Electronic Government: Success of the Office of Management and Budget's 25 Initiatives Depends on Effective Management and Oversight
Published: 2003-03-13T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: A key element of the President's Management Agenda is the expansion of electronic government (e-government) to enhance access to information and services, particularly through the Internet. In response, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) established a task force that selected a strategic set of initiatives to lead this expansion. GAO previously reviewed the completeness of the information used for choosing and overseeing these initiatives, including business cases and funding plans.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: E-government offers many opportunities to better serve the public, make government more efficient and effective, and reduce costs. To achieve these goals, the 25 e-government initiatives selected by OMB's Quicksilver task force focus on a wide variety of services, aiming to simplify and unify agency work processes and information flows, provide one-stop services to citizens, and enable information to be collected on line once and reused, rather than being collected many times. For example, Recreation One-Stop is a Web portal for a single point of access to information about parks and other federal, state, and local recreation areas. Other initiatives are being pursued that do not necessarily rely on the Internet, such as the e-Payroll initiative to consolidate federal payroll systems. GAO's review of the initial planning documents for the initiatives highlights the critical importance of management and oversight to their success. Important aspects--such as collaboration and customer focus--had not been addressed in early program plans for many of the projects, and major GAO's review of the initial planning documents for the initiatives highlights the critical importance of management and oversight to their success. Important aspects--such as collaboration and customer focus--had not been addressed in early program plans for many of the projects, and major uncertainties in funding and milestones were not uncommon. As shown by GAO's comparison of the content of the initiatives' business cases with best practices, all the business cases included key information, but many elements were missing. In particular, fewer than half addressed collaboration and customer focus, despite the importance of these topics to e-government strategy and goals. Similarly, the accuracy of estimated costs in the funding plans was questionable: between May and September 2002, these estimates for 12 of the initiatives changed significantly--by more than 30 percent. Accurate cost, schedule, and performance information is essential to ensure that projects are on schedule and achieve their goals.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: A key element of the President’s  Management Agenda is the  expansion of electronic  government (e-government) to  enhance access to information and  services, particularly through the  Internet. In response, the Office of  Management and Budget (OMB)  established a task force that  selected a strategic set of initiatives  to lead this expansion. GAO  previously reviewed the  completeness of the information  used for choosing and overseeing  these initiatives, including business  cases and funding plans.
E-government offers many opportunities to better serve the public, make  government more efficient and effective, and reduce costs. To achieve these  goals, the 25 e-government initiatives selected by OMB’s Quicksilver task  force focus on a wide variety of services, aiming to simplify and unify agency  work processes and information flows, provide one-stop services to citizens,  and enable information to be collected on line once and reused, rather than  being collected many times. For example, Recreation One-Stop is a Web  portal for a single point of access to information about parks and other  federal, state, and local recreation areas. Other initiatives are being pursued  that do not necessarily rely on the Internet, such as the e-Payroll initiative to  consolidate federal payroll systems.
GAO’s review of the initial planning documents for the initiatives highlights  the critical importance of management and oversight to their success.  Important aspects—such as collaboration and customer focus—had not  been addressed in early program plans for many of the projects, and major  uncertainties in funding and milestones were not uncommon. As shown by  GAO’s comparison of the content of the initiatives’ business cases with best  practices, all the business cases included key information, but many  elements were missing (see figure). In particular, fewer than half addressed  collaboration and customer focus, despite the importance of these topics to  e-government strategy and goals. Similarly, the accuracy of estimated costs  in the funding plans was questionable: between May and September 2002,  these estimates for 12 of the initiatives changed significantly—by more than  30 percent. Accurate cost, schedule, and performance information is  essential to ensure that projects are on schedule and achieve their goals.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:  I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the Subcommittee’s hearing  on e-government progress. Now that the Internet has become such a  ubiquitous element of our lives, it is more important than ever that we take  full advantage of information technology (IT) to vastly improve the way  our government serves its citizens—and to do so much more efficiently  and economically.
Generally speaking, electronic government refers to the use of IT,  particularly Web-based Internet applications, to enhance the access to and  delivery of government information and service to citizens, to business  partners, to employees, and among agencies at all levels of government. A  variety of actions have been taken in recent years to enhance the  government’s ability to realize the potential of e-government, culminating  in the recent enactment of the E-Government Act of 2002, which includes  provisions addressing everything from funding of e-government initiatives  to measures for ensuring security and privacy.
The President has embraced e-government as one of five priorities  delineated in his management agenda for making the federal government  more focused on citizens and results. Under the leadership of the Office of  Management and Budget (OMB), a team known as the Quicksilver task  force identified a set of high-profile initiatives to lead the federal  government’s drive toward e-government transformation. These  initiatives—now numbering 25—have ambitious goals, including  eliminating redundant, nonintegrated business operations and systems;  achieving this result, according to OMB, could produce several billions of  dollars in savings from improved operational efficiency. To obtain such  savings—and significantly improve service to citizens—it will be critically  important that these initiatives are well managed as the government  undertakes the challenging task of turning good ideas into real-world  results.
As requested, in my remarks today, I will summarize the results of a  review we recently conducted to assess OMB’s process for selecting the e- government initiatives and monitoring their initial progress. I will focus  on some of the key aspects of initiatives that must be closely monitored to  ensure that they meet their goals. Specifically, after reviewing the overall  scope and objectives of the initiatives, I will discuss issues concerning the  completeness of the planning documents prepared for them, including  initial business cases as well as work and funding plans developed last  spring. To provide additional information, I have included an attachment  that details the partner agencies and proposed performance metrics for  each project. I have also included, as a second attachment, a list of other  pertinent GAO publications on e-government issues.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Government agencies at all levels have already implemented a broad array  of e-government applications: through the Internet, government agencies  collect and disseminate information and forms; government and  businesses order and pay for goods and services; and businesses and the  public apply for licenses, grants, and benefits, and submit bids and  proposals. Despite this substantial progress, the federal government has  not yet taken full advantage of the potential that electronic government  offers. As we have previously testified, the government faces significant  challenges in this area, including sustaining executive leadership,  protecting personal privacy, implementing appropriate security controls,  using enterprise architectures effectively, and managing IT human capital.
Recognizing the magnitude of challenges facing the federal government,  the Congress has enacted important legislation to guide the development  of e-government. In 1998, the Government Paperwork Elimination Act  (GPEA) was enacted, establishing a requirement that by October 21, 2003,  federal agencies provide the public, when practicable, the option of  submitting, maintaining, and disclosing required information  electronically. More recently, the Congress passed the E-Government Act  of 2002, which includes provisions to promote the use of the Internet and  other information technologies to provide government services  electronically; strengthen agency information security; and define how to  manage the federal government’s growing IT human capital needs. In  addition, this act established an Office of Electronic Government within  OMB to provide strong central leadership and full-time commitment to  promoting and implementing e-government.
The executive branch has also acted to enhance and accelerate the  development of electronic government. The President made e-government  expansion one of five top priorities in his fiscal year 2002 management  agenda, which outlines a number of specific electronic government  projects. For example, the FirstGov Web portal—which is intended to  serve as a single consolidated source for government services to citizens— was targeted for expansion and improvement to offer services better  organized according to citizens’ needs. Also targeted for enhancement was  the FedBizOpps portal, designed to be a single point of entry for  information about federal government procurement opportunities.  Further, the agenda endorsed the establishment of a federal public key  infrastructure to ensure that electronic transactions with and within the  federal government would be private and secure.
A major element of the President’s management agenda was establishment  of the Quicksilver Task Force, which was charged with identifying  (1) systematic barriers that had blocked the deployment of e-government  advances and (2) electronic government projects that could deliver  significant productivity and performance gains across government.
Together, the federal government’s e-government initiatives are expected  to    provide high-quality customer services regardless of whether the citizen  contacts the agency by phone, in person, or on the Web; reduce the expense and difficulty of doing business with the government;   cut government operating costs;    provide citizens with readier access to government services;  increase access for persons with disabilities to agency Web sites and E- government applications; and   make government more transparent and accountable.
section_title: The 25 E-Government Initiatives Address a Broad Range of Electronic Services
paragraphs: In its e-government strategy, released in 2002, OMB stated that the 25 e- government initiatives were selected on the basis of (1) value to citizens,  (2) potential improvement in agency efficiency, and (3) likelihood of  deploying within 18 to 24 months. The selected initiatives would achieve  their results by simplifying and unifying agency work processes and  information flows, providing one-stop services to citizens, and enabling  information to be collected on line once and reused, rather than being  collected many times.
The initiatives are aimed at providing a wide variety of services. For  example, some are focused on setting up Web sites or portals that channel  information more effectively to citizens, businesses, or other government  entities. Recreation One-Stop is one such example, a Web portal for a  single point of access to information about parks and other recreation  venues at the federal, state, and local levels. One-Stop Business  Compliance provides an analogous service to businesses, giving them a  single Web site to consult regarding the multitude of government  regulations that may affect their activities. Other initiatives strive for more  ambitious services that may not necessarily rely on the Internet for  delivery. SAFECOM, for example, seeks to impose order and standards on  wireless communications among emergency responders across all levels  of government. The e-Payroll initiative is intended to consolidate the  federal government’s many incompatible payroll systems into just two that  would service all government employees.
As shown in figure 1, OMB has divided these efforts into five broad  categories that reflect the different customer groups targeted by each of  the initiatives:  1.  government to individual citizens,  2.  government to business,  3.  government to government,  4. internal efficiency and effectiveness, and  5.  cross cutting.
Government to individual citizens. One of the major benefits of on-line  and Internet-based services is that they provide opportunities for greater  citizen access to and interaction with the federal government. An example  is GovBenefits.gov, a Web site designed to assist users in locating and  determining potential eligibility for government benefits and services.  Other initiatives in this category aim to improve customer service. USA  Services, for example, is intended to deploy tools, such as call centers and  coordinated E-mail systems linked to the FirstGov Web site, that will  enable citizens to ask questions and receive responses from the federal  government without having to know in advance which specific  departments or bureaus have responsibilities related to their areas of  interest.
Government to business. Initiatives in this category seek to reduce the  reporting burden on businesses by adopting processes that eliminate  redundant data collection, provide one-stop access to information, and  enable communication using electronic business standards, such as the  Extensible Markup Language. The Expanding Electronic Tax Products for  Businesses initiative, for example, seeks to reduce the number of tax- related forms businesses must file. The Federal Asset Sales initiative aims  to create a single electronic interface for businesses to find and buy  government assets.
Government to government. The primary goal of these initiatives is to  enable federal, state, and local governments to more easily work together  to better serve citizens within key lines of business. For example,  Geospatial One-Stop seeks to provide a single portal for accessing  standardized and coordinated federal, state, and local geospatial data. The  Disaster Management initiative seeks to provide federal, state, and local  emergency managers on-line access to disaster management information,  planning, and response tools.
Internal efficiency and effectiveness. The initiatives in this category seek  to improve the performance and reduce the costs of federal government  administration by using e-business best practices. For example, the  Integrated Acquisition Environment initiative seeks to consolidate  business processes and information to facilitate cost-effective acquisition  of goods and services across the federal government. Lastly, e-Travel is  planned to streamline the administration of government travel by creating  a governmentwide Web-based travel management process.
Cross-cutting initiative. The e-Authentication initiative is to develop  common interoperable authentication techniques to support all the other  initiatives. Authentication refers to the critical process of confirming the  identity of the participants in an electronic transaction. Without a means  to satisfactorily establish identities, e-government transactions are too  risky, and the potential of e-government to transform citizen services  remains severely constrained. The initiative plans to provide  authentication services through an electronic “gateway,” which will offer  different assurance levels to meet the varying needs of the other projects.
section_title: Management Issues Highlight the Need for Oversight
paragraphs: While several of the projects have already achieved tangible results, not all  of them are making the same degree of progress. For example, some have  had major management changes—management of the SAFECOM  initiative, for example, was transferred from Treasury to the Federal  Emergency Management Agency. Major management changes such as this  have led to delays in project milestones and changes in objectives.
We believe that fluctuations such as these indicate a need for oversight to  ensure that the larger goal—to realize the full potential of e-government— is not jeopardized. When we reviewed project-planning documentation  collected by OMB from each of the initiatives, we found indications that  important aspects of some of the initiatives had not been addressed and  that, for many of them, funding strategies and milestones were in a state of  flux. These findings add urgency to our concern that the initiatives be  carefully monitored to ensure that implementation challenges are  identified and addressed as quickly as possible. I would like to go through  some of the specific results of our analysis now.
subsections: section_title: Many Initial Business Cases Omitted Critical Elements
paragraphs: As part of OMB’s selection process, the Quicksilver task force screened  over 350 project ideas during the summer of 2001 and selected 34 potential  project proposals for more in-depth consideration. In September 2001,  task force members developed brief (or “mini”) business cases for each of  the 34 proposals. According to OMB officials, these mini business cases  were to include all the information necessary to enable sound selection  decisions. The task force reviewed the mini business cases and the final  selections were made in October.
We analyzed the mini business cases, which were prepared for 23 of the 25  initiatives, to determine whether they were complete. To conduct our  analysis, we first identified e-government business case “best practices” as  cited by federal agencies, private sector and academic researchers, and  state and local governments. From these sources, we compiled the most  frequently cited elements of a complete business case, such as a  description of the proposed concept for improved future processes and a  discussion of the benefits of implementing it. We also included elements  identified by OMB as important to e-government business cases—whether  an initiative is driven by identified customer needs and whether it contains  a strategy for successful collaboration.
As shown in figure 2, our analysis of the mini business cases showed that  although they addressed some of the required elements, the majority of  them did not include some key elements identified by OMB and best  practice guidance.
All the business cases we reviewed included a discussion of the expected  benefits of the proposed initiative, and all but one included a discussion of  the initiatives’ objectives and planned future conditions. However, only 9  of the 23 initiatives’ business cases discussed how customer needs were to  be identified and addressed, and only 8 addressed collaboration among  agencies and other government entities, even though OMB considered  these elements fundamental to its e-government strategy.
Mr. Chairman, addressing how a proposed project links to the needs of its  potential customers is key to the success of that project, and should be  discussed in the project’s business case. Without a plan to assess users’  needs, there is a greater risk that the project will focus too heavily on  issues that customers do not consider important or disrupt processes that  are already working well and accepted by users. In the case of the e- government initiatives, the result could be that the Internet sites and  services created might not be useful to those customers they are intended  to serve.
Collaboration across agencies and other organizations is likewise a key  component of most of the initiatives, and therefore a discussion of  strategies for collaboration is essential to a complete e-government  business case. As the government attempts to integrate services across  organizations—particularly in cases where federal agencies overlap in  providing similar services to customers—the issue of how agencies  collaborate can determine an initiative’s success or failure. To help  mitigate the risk of failure, the business case needs to provide a  convincing argument that collaboration can be accomplished and a plan  for how collaboration will be carried out.
Let me point out that the initial “mini” business cases that we reviewed are  not the latest ones in existence for the 25 initiatives. More extensive  business cases were developed for each of the projects in fall 2002, in  conjunction with the fiscal year 2004 budget process. We have not yet had  an opportunity to review these documents.
section_title: Spring 2002 Project Plans Revealed Cost and Schedule Uncertainties
paragraphs: OMB required the managing partners of the e-government initiatives to  prepare and submit work plans and funding plans in May 2002. We  assessed the completeness of these plans, which provided the most up-to- date cost and schedule information available at the time of our review. To  conduct our analysis, we identified best practices from GAO and OMB  guidance for the effective oversight and implementation of IT projects  and compared those best practice elements to the information contained  in the May 2002 plans. In addition, several months later, we obtained  updated status information from 23 of the initiatives’ project managers.
According to the guidance we reviewed, project implementation  documents should include components such as cost estimates, a schedule  with milestones, identification of project deliverables, and an overall  strategy for obtaining needed funding and staff resources.
As shown in figure 3, four of the five best practice elements we identified  were included in a majority of the project plans. Plans for all but two of  the initiatives contained a schedule with milestones, and all the plans  identified project deliverables. However, other best practice elements  were not included in some of the plans. For example, only 9 identified a  strategy for obtaining needed funds, and only 16 contained information  about how staffing commitments would be obtained.
In addition to the findings shown in figure 3, our analysis of the plans  showed uncertainties about milestones for many of the initiatives. Ten of  the 24 did not identify a final completion date for the initiatives, resulting  in inadequate information to determine whether they were moving  forward in a timely manner. Further, 6 of the initiatives were not planned  to be completed within the 18 to 24 month time frame originally  established by OMB as a criterion for inclusion in its e-government effort.
Accurate cost information was also generally lacking. The updated  information we obtained from project managers in September 2002 on  estimated costs revealed significant changes—changes of more than 30  percent—for about half of the initiatives. These changes, occurring within  such a short period of time, rendered the funding plans outdated soon  after they were developed. This uncertainty about how much the  initiatives would cost, combined with the fact that only 9 of the 24 plans  identified a strategy for obtaining these needed funds, led us to conclude  that OMB was not receiving adequate information to properly oversee the  e-government projects and ensure that they would have the resources to  meet their objectives efficiently and economically.
Given the challenges we’ve identified, OMB’s oversight role takes on  critical importance. Each of the e-government initiatives needs a well- thought-out strategy for directly addressing its biggest challenges, such as  getting relevant government agencies to effectively collaborate. And each  also needs detailed and stable project plans, so that they can be held  accountable for achieving realistic results within budget and according to  schedule. Accordingly, in our report, we recommended that OMB take  steps as overseer of the e-government initiatives to reduce the risk that the  projects would not meet their objectives. Specifically, we recommended  that OMB ensure that the managing partners for all the initiatives  focus on customers by soliciting input from the public and conducting  user needs assessments,   work with partner agencies to develop and document effective    provide OMB with adequate information to monitor the cost, schedule,  and performance of the e-government initiatives.
In following up on our recommendations, we requested from OMB  updated business cases that were submitted as part of the fiscal year 2004  budget process. These updated business cases should provide not only  indications of whether key topics such as collaboration and customer  focus are now being addressed, but also updated cost and schedule  information. As noted in our report, OMB agreed to provide us this  information once it was updated after release of the 2004 budget.  However, we have not yet received this information. OMB officials (from  the Office of General Counsel and the Office of Information and  Regulatory Affairs) stated earlier this week that the business cases still  needed to be reviewed before they could be released to us.
In summary, e-government offers many opportunities to better serve the  public, make government more efficient and effective, and reduce costs.  Legislation such as GPEA and the E-Government Act of 2002 have laid a  strong foundation for building on these opportunities, and the federal  government continues to make strides in taking advantage of them.  Overall, few can argue that the 25 e-government projects are not worthy  initiatives with commendable objectives. Nevertheless, many critical  details remain to be fully addressed before the promise of e-government is  fully realized.
Because the 25 projects represent such a broad range of activities, it is  difficult to gauge their progress collectively. Some of their objectives may  be much easier to attain than others. However, our review of the initial  planning documents associated with the projects led us to conclude that  important aspects—such as collaboration and customer focus—had not  been thought out for all the projects, and major uncertainties in funding  and milestones were not uncommon. Priority should now be given to  ensuring that the agencies managing these initiatives tackle these issues  and gain cost and schedule stability so that they can ultimately succeed in  achieving their potential. We believe that careful oversight—on the part of  OMB as well as the Congress—is crucial to ensuring this success.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer  any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have at  this time.
section_title: Contact and Acknowledgements
paragraphs: If you should have any questions about this testimony, please contact me  at (202) 512-6222 or via E-mail at willemssenj@gao.gov. Other major  contributors to this testimony included Shannin Addison, Barbara Collier,  Felipe Colón, Jr., John de Ferrari, Neha Harnal, and Elizabeth Roach.
section_title: Attachment I. E-Government Initiatives
paragraphs: Description  Provides citizens  with a single point   of access to a Web- based resource,  offering information  and access to  government  recreational sites in  a user-friendly  format.
OMB-reported  performance metrics    Number of partners  sharing data via  Recreation.gov (target:  35 partners added)  in Recreation.gov  (target: 25% increase)
Provides a single  point of access for  citizens to locate  and determine  potential eligibility  for government  benefits and  services.
Hits to site per month  (target: 350,000)  partner benefit sites  (target: 10% increase)  benefits and determine  eligibility (target: 20  minutes or less)
Creates a single  point of access for  citizens to locate  loans.
Description  Develops and  deploys  governmentwide  citizen customer  service using  industry best  practices that  provides citizens  with timely,  consistent  responses about  government  information and  services.
OMB-reported  performance metrics    Average time to respond  to inquiries through  Firstgov.gov and Federal  Citizen Information  Center (FCIC) (target:  100% of inquiries  responded to within 24  hours)  inquiries through  Firstgov.gov and FCIC  wide inquiries that call  center and E-mail  systems can handle  (target: 3.3M calls per  year and 150,000 emails  peryear)
Customer satisfaction    Percentage of coverage  of tax filing public (target:  minimum of 60%)
Creates a single  point of access to  free on-line  preparation and  electronic tax filing  services.  Allows citizens to  access and  participate in the  rulemaking process  through a cross- agency front-end  Web application. electronically (target:  15% increase)
Description  Reduces the  number of tax- related forms that  businesses must  file, provides timely  and accurate tax  information to  businesses,  increases the  availability of  electronic tax filing,  and models  simplified federal  and state tax  employment laws.  Creates a single,  one-stop access  point for businesses  to find and buy  government assets.  Makes it easy for  small and medium  enterprises (SME) to  obtain the  information and  documents needed  to conduct business  abroad.
OMB-reported  performance metrics    Burden reduction for  corporations per return,  application filed, or both  federal government per  return filed  Employer Identification  Number (EIN)—interim  EIN granted immediately  tax-related transactions  (all forms)
Description  Reduces the burden  on businesses by  making it easy to  find, understand,  and comply with  relevant laws and  regulations at all  levels of  government.
OMB-reported  performance metrics    Time savings for  business compliance  and filing (target: 50%  reduction)  savings through  transition to compliance  from enforcement  through automated  processes (target: 25%  increase)  for issuing permits and  licenses  permits and licenses  (target: within 24 hours)  page views (target: 10– 20% increase)
Adopts a portfolio of  existing health  information  interoperability  standards enabling  all agencies in the  federal health  enterprise to  communicate based  on common  enterprisewide  business and  information  technology  architectures.  Provides federal and  state agencies with  a single point of  access to map- related data,  enabling  consolidation of  redundant data.
Description  Creates a single,  on-line portal for all  federal grant  customers to access  and apply for grants.
Provides federal,  state, and local  emergency  managers on-line  access to disaster  management- related information  and planning and  response tools.
Departments of  Agriculture, Defense,  Energy, Housing and  Urban Development,  Justice, Commerce,  Education, Health and  Human Services, the  Interior, Labor, State, the  Treasury, Transportation,  and Veterans Affairs;  Appalachian Regional  Commission,  Environmental Protection  Agency, Federal  Communications  Commission, General  Services Administration,  Interstate Commerce  Commission, Office of  Personnel Management,  Tennessee Valley  Authority, U.S. Postal  Service, National  Aeronautics and Space  Administration, Nuclear  Regulatory Commission,  Small Business  Administration, National  Oceanic and  Atmospheric  Administration,  Geological Survey  (target: reduce by 15%)  planning capability  (target: improve by 25%)  responders using  disaster management  information system tools  (target: increase by  10%)
Description  Provides  interoperable  wireless solutions  for federal, state,  and local public  safety organizations  and ensures they  can communicate  and share  information as they  respond to  emergency  incidents.  Establishes  common electronic  processes for  federal and state  agencies to collect,  process, analyze,  verify and share  birth and death  record information.  Also promotes  automating how  deaths are  registered with the  states.  Provides a single  point of on-line  training and  strategic human  capital development  solutions for all  federal employees.
Time for state to report  death to Social Security  Administration (target:  15 days)
Time to verify birth and  death entitlement factors  (target: 24 hours)
Description  Outsources delivery  of USAJOBS  Federal  Employment  Information System  to deliver state-of- the-art on-line  recruitment services  to job seekers that  include intuitive job  searching, on-line  resume submission,  applicant data  mining, and on-line  feed-back on status  and eligibility.  Streamlines and  automates the  exchange of federal  employee human  resources  information.  Replaces official  paper employee  records.
Streamlines and  improves the quality  of the current  security clearance  process.
Description  Consolidates 22  federal payroll  systems to simplify  and standardize  federal human  resources/payroll  policies and  procedures to better  integrate payroll,  human resources,  and finance  functions.   Provides a common  governmentwide  end-to-end travel  service that  rationalizes,  automates, and  consolidates the  travel process in a  self-service Web- centric environment,  covering all aspects  of travel planning,  from authorization  and reservations to  expense reporting  and reimbursement.
OMB-reported  performance metrics    Payroll cost per  transaction per  employee (target: in line  with industry averages)  disbursements, post  payroll interfaces, and  periodic reporting  trip (target: in line with  industry averages)
Creates a secure  business  environment that will  facilitate and  support cost- effective acquisition  of goods and  services by  agencies, while  eliminating  inefficiencies in the  current acquisition  environment.
Description  Provides policy  guidance to help  agencies to better  manage their  electronic records,  so that records  information can be  effectively used to  support timely and  informed decision  making, enhance  service delivery, and  ensure  accountability.
Minimizes the  burden on  businesses, public  and government  when obtaining  services on line by  providing a secure  infrastructure for on- line transactions,  eliminating the need  for separate  processes for the  verification of  identity and  electronic  signatures.
section_title: Attachment II. Selected GAO Products Related to Electronic Commerce and Electronic Government
subsections: section_title: Electronic Commerce
paragraphs: Internet Gambling: An Overview of the Issues. GAO-03-89. Washington,  D.C.: December 2, 2002.
International Electronic Commerce: Definitions and Policy  Implications. GAO-02-404. Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2002.
Electronic Commerce: Small Business Participation in Selected On-line  Procurement Programs. GAO-02-1. Washington, D.C.: October 29, 2001.
On-Line Trading: Investor Protections Have Improved but Continued  Attention Is Needed. GAO-01-858. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2001.
Internet Pharmacies: Adding Disclosure Requirements Would Aid State  and Federal Oversight. GAO-01-69. Washington, D.C.: October 19, 2000.
Sales Taxes: Electronic Commerce Growth Presents Challenges; Revenue  Losses Are Uncertain. GGD/OCE-00-165. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2000.
Commodity Exchange Act: Issues Related to the Regulation of Electronic  Trading Systems. GGD-00-99. Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2000.
Trade with the European Union: Recent Trends and Electronic  Commerce Issues. GAO/T-NSIAD-00-46. Washington, D.C.: October 13,  1999.
Electronic Banking: Enhancing Federal Oversight of Internet Banking  Activities. GAO/T-GGD-99-152. Washington, D.C.: August 3, 1999.
Electronic Banking: Enhancing Federal Oversight of Internet Banking  Activities. GAO/GGD-99-91. Washington, D.C.: July 6, 1999.
Securities Fraud: The Internet Poses Challenges to Regulators and  Investors. GAO/T-GGD-99-34. Washington, D.C.: March 22, 1999.
Retail Payments Issues: Experience with Electronic Check Presentment.  GAO/GGD-98-145. Washington, D.C.: July 14, 1998.
Identity Fraud: Information on Prevalence, Cost, and Internet Impact is  Limited. GAO/GGD-98-100BR. Washington, D.C.: May 1, 1998.
Electronic Banking: Experiences Reported by Banks in Implementing  On-line Banking. GAO/GGD-98-34. Washington, D.C.: January 15, 1998.
section_title: Electronic Government— Agency-Specific Initiatives
paragraphs: IRS’s 2002 Tax Filing Season: Returns and Refunds Processed Smoothly;  Quality of Assistance Improved. GAO-03-314. Washington, D.C.:  December 20, 2002.
Tax Administration: Electronic Filing’s Past and Future Impact on  Processing Costs Dependent on Several Factors. GAO-02-205. Washington,  D.C.: January 10, 2002.
GSA On-Line Procurement Programs Lack Documentation and  Reliability Testing. GAO-02-229R. Washington, D.C.: December 21, 2001.
U.S. Postal Service: Update on E-Commerce Activities and Privacy  Protections. GAO-02-79. Washington, D.C.: December 21, 2001.
Computer-Based Patient Records: Better Planning and Oversight By VA,  DOD, and IHS Would Enhance Health Data Sharing. GAO-01-459.  Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2001.
USDA Electronic Filing: Progress Made, But Central Leadership and  Comprehensive Implementation Plan Needed. GAO-01-324. Washington,  D.C.: February 28, 2001.
Information Security: IRS Electronic Filing Systems. GAO-01-306.  Washington, D.C.: February 16, 2001.
U.S. Postal Service: Postal Activities and Laws Related to Electronic  Commerce. GAO/GGD-00-188. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 2000.
U.S. Postal Service: Electronic Commerce Activities and Legal Matters.  GAO/T-GGD-00-195. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 2000.
Defense Management: Electronic Commerce Implementation Strategy  Can Be Improved. GAO/NSIAD-00-108. Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2000.
Food Stamp Program: Better Use of Electronic Data Could Result in  Disqualifying More Recipients Who Traffic Benefits. GAO/RCED-00-61.  Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2000.
National Archives: The Challenge of Electronic Records Management.  GAO/T-GGD-00-24. Washington, D.C.: October 20, 1999.
National Archives: Preserving Electronic Records in an Era of Rapidly  Changing Technology. GAO/GGD-99-94. Washington, D.C.: July 19, 1999.
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure: Status of Labor’s Efforts  to Develop Electronic Reporting and a Publicly Accessible Database.  GAO/HEHS-99-63R. Washington, D.C.: March 16, 1999.
Acquisition Reform: NASA’s Internet Service Improves Access to  Contracting Information. GAO/NSIAD-99-37. Washington, D.C.: February  9, 1999.
Tax Administration: Increasing EFT Usage for Installment Agreements  Could Benefit IRS. GAO/GGD-98-112. Washington, D.C.: June 10, 1998.
section_title: Electronic Government— General
paragraphs: Electronic Government: Selection and Implementation of the Office of  Management and Budget’s 24 Initiatives. GAO-03-229. Washington, D.C.:  November 22, 2002.
Electronic Government: Proposal Addresses Critical Challenges. GAO-02- 1083T. Washington, D.C.: September 18, 2002.
Information Management: Update on Implementation of the 1996  Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments. GAO-02-493.  Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2002.
Information Technology: OMB Leadership Critical to Making Needed  Enterprise Architecture and E-government Progress. GAO-02-389T.  Washington, D.C.: March 21, 2002.
Electronic Government: Challenges to Effective Adoption of the  Extensible Markup Language. GAO-02-327. Washington, D.C.: April 5,  2002.
Information Resources Management: Comprehensive Strategic Plan  Needed to Address Mounting Challenges. GAO-02-292. Washington, D.C.:  February 22, 2002.
Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges Across the Nation.  GAO-02-3. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
Electronic Government: Better Information Needed on Agencies’  Implementation of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act. GAO-01- 1100. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2001.
Electronic Government: Challenges Must Be Addressed With Effective  Leadership and Management. GAO-01-959T. Washington, D.C.: July 11,  2001.
Electronic Government: Selected Agency Plans for Implementing the  Government Paperwork Elimination Act. GAO-01-861T. Washington,  D.C.: June 21, 2001.
Information Management: Electronic Dissemination of Government  Publications. GAO-01-428. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2001.
Information Management: Progress in Implementing the 1996  Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments. GAO-01-378.  Washington, D.C.: March 16, 2001.
Regulatory Management: Communication About Technology-Based  Innovations Can Be Improved. GAO-01-232. Washington, D.C.: February  12, 2001.
Electronic Government: Opportunities and Challenges Facing the  FirstGov Web Gateway. GAO-01-87T. Washington, D.C.: October 2, 2000.
Electronic Government: Government Paperwork Elimination Act  Presents Challenges for Agencies. GAO/AIMD-00-282. Washington, D.C.:  September 15, 2000.
Internet: Federal Web-based Complaint Handling. GAO/AIMD-00-238R.  Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2000.
Federal Rulemaking: Agencies’ Use of Information Technology to  Facilitate Public Participation. GAO/GGD-00-135R. Washington, D.C.:  June 30, 2000.
Electronic Government: Federal Initiatives Are Evolving Rapidly But  They Face Significant Challenges. GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-00-179. Washington,  D.C.: May 22, 2000.
Information Technology: Comments on Proposed OMB Guidance for  Implementing the Government Paperwork Elimination Act. GAO/AIMD- 99-228R. Washington, D.C.: July 2, 1999.
section_title: Electronic Signatures
paragraphs: Bank Regulators’ Evaluation of Electronic Signature Systems. GAO-01- 129R. Washington, D.C.: November 8, 2000.
Electronic Signature: Sanction of the Department of State’s System.  GAO/AIMD-00-227R. Washington, D.C.: July 10, 2000.
section_title: Internet
paragraphs: Internet Management: Limited Progress on Privatization Project Makes  Outcome Uncertain. GAO-02-805T. Washington, D.C.: June 12, 2002.
Telecommunications: Characteristics and Competitiveness of the  Internet Backbone Market. GAO-02-16. Washington, D.C.: October 16,  2001.
Telecommunications: Characteristics and Choices of Internet Users.  GAO-01-345. Washington, D.C.: February 16, 2001.
Telecommunications: Technological and Regulatory Factors Affecting  Consumer Choice of Internet Providers. GAO-01-93. Washington, D.C.:  October 12, 2000.
Department of Commerce: Relationship with the Internet Corporation  for Assigned Names and Numbers. GAO/OGC-00-33R. Washington, D.C.:  July 7, 2000.
section_title: Privacy
paragraphs: Internet Privacy: Implementation of Federal Guidance for Agency Use of  “Cookies.” GAO-01-424. Washington, D.C.: April 27, 2001.
Record Linkage and Privacy: Issues in Creating New Federal Research  and Statistical Information. GAO-01-126SP. Washington, D.C.: April 2001.
Internet Privacy: Federal Agency Use of Cookies. GAO-01-147R.  Washington, D.C.: October 20, 2000.
Internet Privacy: Comparison of Federal Agency Practices with FTC’s  Fair Information Principles. GAO-01-113T, Washington, D.C.: October 11,  2000.
Internet Privacy: Comparison of Federal Agency Practices with FTC’s  Fair Information Principles. GAO/AIMD-00-296R. Washington, D.C.:  September 11, 2000.