’s  Business Transformation Agency told us that agencies do not always  maintain or involve internal staff with appropriate system implementation  and business process expertise needed to ensure successful  implementations. Further, according to OMB officials, OMB’s ability to  perform detailed implementation oversight reviews on all financial  management system projects continues to be hampered due to the limited  staff available to perform them. Although we recognize this challenge, we  continue to believe that proper oversight should entail verification that  disciplined processes are, in fact, incorporated into these projects in order  to maximize their likelihood of success.
As we previously reported, requiring agencies to have their financial  management system projects undergo independent verification and  validation reviews could provide an alternative means for ensuring  agencies are incorporating disciplined processes into these projects.  According to OMB officials, they do not need to require agencies to use  independent verification and validation as a tool because most large  agencies are already using independent verification and validation  contractors to monitor large system implementations. In addition, OMB  officials said they do not believe it would be appropriate to require all  system implementations to use independent verification and validation  contractors since they may not be cost-justified on smaller, less complex  projects. OMB officials stated that they rely, in part, on activities OMB  performs in connection with assessing projects for inclusion on its  Management Watch List and High Risk List to identify projects having  implementation risks needing further attention.
As described in more detail in the next section of this report, while  Management Watch List and High Risk List related activities are designed  to identify planning and performance deficiencies and provide useful  information to assist OMB in monitoring IT modernization projects, they  do not provide for an adequate assessment of the extent to which agencies  are incorporating disciplined processes to better manage financial  management system modernization projects. Further, we continue to  believe that verifying that projects adequately incorporate disciplined  processes, whether performed by an independent verification and  validation contractor or otherwise, is an essential aspect of effectively  overseeing financial management system implementation projects to  ensure the risks associated with these projects are managed to acceptable  levels.
section_title: Other Challenges and Risks Highlight Importance of Continued Strong Commitment
paragraphs: FMLOB implementation efforts are affected by other broad and  crosscutting issues related to the overall federal financial management  environment such as ensuring the availability of sufficient resources and  federal financial management human capital strategies, and addressing the  myriad of weaknesses in existing systems across federal agencies. Given  the potential far-reaching impact of the FMLOB initiative on  governmentwide financial management systems, continued strong  commitment and leadership is essential to ensure that progress continues  and the FMLOB goals are achieved.
As we recently reported, the federal government is taking unprecedented  actions to restore stability to the financial markets that will likely have a  significant effect on the federal government’s financial condition. As our  nation works through these and other fiscal challenges, difficult choices  and trade-offs involving the use of significant resources will be  unavoidable. The knowledgeable officials at OMB, FSIO, and other  organizations we spoke with generally agree that securing the resources  needed to achieve FMLOB initiative goals will be an ongoing challenge.
Similarly, the officials we spoke with generally agreed that agencies face  challenges associated with skills, knowledge, and experience imbalances  in their workforce which, without corrective action, are expected to  worsen in light of anticipated retirements of federal civilian workers in  coming years. In this respect, our work at Treasury, DOD, DHS, and other  agencies has confirmed that problems associated with strategic workforce  planning, human resources, and change management have hampered  financial management operations and system implementations and help to  illustrate that the federal financial management workforce supporting the  business needs of today is not well positioned to meet the needs of  tomorrow. Participants at a Comptroller General’s forum suggested that  federal financial management human capital strategies could be better  focused on attracting and retaining a new technology-savvy generation of  financial professionals. However, FSIO officials noted that they believe the  FMLOB-related efforts to standardize business processes, operate  financial management systems through shared service solutions, and  provide training materials and change management support will help  mitigate the growing shortage of federal financial management human  capital. As we previously reported, effective human capital management  is critical to the success of systems implementations and the extent to  which these and other efforts will lead to having staff with the appropriate  skills is key to achieving financial management improvements.
In addition, in connection with our efforts to report annually on the  implementation status of FFMIA, we continue to report that assessments  for the 24 CFO Act agencies illustrate that agencies still do not have  effective financial management systems, including processes, procedures,  and controls in place that can routinely produce reliable, useful, and  timely financial information that federal managers can use for day-to-day  decision-making. Further, problems at some agencies, such as DOD and  DHS, are so severe and deep-rooted that we have designated their  transformation efforts as high risk due to financial management and  business practices that adversely affect their ability to control costs,  ensure basic accountability, measure performance, and meet other  financial management needs. Against the backdrop of our nation’s long- term fiscal imbalance, addressing these issues represents key challenges  to fully realizing the world-class financial management anticipated by  Congress through the enactment of federal financial management reform  legislation as well as FMLOB initiative goals.
Given the broad spectrum of challenges associated with modernizing  federal financial management systems, strong leadership and commitment  of OMB, FSIO, and other key FMLOB stakeholders are especially  important to ensure that needed improvements are achieved.  Knowledgeable officials from the other selected organizations we  interviewed generally agreed that the success of the FMLOB initiative will  depend, in part, on OMB’s ability to lead the multifaceted efforts of many  stakeholders toward achieving effective, common, financial management  system solutions over a long period of time. We concur with this position  and believe additional attention and efforts toward addressing our prior  recommendations, as well as continuing careful consideration of the  significant challenges, will serve to facilitate the implementation of this  important initiative.
section_title: Previously Identified Weaknesses Continue to Hamper OMB Oversight of Financial Management System Modernization Projects
paragraphs: Since 2005, we have made various recommendations to OMB aimed at  improving its oversight of agency financial management system  modernization and other IT projects. OMB has yet to take sufficient  actions to fully address these recommendations, despite the critical role of  OMB oversight, established in various statutes, in helping to ensure the  success of agency modernization efforts. In addition, OMB has yet to  resolve challenges we previously reported on the need to capture the costs  of all financial management system investments in order to better evaluate  agency modernization efforts. Achieving FMLOB goals requires effective  OMB oversight of agency modernization projects. Until the weaknesses we  previously reported are fully addressed, the FMLOB initiative and agency  financial management system modernization efforts remain at increased  risk of not meeting their intended goals.
subsections: section_title: Actions Still Needed to Address Prior Recommendations Related to Oversight of Financial Management System Modernization and Other IT Projects
paragraphs: Although OMB has taken steps to address some of the oversight-related  recommendations we have made since 2005, it has yet to fully address  them. For example, OMB has updated the criteria used to identify high-risk  projects and issued various guidance such as the Migration Planning  Guidance issued in September 2006 that provides useful instruction to  agencies on managing system modernization projects as well as the risks  associated with migrating to shared service providers. However, OMB has  not yet fully addressed our prior recommendations aimed at maximizing  the use of the Management Watch List and High Risk List as tools that  facilitate its oversight and review of IT projects including financial  management system modernization efforts. Further, as indicated in the  previous section of this report, OMB has not yet fully addressed our prior  recommendations related to disciplined processes including defining and  providing specific guidance to agencies on disciplined processes,  developing processes to facilitate oversight and review of agencies’  financial system implementation projects, and ensuring that agencies  effectively implement disciplined processes.
OMB oversight efforts include assessing financial management system and  other IT investments using specific criteria to evaluate business cases and  determine whether they represent high-risk projects. OMB includes agency  projects warranting additional oversight and management attention based  on these assessments in its quarterly Management Watch List and High  Risk List. While OMB has taken steps to more effectively use the  Management Watch List and High Risk List as oversight tools, additional  actions are needed to fully address our prior recommendations and further  improve its oversight of agency IT projects. For example, although OMB  performed governmentwide and agency-specific analyses of Management  Watch List projects’ deficiencies in 2008, it needs to continue to use this  list to prioritize projects needing follow-up and to report to Congress on  management areas needing attention. In addition, OMB has yet to publicly  disclose the deficiencies, if any, associated with projects included in the  High Risk List. Disclosing these deficiencies would allow OMB and others  to better analyze the reasons projects are poorly performing, identify  management issues and other root causes that transcend individual  agencies, and evaluate corrective actions. Further, OMB’s criteria for  assessing projects and determining which are to be included on these  quarterly lists does not adequately address the need to assess whether  agencies have, in fact, implemented the necessary disciplined processes to  help ensure their success.
As previously discussed, OMB officials stated that their reviews of agency  financial management system modernization projects do not generally  focus on the extent to which agencies are following disciplined processes  and that OMB does not have sufficient resources to conduct such reviews.  According to OMB officials, its reviews of financial management systems  and related modernization efforts focus primarily on agencies’ compliance  with the requirements of FFMIA and ensuring that effective remediation  plans are developed and implemented to address identified FFMIA  deficiencies. Reviewing these projects to monitor whether FFMIA  deficiencies are addressed is important; however, such efforts do not  provide adequate assurance that agencies are using disciplined processes  to manage their projects. Such assurance is critical since our work and  that of others has shown that agency modernization failures have often  been due, in part, to not adhering to disciplined processes during system  implementation efforts. Until the weaknesses we previously reported are  fully addressed, the FMLOB initiative and agency financial management  system modernization efforts remain at increased risk of not meeting their  intended goals.
section_title: OMB Oversight Efforts Do Not Adequately Capture and Consider Spending on Financial Management System Modernization Projects
paragraphs: In 2006, we reported that one of the key challenges OMB faces when  evaluating financial management system modernization efforts is  capturing all financial management system investments and their related  costs. Capturing and reporting useful spending information continues to  be a challenge due, in part, to the way in which agencies categorize  projects according to existing OMB guidance. As a result, the ability to  fully consider the risks associated with financial management system  modernization projects and more effectively focus oversight activities is  adversely affected.
In April 2008, OMB reported that agencies planned to spend $925 million  on financial management systems modernizations for fiscal year 2009.  However, the methodology OMB used to report this overall  governmentwide estimate did not provide a complete and accurate  measure of spending on these projects. Specifically, agencies are required  to indicate certain FEA categories that each project relates to in  connection with their exhibit 53 submissions. While OMB’s estimate of  agencies’ planned spending includes amounts related to five of these  categories, it does not take into account certain types of mixed systems  that support financial management activities, such as those related to  supply chain management. For example, even though DOD’s Navy ERP  project is a business system with many integrated financial management  functions, OMB’s estimate did not include any of the $112 million planned  to be spent on this project in fiscal year 2009 because it was identified as a  supply chain management project.
For projects involving mixed systems such as the Navy ERP, OMB  guidance requires agencies to provide the percentage of planned spending  on projects associated with the financial portion of these systems related  to their budget request for the next fiscal year. However, such  percentages were not incorporated in the methodology for estimating  planned agency spending on financial management systems for fiscal year  2009. In addition, OMB guidance does not require agencies to specify the  amount that was actually spent on the financial portion of mixed system  projects in prior and current years. Further, on the basis of our review of  spending data for two selected agencies, the reliability of information  reported by agencies is unclear. Specifically, these two agencies  interpreted OMB’s guidance differently and, as a result, used inconsistent  methodologies for determining the percentages they reported. OMB  officials informed us that they are reviewing the guidance related to  estimating financial management system percentages to determine  whether additional data or clarifications are needed. OMB officials also  stated that they were uncertain as to whether focusing significant efforts  in this area would provide useful information or be an appropriate use of  resources that should be focused on potentially more important priorities.
We agree that managing and evaluating mixed system projects in many  cases may not involve focusing on the financial portion of mixed systems  on a stand-alone basis. However, OMB’s current processes for obtaining  and reporting agency spending on financial management system  modernization efforts does not provide sufficient information to facilitate  an adequate evaluation of their financial risks. An effectively designed  risk-based approach for focusing limited financial management oversight  resources should take into consideration the relative risks associated with  all modernization projects that support financial management functions.  Further, focusing efforts on helping to ensure the success of large mixed  system projects that involve significant financial management-related  portions versus other less costly financial management system  modernization projects may be a prudent course of action and may help  justify the need for additional resources to address the risks they  represent.
Spending data highlighting the investments being made on different types  of financial management system modernization projects, including core  financial systems and mixed systems with significant financial  management components, would help efforts to evaluate the relative  magnitude of—and risks associated with—agency efforts in these areas.  Until OMB efforts to obtain and report spending on financial management  system modernization projects and related guidance take into account the  need for information to better evaluate the relative risks associated with  these investments, the ability to effectively align oversight activities based  on these risks will be adversely affected.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: OMB’s FMLOB initiative represents an important step toward improving  the outcome of financial management system modernization efforts so  that agencies have systems that generate reliable, useful, and timely  information for decision-making purposes. Although OMB continues to  make progress in addressing our prior recommendations to help ensure  the success of this initiative, much work remains. Specifically, 13 of the 18  recommendations we made on integrating four key building blocks into  FMLOB implementation efforts have yet to be fully addressed. Without an  effective concept of operations providing the foundation to guide FMLOB- related activities, efforts to modernize federal financial management  systems are at an increased risk of not fully achieving their goals. Further,  addressing many of our recommendations will require extensive work to  complete remaining development activities and, more importantly,  actually place them into operation to achieve the federal financial  management framework envisioned. In addition, despite its critical role in  overseeing agency financial management systems modernization efforts,  OMB has not yet fully addressed our oversight-related recommendations,  including assessing whether agencies have incorporated disciplined  processes into their modernization efforts, fully using its Management  Watch List and High Risk List to more effectively oversee projects, and  reporting to Congress. Across the federal government, agencies have  financial management system modernization efforts under way and the  success of these efforts will depend on OMB’s and agencies’ efforts to  ensure that disciplined processes are effectively used to help reduce the  risk of system implementation failures. Therefore, we reaffirm the need for  OMB to expedite its efforts to fully address the recommendations we have  made in prior reports, including those dealing with specific oversight  procedures to minimize their associated risk. OMB efforts to obtain and  report information on how much agencies spend on modernizing federal  financial management systems do not enable it or Congress to adequately  understand and evaluate the risks associated with such projects.
Consistent and diligent OMB commitment toward oversight, including  efforts to incorporate appropriate spending data, will be critical to the  overall success of efforts to modernize federal financial management  systems.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To assist oversight efforts specifically related to federal financial  management systems, we recommend that the Director of OMB take  actions to facilitate complete and accurate reporting of actual and planned  spending related to financial management system modernization projects,  including the financial portion of mixed systems that significantly support  financial management functions, and make necessary changes in existing  guidance to meet these needs.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We received written comments from the Deputy Controller of OMB on a  draft of this report (these comments are reprinted in their entirety in app.  III). In its comments, OMB generally agreed with our recommendation to  facilitate complete and accurate reporting of actual and planned spending  related to financial management system modernization projects and  described actions being taken to address this recommendation. OMB also  provided technical comments on a draft of this report that we  incorporated as appropriate.
In its comments, OMB expressed concern with part of our  recommendation directed at better capturing cost information specifically  related to the financial portion of mixed systems and stated that it is  evaluating the need for such information. According to OMB, its  preliminary analysis shows that breakouts of this cost data would have  limited value for decision making because such a distinction is highly  subjective and would not likely change agencies’ investment decisions.  OMB did not provide the preliminary analysis for our review. OMB  believes it would be more cost-effective to focus its resources on other,  higher risk areas, such as finalizing the concept of operations. However, as  discussed in our report, the resources devoted to the financial portion of  mixed systems are significant and, although determining the amount of  such resources may be subjective, we believe more effective OMB  guidance and oversight could further improve the accuracy, consistency,  and usefulness of such information. The implementation of mixed system  projects is critical because these systems provide input to the core  financial system and in some cases are the sole source of data needed by  management to make informed decisions. OMB needs such cost  information to effectively evaluate the risks associated with financial  management system modernization projects, including mixed systems,  thus ensuring that its oversight efforts are properly aligned to focus on  those projects needing increased attention.
We are sending copies of this report to the Ranking Member,  Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government  Information, Federal Services, and International Security, Senate  Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the  Chairman and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Government  Management, Organization, and Procurement, House Committee on  Oversight and Government Reform. We are also sending copies to the  Director of OMB and Director of FSIO. In addition, this report will be  available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  Kay Daly, Director, Financial Management and Assurance, who may be  reached at (202) 512-9095 or dalykl@gao.gov, or Naba Barkakati, Chief  Technologist, Applied Research and Methods, who may be reached at  (202) 512-2700 or barkakatin@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To determine the Office of Mana toward addressing our prior recommend management line of business (FMLOB) initiative, we reviewed relevant  OMB and Financial Systems Integration Office (FSIO) policies, guidance,  reports, and memorandums related to actions taken and actions remaining  and interviewed key OMB and FSIO officials, including senior officials in  OMB’s Office of Federal Financial Management (OFFM) and Office of  Electronic Government and Information Technology (E-Gov and IT). We  also reviewed laws and regulations related to the FMLOB initiative and  relevant prior GAO reports to identify and assess the risks and challenges  associated with implementing the FMLOB initiative. (See the Related GAO  Products list at the end of this report.) In addition, to obtain views on  challenges related to implementing the FMLOB initiative, we interviewed  OMB and FSIO officials as well as other officials from organizations  involved in large business transformation initiatives and knowledgeable of  federal financial management system improvement efforts and reviewed  relevant reports from these organizations including the Financial  Standards and Processes Division within the Department of Defense  Business Transformation Agency, the Association of Government  Accountants, and the National Academy of Public Administration.  gement and Budget’s (OMB) progress  ations related to the financial  To determine how effective OMB monitors FMLOB and financial  management system modernization projects, including those reported on  its Management Watch List and High Risk List, we reviewed our prior  reports specifically related to OMB efforts to improve the identification  and oversight of projects on these lists and interviewed senior OMB OFFM  and Office of E-Gov and IT officials on the nature and extent of efforts to  monitor financial management system and other IT projects. To assess  OMB’s efforts to monitor agency spending on FMLOB and financial  management system modernization projects, we reviewed and analyzed  reports and data provided by OMB and selected agencies related to agency  spending on IT projects. In assessing the reliability of spending amounts  reported by agencies, we (1) reviewed relevant OMB policies, guidance,  reports, and memorandums, (2) reviewed spending data submitted by  agencies to OMB on their Agency IT Investment Portfolio (exhibit 53) as  required by OMB Circular No. A-11, Section 53, and (3) interviewed senior  OMB OFFM officials to gain an understanding of their efforts to collect,  analyze, and report agency spending on financial management system  projects. In addition, we identified six agencies that reported the largest  amounts of fiscal year 2007 spending for financial management-related  modernization projects and interviewed officials from two of these  agencies knowledgeable of efforts related to preparing and submitting  agency exhibit 53s to OMB and whose reported fiscal year 2007 spending  for financial management-related modernization projects represented 2 percent of total federal agency spending on such IT projects. We believ that the results of our analysis of data provided by the two agencies  selected, combined with our analysis of guidance and data obtained from  OMB, provide a sufficient basis for our conclusion that spending data  submitted by agencies on the exhibit 53 are not reliable for purposes of  accurately measuring agency spending on financial management system  modernization projects.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2008 through May  2009, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  e  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believ that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Status of Prior GAO Recommendations
paragraphs: This appendix provides a summary of the progress made by OMB, in  conjunction with FSIO, in addressing prior GAO recommendations  related to the FMLOB initiative. In addition, this appendix provides o overall assessment and status of whether this progress fully addressed  each recommendation and a summary of the remaining actions we beli are necessary to fully address those that have not yet been completed.
According to OMB officials, a draft FMLOB concept of operations (ConOps) has  been developed; however, it has not yet been finalized and officials would not  provide an estimate for when it will be completed. According to OMB officials, t FMLOB ConOps will initially focus primarily on core financial systems at the  individual agency level. While this focus is important, the development of a  ConOps describing the activities, needs, and inte rrelationships of core and  noncore governmentwide financial management systems would assist in  providing a valuable foundation for future financial management modernization  efforts. Until this critical tool is finalized, the extent to which OMB efforts to date  address this recommendation remains unclear.
Finalize and issue a concept of operations document that includes the following  components:  describes the operations that must be performed, who must perform them,  and where and how the operations will be carried out;  clearly defines and describes the scope of financial management activities;  describes how the various elements of federal financial systems and mixed  systems interrelate;  describes how information flows from and through these systems; and  explains how financial management systems at the agency and  governmentwide levels are designed to operate cohesively.
Refer to recommendation 1 describing progress related to developing a ConOps  that would describe the interrelationships among federal financial management  systems and how financial management operations, including those performed  by shared service providers, will be carried out. In addition, OMB Circular No. A- 127, revised in January 2009, contains guidance on the use, selection, and  monitoring of shared service providers. However, this revised guidance does not  adequately reflect the critical interrelationships between core and noncore  financial systems. Specifically, it states that noncore financial system  requirements are not part of the requirements to be used for determining  substantial compliance with the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA). This represents a significant change from prior guidance that  implemented FFMIA Sections 803(a) and 806 provisions requiring that all  financial management systems be evaluated to determine compliance with  applicable requirements. Excluding noncore financial management systems the scope of these provisions raises significant questions on how these systems  will be evaluated in the future and the level of assurance that noncore systems  provide reliable, timely, and useful financial information.
Refer to recommendation 1 describing remaining actions related to developing a  ConOps which, among other things, describes the interrelationships among  federal financial management systems and how financial management  operations, including those performed by shared service providers, should be  carried out.
Refer to recommendation 1 describing progress related to developing a ConOps  that would describe the interrelationships among federal financial management  systems, including how systems operated at the agency and governmentwide  levels should operate cohesively.
According to an OMB January 2008 memorandum, in connection with financia management modernization efforts, federal agencies will only be permitted to  acquire, and shared service providers allowed to implement, software products  that are certified as meeting FSIO core financial systems requirements. Migration  Planning Guidanc the services and systems offered by shared service providers on behalf of  agencies.  e issued in September 2006 provides additional guidance on  Accordin developed to align with the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Reference  Model and will provide additional clarification on the integra management systems.  g to OMB officials, an FMLOB Segment Architecture  is being  ConOps which, among other things, would describe the interrelationships am federal financial management systems, including how systems operat agency and governmentwide levels can operate cohesively.  1 describing remaining actions related to developing a  ong  Ensure appropriately aligned with a comprehensive financial management system  ConOps.   that efforts to develop and issue an FMLOB Segment Architecture are    Refer to recommendation 1 describing progress related to developing a ConOps  that would clearly define and describe the scope of financial management  activities and describe how the various elements of federal financial systems and  mixed systems interrelate.
In addition, refer to recommendation 2 describing revised OMB Circular No. A- 127 guidance on financial management systems.
According to OMB officials, the FMLOB Segment Architecture is being  developed to align with the FEA Reference Model and proposed changes to  increase FEA alignment with OMB Circular Nos. A-11 and A-127 will be  submitted to the Federal CIO Council Architecture and Infrastructure Committee.
Ensure that collective efforts to define financial management systems, includ the development and issuance of the FMLOB Segment Architecture and future  revisions to OMB Circular Nos. A-11 and A-127, effectively resolve  inconsistencies in how they are defined in the FEA and FFMIA.
OMB, in conjunction with FSIO, has made progress towards developing stan business processes, including the issuance of the following guidance:  the common governmentwide accounting classification structure (July  2007);  arge card data elements specification, which standardizes  ch governmentwide requirements for data elements (December 2007);  payment and funds management standard business processes (July 2008); and  ard business process (November 2008).
In addition, according to OMB’s January 2008 memorandum to agency chief  financial officers (CFO), OMB projected that efforts to provide certain additional  guidance on common governmentwide business standards, processes, data,  and rules would be accomplished by December 2009 including:  finalizing the reimbursables and reporting standard business processes;  updati business standards; and  ng the Core Financial Systems requirements to incorporate the  identifying and beginning the development of additional standards, such  interface data elements, to assist in lowering the risk and cost of  implementing financial systems.
Finalize and issue the business standards for reimbursables and reporting  processes.
Update the Core Financial Systems and noncore systems requirements to  incorporate the business standards.
Identify and develop additional common governmentwide business standards,  processes, data, and rules, such as interface data elements, to assist in low the risk and cost of implementing financial systems.
Refer to recommendation 5 describing progress toward defining and developing  standard business processes.
OMB, in conjunction with FSIO, issued Financial Management Systems  Standard Business Processes for U.S. Government Agencies  in July 2008,  which describes the Standard Federal Financial Business Processes (SFFBP)  intended to provide guidance for implementing effi cient core financial business  processes that are consistent across government. The SFFBPs include:  sequenced activities for core business processes;  business rules for governing the process steps;  data elements and definitions related to these business processes (e.g.,  information contained on an obligation such as document source and  number, item number, price per item); and  relationships among the data elements as they exist in the actual business  activities.
While the SFFBP currently provides detailed descriptions, process s flowcharts, and other guidance for the payment, funds, and recei management processes, descriptions of other standard business processes  identified so far (i.e., reimbursables and reporting), as well as data objects and  elements, have not yet been described. In addition, since the SFFBP focuses on  core financial business processes, standard business processes associated with  noncore financial business processes have not yet been described.
Refer to recommendation 5 describing remaining action needed to identify and  ness processes.
Develop, finalize, and issue descriptions of the business standards for  reimbursables and reporting processes.
Identify, develop, and describe additional common governmentwide business  standards, processes, data, and rules, such as interface data elements, including  those needed to meet agencies’ needs associated with noncore financial  business processes.
OMB Circular No. A-127, revised in January 2009, requires agencies to registe approved exceptions to the standard configuration to meet their needs.
According to OMB officials, OMB’s priority is to focus on governmentwide  standard business processes that generally affect all agencies. Although OMB  has not yet focused on developing standard business processes that meet  unique agency needs, OMB must further develop its process to identify unique requirements and proceed to d designed to meet them.
According to have been completed, incorporated into core financial system requirements tested during the FSIO software qualification and certification process, agencies  will only be permitted to acquire, and shared service providers allowed to  implement, certified products as configured with the standards. Limiting the  products that shared service providers can use to those that are configured to  meet standard business processes effectively addresses this recommendation.   a January 2008 OMB memorandum, once business standards  See recommendation 8 describ business processes into core financial system requirements and requiring service providers to only use certified products configured with the standard. In  addition, this memorandum requires agencies to adopt these standards when  they move to a shared service provider.  ing progress related to incorporating standard  In a July 2008 memorandum announcing the issuance of certain standard business processes described in recommendation 5, OM financial management community, including federal age preparations for adopting standard business processe business practices and processes, (2) gaining an understanding of the standar federal financial business processes, (3) analyzing the gap between existing s by (1) analyzing existing  d   and  future processes, and (4) using standard business processes as a framework for  system implementation projects.
In addition, OM consisting of agency and other federal financial management community  stakeholders to develop SFFBPs provides effective opportunities to help  encourage agencies to develop and embrace standard business processes a performance measures.
See recommenda shared service providers. tion 2 describing revised OMB Circular No. A-127 on the use of  In a January 2008 memorandum, OMB reiterated guidance contained in the  Competition Framework for Financial Management Lines of Business Mi (Competition Framework) issued in May 2006 requiring, with limited exception,  an agency seeking to upgrade to the next major release of its current core  financial management system or modernize to a different core financial  management system to either migrate to a shared service provider or qualified  private sector provider, or be designated as a shared service provider. An  agency may rely on its in-house core financial management system operations  without being designated as a shared service provider only if the agency  demonstrates that its own operations represent a best value and lower risk  alternative over the life of the investment.
OMB also issued Migration Planning Guidance in September 2006 to he agencies prepare for and manage a migration of their financial management  system operations to a shared service provider. According to the Migration  Planning Guidance, all agencies are expected to decide whether to migrate thei technology hosting administration and application management to a shared  service provider or to become a provider themselves within 10 years.
To help ensure that agencies are migrating in accordance with its stated  approach, according to OMB officials, OMB uses information obtained from  agencies, such as the life cycles of agencies’ existing financial management  systems and exhibit 300s, and through discussions specifically related to  financial management systems which occur at least annually, or more frequently  during active migration planning or transition activities.
Although OMB has developed a migration strategy, we defer our final  assessment of these actions toward addressing this recommendation until we  complete a more in-depth analysis as part of our planned follow-on work.
See recommendation 10 describing OMB’s progress to clearly articulate the  applicability of the shared service provider concept to agencies.
Although OMB has taken steps to articulate a clear goal and criteria for ensuring  agencies are subject to the shared service provider concept, we defer our fi assessment of these actions toward addressing this recommendation until w complete a more in-depth analysis as part of our planned follow-on work.
See recommendation 10 describing progress related to establishing a migration  path or timetable.
Although these efforts articulate the applicability of the shared services concept  to federal agencies and represent important elements of an overall migration  strategy, additional efforts are needed for an effective strategy including the  establishment of clear migration timelines and processes to effectively monitor  s will  progress toward meeting them. OMB’s recent estimates for when agencie be migrated to shared service providers are unclear, indicating that many have  been scheduled through fiscal year 2015 while some have not yet been  scheduled. According to O develop a detailed migration timeline it has not yet been finalized. Until this tool  is finaliz recommendation remains unclear.
MB officials, although OMB has been working to  ed, the extent to which OMB efforts to date address this    Develop clear and measurable goals, including specific timelines for migrating shared service providers based, in part, on the life cycle of existing financial  management systems.
The Competition Framework issued by OMB in May 2006 provides additional  guidance to help agencies select a shared service provider and requires  agencies undertaking steps to acquire new financial management systems to  comply with four guiding principles, including considering providers with a  demonstrated capability, using a competitive process, implementing an  accountability structure, and tracking results.
In September 2006 OMB issued its Migration Planning Guidance designed to  help agencies prepare for and manage a migration of their financial managem system operations to a shared service provider. In January 2009, OMB revise Circular No. A-127 providing additional guidance on the use of shared service  providers.
Migration Planning Guidance issued in September 2006 includes a section on Change Management Best Practices, which provides considerations for managing  the organizational changes to facilitate the transition from an agency’s existing  financial systems or operations to a shared service provider. This section inclu depth descriptions of best practices in a variety of areas that can assist agencies in  developing and adopting an effective change management strategy including the role  of leadership, governance, organizational structure, migration team composition,  human capital management, and stakeholder and communications management.  sued guidance related to disciplined processes in its Migration Planning  Guidance issued in September 2006 which provides agencies with high-level  guidance to manage their systems modernization projects and m migrating to shared service providers.
See recommendations 8 and 10 describing progress related to requiring  agencies to migrate to shared service providers and only permitting them to use  the certified products as configured to meet required standard business  processes. According to OMB officials, using shared service providers with  proven track records will help to reduce or eliminate traditional project  management tasks commonly associated with system implementations.
However, additional efforts are needed to adequately define the critical elements  sses needed and steps to be taken to ensure they are  adequately implemented. In our review of OMB guidance on selected disciplined  processes, we noted that OMB guidance does not provide in-depth information  on each of the selected disciplined processes. For example, OMB guidance does  not adequately address how agencies are to ensure the traceability of  requirements as well as the need to consider specific issues that apply uniquely  to converting data as part of the replacement of a financial system, incorporate  test cases that expose the system to invalid and unexpected outcomes, a nd  ensure thorough inspection of test results. In addition, OMB reviews of agen financial management systems implementations generally do not focus on  implementation of the disciplined processes.   the disciplined processes (i.e., requirements management,  Thoroughly define testing, data conversion and system interfaces, configuration, risk and project  management, quality assurance) necessary to properly manage projects.
Map each of the disciplin specific be performed. ed processes to OMB guidance that contains clear and   instructions requiring their use and how each disciplined process should  Issue guidance specifically related to disciplined processes necessary to  properly manage specific projects.
Provide oversight and more structured reviews specifically related to financial  management projects to ensure that disciplined processes are effectively  implemented.
See recommendation 15 describing progress related to specific guidance  provided to agencies on disciplined processes including the issuance of  Migration Planning Guidance, OMB Circular No. A-11, Part 7, and a May 25,  2007, memora most specific guidance related to financial management system  implementations. However, as described in recommendation 15, additional  efforts are needed to provide guidance to address the use of disciplined  processes in connection with financial management system implementation ndum. Of these, the Migration Planning Guidance provides the  s.
See recommendation 15 describing remaining actions needed to address the  use of disciplined processes necessary to properly manage specific financial  management system implementation projects.
See recomm Competition Framework, Migration Planning Guidance including Change  Management Best Practices, and OMB’s January 2008 memorandum providing  guidance for agencies planning to migrate their agency’s financial managemen t  systems and services to new systems and shared service providers.  endations 8, 13, and 14 describing progress related to issuing the    OMB issued a variety of guidance on financial management system  requirements and the implementation of IT projects that facilitates the oversight  and review of financial system implementation projects.
OMB uses information obtained from agencies such as the life cycles of  agencies’ existing financial management systems, exhibit 300s, and throu discussions specifically related to financial management systems implementation  projects which occur at least annually, or more frequently during active migration  gh  planning or transition activities.
During the budget formulation process, OMB analyzes information related to  agency financial management system and other IT projects and identifies those  warranting additional attention on its Management Watch List and High Risk List.
These efforts represent important aspects of OMB’s oversight of financial  management system implementation projects. However, OMB has not developed a  structured process to facilitate its overall oversight efforts related to these projects. In  addition, OMB does not adequately capture spending specifically related to financial  management system modernization projects, which limits its ability to fully consid the  although OMB has tak poorly performing projects, additional efforts are needed to address prior  recommendations to improve the planning, management, and oversight of these financial risks associated with these efforts. Als o, we recently testified that  en steps to improve the identification of poorly planned and  projects. Finally, the extent of problems related to financial management system implementation projects that continue to be reported indicate the need for additional  oversight efforts designed to further identify and prevent failures in the future.
Enhance existing oversight efforts to improve financial management syste implementations by  developing a structured process to identify and evaluate specific and  systemic implementation weaknesses and risks specifically related to financial management system modernizations, including those associated  with projects on the Management Watch List and High Risk List and others  identified through reviews of agency provided information, as well as their  costs, and discussions with agency officials;  implementing processes to ensure that agencies more effectively and  consistently comply with guidance related to implementing financial  management system modernization projects, including the use of  disciplined processes to reduce the risk of implementation failures; and clarifying guidance so that agencies consistently report planned and spending related to financial management system modernization projects including the financial portion of mixed systems.  (a), agencies are reuired to implement and maintain financial  management systems that comply substantially with federal financial management systems  reccounting standards, and the United States Government Standard irements, applicable federal a General Ledger at the transaction level.  port personnel dedicated to the operation and maintenance of system functions;  ’’ includes an information system, comprised of one or more applications, whi ch is  According to OMB, segment architecture defines a simple road map for a core mission area,  business service, or enterprise service that is driven by business management and delivers products  that improve the delivery of services to citizens and agency staff. From an investment perspective,  segment architecture drives decisions for a business case or group of business cases supporting a  core mission area or common or shared service.  ording to OMB, the FEA consists of a set of interrelated “reference models” designed to facilitate  s-agency analysis and the identification of duplicative investments, gaps, and opportunities for  boration within and across agencies. Collectively, the reference models comprise a framework  escribing important elements of the FEA in a common and consistent way.
B, Memorandum, Update on the Financial Management Line of Business (Washington, D.C 2008). .: Jan.
O, Financial Management Systems Standard Business Processes for U.S. Government Agencie shington, D.C.: July 18, 2008).
B, Memorandum, Update  on the Financial Management Line of Business (Washington, D.C.:  B, Memorandum, Update on the Financial Management Line of Business (Washington, D.C.: Ja n.
B Memorandum, Use of Performance-Based Management Systems for Major Acquisition   (Washington, D.C.,: May 25, 2007).
1, 2008).
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Individuals making major contributions to this report were Chris Martin,  Senior-Level Technologist; Michael LaForge, Assistant Director; Sabine  Paul, Assistant Director; Latasha Brown; Francine DelVecchio; Jim  Kernen; Patrick Tobo; and Leonard Zapata.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Information Technology: Management and Oversight of Projects  Totaling Billions of Dollars Need Attention. GAO-09-624T. Washington,  D.C.: April 28, 2009.  inancial Management: Persistent Financial Management Systems  F Issues Remain for Many CFO Act Agencies. GAO-08-1018. Washington,  D.C.: September 30, 2008.
Better Define and  Information Technology: Treasury Needs to Implement Its Earned Value Management Policy. GAO-08-951.  Washington, D.C.: September 22, 2008.
DOD Business Systems Modernization: Important Management Controls  Being Implemented on Major Navy Program, but Improvements Needed  in Key Areas. GAO-08-896. Washington, D.C.: September 8, 2008.
Information Technology: Agencies Need to Establish Comprehensive  Policies to Address Changes to Projects’ Cost, Schedule, and Performance  Goals. GAO-08-925. Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2008.
Information Technology: OMB and Agencies Need to Improve Planning,  Management, and Oversight of Projects Totaling Billions of Dollars.  GAO-08-1051T. Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2008.
Fiscal Year 2007 U.S. Government Financial Statements: Sustained  Improvement in Financial Management Is Crucial to Improving  Accountability and Addressing the Long-Term Fiscal Challenge.  GAO-08-926T. Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2008.
Fiscal Year 2007 U.S. Government Financial Statements: Sustained  Improvement in Financial Management Is Crucial to Improving  Accountability and Addressing the Long-Term Fiscal Challenge.  GAO-08-847T. Washington, D.C.: June 5, 2008.
Highlights of a Forum Convened by the Comptroller General of the  United States: Improving the Federal Government’s Financial  Management Systems. GAO-08-447SP. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2008.
Defense Travel System: Overview of Prior Reported Challenges Faced by  DOD in Implementation and Utilization. GAO-08-649T. Washington,  D.C.: April 15, 2008.
Defense Business Transformation: Sustaining Progress Requires Continuity of Leadership and an Integrated Approach.  Washington, D.C.: February 7, 2008.
GAO-08-462T.  e  Homeland Security: Responses to Posthearing Questions Related to th Department of Homeland Security’s Integrated Financial Management  Systems Challenges. GAO-07-1157R. Washington, D.C.: August 10, 2007.
Financial Management: Long-standing Financial Systems Wea Present a Formidable Challenge. GAO-07-914. Washington, D.C.: 2007.
Cost Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Estimating and Managing  Program Costs. GAO-07-1134SP. Washington, D.C.: July 2007.
DOD Business Transformation: Lack of an Integrated Strategy Puts the  Army’s Asset Visibility System Investments at Risk. GAO-07-860.  Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2007.
Business Modernization: NASA Must Consider Agencywide Needs to  Reap the Full Benefits of Its Enterprise Management System  Modernization Effort. GAO-07-691. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2007.
Managerial Cost Accounting Practices: Implementation and Use Vary  Widely across 10 Federal Agencies. GAO-07-679. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2007.
Homeland Security: Transforming Departmen Management Systems Remains a Challenge. GAO-07-1041T. Washington,  D.C.: June 28, 2007.
Managerial Cost Accounting Practices at the Department of Int GAO-07-298R. Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2007. erior.
DOD Business Systems Modernization: Progress Continues to Be Made  in Establishing Management Controls, but Further Steps Are Needed.  GAO-07-733. Washington, D.C.: May 14, 2007.
Information Technology: DHS Needs to Fully Define and Implemen Policies and Procedures for Effectively Managing Investments.  GAO-07-424. Washington, D.C.: April 27, 2007.
Fiscal Year 2006 U.S. Government Financial Statements: Sustained  Improvement in Federal Financial Management Is Crucial to  Addressing Our Nation’s Accountability and Fiscal Stewardship  Challenges. GAO-07-607T. Washington, D.C.: March 20, 2007.
Federal Financial Management: Critical Accountability and Fiscal  Stewardship Challenges Facing Our Nation. GAO-07-542T. Washington,  D.C.: March 1, 2007.
Defense Business Transformation: A Comprehensive Plan, In Efforts, and Sustained Leadership Are Needed to Assure Success.  GAO-07-229T. Washington, D.C.: November 16, 2006.  ed Savings Are Questionable and  Defense Travel System: Estimat Improvements Are Needed to Ensure Functionality and Increase  Utilization. GAO-07-208T. Washington, D.C.: November 16, 2006.
Financial Management: Improvements Under Way but Serious  Financial Systems Problems Persist. GAO-06-970. Washington, D.C.:  September 26, 2006.
Defense T Implementation Challenges Remain. GAO-06-980. Washington, D.C.:  September 26, 2006.  ravel System: Reported Savings Questionable and  Managerial Cost Acc the Department of Housing and Urban Development. GAO-06-1002R.  Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2006.  ounting Practices: Department of Agriculture and  Depar Financial and Business Management Transformation. GAO-06-1006T.  Washington, D.C.: August 3, 2006.  tment of Defense: Sustained Leadership Is Critical to Effective  Information Technology: Agencies and OMB Should Strengthen  Processes for Identifying and Overseeing High Risk Projects.  GAO-06-647. Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2006.
Financial Management Systems: Lack of Disciplined Processes Puts  Effective Implementation of Treasury’s Governmentwide Financial  Report System at Risk. n, D.C.: April 21, 2006. GAO-06-413. Washingto Managerial Cost Accounting Practices: Departments of Health and  Human Services and Social Security Administration. GAO-06- Washington, D.C.: April 18, 2006.
599R.
Financial Management Systems: DHS Has an Opportunity to  Incorporate Best Practices in Modernization Efforts. GAO-06-553T.  Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2006.
Financial Management Systems: Additional Efforts Needed to Address  Key Causes of Modernization Failures. GAO-06-184. Washington, D.C.:  March 15, 2006.
Managerial Cost Accounting Practices: Departments of Education,  Transportation, and the Treasury. GAO-06-301R. Washington, D.C. :  December 19, 2005.
CFO Act of 1990: Driving the Transformation of Federal Financial  Management. GAO-06-242T. Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2005.
National Aeronautic Financial Management Challenges Threaten the Agency’s Ability to  Manage Its Programs. GAO-06-216T. Washington, D.C.: Octob s and Space Administration: Long-standing  er 27, 2005.
Managerial Cost Acc Veterans Affairs. GAO-05-1031T. Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2005.  ounting Practices: Departments of Labor and  Managerial Cost Accounting Practices: Leadership and Internal Cont Are Key to Successful Implementation. GAO-05-1013R. Washington, D.C.:  September 2, 2005.
Army Depot Maintenance: Ineffective Oversight of Depot Maintenance  Operations and System Implementation Efforts. GAO-05-441.  Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2005.
Information Technology: OMB Can Make More Effective Use o Investment Reviews. GAO-05-276. Washington f Its  , D.C.: April 15, 2005.