VA deployed the first two of four releases of its long-term system solution by its planned dates, therefore providing improved claims-processing functionality to all regional processing offices, such as the ability to calculate original and amended benefit claims. In addition, the Agile process allowed the department the flexibility to accommodate legislative changes and provide functionality according to business priorities, such as housing rate adjustments. However, key features of the solution were not completed as intended in the second release because the department found some functionality to be more complex than anticipated. Specifically, interfaces to legacy systems and the conversion of data from systems in the interim solution were not completed as intended in the second release. Due to these delays, VA planned to reprioritize what functionality would be included in its third release. Also, for its fourth release, the department had reduced a significant planned functionality— veteran self-service capability. While VA intends to provide this capability after the fourth release within the long-term system solution or under a separate initiative, it is unclear what functionality will be delivered in the remaining two releases when it deploys the system in December 2010. In using an Agile approach for this initiative, VA is applying lessons learned and has taken important first steps to effectively manage the IT project by establishing a cross-functional team that involves senior management, governance boards, and key stakeholders. However, the department had not ensured that several key Agile practices were performed. Measurable goals were not developed and the project progressed without bidirectional traceability in its requirements. Additionally, in developing the system, VA did not establish a common standard and consistent definition for work to be considered “done” or develop oversight tools to clearly communicate velocity and the changes to project scope over time. Testing deficiencies further hindered VA’s assurances that all critical system defects would be identified. Until VA improves these areas, management does not have the visibility it needs to clearly communicate progress to stakeholders and estimate when future system capabilities will be delivered. Additionally, reduced visibility and unresolved issues in its development processes may result in the department continuing to remove functionality that was expected in future releases, thus delivering a system that does not fully and effectively support the implementation of education benefits as identified in the Post- 9/11 GI Bill. To help guide the full development and implementation of the Chapter 33 long-term solution, we recommend that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct the Under Secretary for Benefits to take the following five actions: establish performance measures for goals and identify constraints to provide better clarity in the vision and expectations of the project; establish bidirectional traceability between requirements and legislation, policies, and business rules to provide assurance that the system will be developed as expected; define the conditions that must be present to consider work “done” in adherence with agency policy and guidance; implement an oversight tool to clearly communicate velocity and the changes to project scope over time; and improve the adequacy of the unit and functional testing processes to reduce the amount of system rework. We received written comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and VA’s Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology. In the Secretary’s comments, reproduced in appendix II, VA concurred with three of our recommendations and did not concur with two recommendations. Specifically, the department concurred with our recommendation to establish performance measures for goals and identify constraints to provide better clarity in the vision and expectations of the project. VA noted that it plans to develop performance measures consistent with automating the Post-9/11 GI Bill by March 2011. While this is a positive step, as we noted, it is also important that the department identify any project or business constraints to better clarify the vision and expectations of the system. VA also concurred with our recommendation that it establish bidirectional traceability between requirements and legislation, policies, and business rules to provide assurance that the system will be developed as expected. The department stated that it plans to establish traceability between its business rules for the long-term solution and the legislation by June 2011. Additionally, VA concurred with our recommendation to define the conditions that must be present to consider work “done” in adherence with department policy and guidance. VA noted that the initiative’s fiscal year 2011 operating plan outlines these conditions at the project level and that it intends to clarify the definition at the working group level by December 2010. VA did not concur with our recommendation that it implement an oversight tool to clearly communicate velocity and the changes to project scope over time. The department indicated that development metrics and models had already been established and implemented to forecast and measure development velocity. In this regard, as our briefing noted, department officials stated that they previously reported project-level metrics during the first release, and based on lessons learned, decided to shift to reporting metrics at the development team level. While it is important that VA established the capability to track team-level metrics, it is also important to track and clearly report how changes to the system development at the team level affect the overall project-level scope over time. Specifically, without the overall velocity—a key mechanism under the Agile methodology—VA does not have the information to understand the expected effort to complete the total scope of work and the associated length of time to do so. The overall velocity provides an understanding of the complexity and difficulty in accomplishing tasks and provides VA management with information to better understand project risks. This visibility is a key concept of the Agile methodology that VA has chosen to implement for this project. Without this level of visibility in its reporting, management and the development teams may not have all the information they need to fully understand project status and generate the discussion and feedback necessary for continuous process improvement. Therefore, we continue to believe that our recommendation for VA to clearly communicate velocity and project scope changes can only strengthen the department’s development process to be more in line with Agile system development practices. VA also did not concur with our recommendation to improve the adequacy of the unit and functional testing processes to reduce the amount of system rework. While the department noted that its testing approach is compatible with Agile development, it also acknowledged in other technical comments the department provided that there were instances of inconsistencies of user stories for capabilities being marked “done” and the user stories we reviewed during the second release showed significant weaknesses in the quality of testing performed. While we agree that VA’s testing approach is consistent with Agile methodology, these weaknesses we identified demonstrate ineffective testing and the need for a consistent and agreed-upon definition of “done.” Further, the program officials noted that their approach focused on users identifying defects at the end of the release, which, as we have noted, can be problematic because it is difficult for users to remember all the items and parameters needed for functionality. Without increased focus on the quality of testing early in the development process, VA risks delaying functionality and/or deploying functionality with unknown defects that could require future rework that may be costly and ultimately impede the claims examiners’ ability to process claims efficiently. Therefore, we continue to believe that our recommendation to improve the adequacy of unit and functional testing is needed to improve the effectiveness of VA’s process called for in the Agile methodology. This would provide stakeholders greater assurance that functionality developed during each iteration is of releasable quality before it is presented to users as completed work in accordance with Agile system development practices. In addition, VA provided other technical comments on a draft of this report. In the comments, the department provided additional clarification on why there were delays to functionality and how they affected the release schedule. Specifically, the department stated that the governance structure it established for the initiative provided the necessary management, support, and prioritization of development efforts to balance desired functionality within the development challenges and constraint The department noted that, among other things, delays in the firs t two releases were a result of additional functionality prioritized and developed, such as housing rate adjustments and the ability to automatically generate letters for veterans as well as unanticipated challenges, such as the complexity of data conversion tasks. Further, it noted that decisions and prioritizations were primarily made to min impact on field offices and to support fall enrollment and that they impacted the development capacity to support the capabilities tha be developed in the third release. VA also offered oth comments which were incorporated as appropriate. s. Beyond the department’s comments on our recommendations, the Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology provided additional written comments, reproduced in appendix III, which noted concerns with our draft report. In these comments, the Assistant Secretary stated that the department believes we fell short of meeting the objectives for this repo by omitting key facts and presenting an unnecessarily negative view of VA’s status and effectiveness to Congress. In particular, the Assistant Secretary stated that VA had successfully converted all processing of new Post-9/11 GI Bill claims to the long-term solution prior to the commencement of the fall 2010 enrollment process and that processing with the new system has been nearly flawless. He added that Veterans Business Administration claims processors like the new system and find it easy and effective to use. We are encouraged to hear that the department that is experiencing positive results from the system development efforts have been accomplished. However, as noted in our briefing, system functionality that was envisioned to (1) provide self-service capabilities to as veterans and (2) end-to-end processing of benefits by December 2010 w deferred. Further, as the vision for its new education benefits system evolves, it is essential that the department documents these changes to ensure that its expecta aligned at all levels. tions and goals for the system are measurable and In addition, the Assistant Secretary stated that limited exposure to the Agile methodology possibly caused us to present incorrect assumptions as facts, such as our evaluation of the department’s testing. Our audit team, which included a trained ScrumMaster, examined the department’s use of Agile Scrum practices against documented and accepted methodologies and consulted with an expert in the field that is not only a ScrumMaster, but also an Agile Scrum trainer that has extensive experience in evalu ating Agile system development projects. At the initiation of our study, we discussed our evaluation approach with program officials and throughout the study, held meetings with them to ensure our full understanding of the department’s requirements and testing processes. We did not take issue with the Agile testing approach used by VA. However, we found deficiencies in testing. Further, we presented the results of our observations to program officials in June 2010, at which time they did not express any such concerns, or otherwise comment on our evaluation of the testing. Further, given the evolving nature of Agile system development, it is important to ensure that work that is presented as “done” and demonstrated to the users at the end of an iteration has undergone adequate testing to prevent inaccurate information from being provided. In addition to weaknesses we identified in the testing of select user stories, the department identified a number of defects during the development of the second release. In our view, VA has an opportunity to improve the adequacy of its unit and functional testing which occurs during each iteration to help identify and resolve any defects before any related functionality is presented to users as completed work at the end of the iteration. As we noted, the department agreed that they needed to clarify their definition of “done” and ensure it is being applied consistently. As such, the definition often includes fully tested functionality that has no defects. During our review, we observed on multiple occasions work being presented as “done” without having completed all testing. Improved testing up front can reduce the amount of defects found later in user acceptance testing and production that would require more costly rework. Further, the Assistant Secretary stated that the department believes that we missed a substantial opportunity to positively influence real change by not focusing on the fact that VA had adopted the Agile methodology after many failings with other IT systems development efforts that used waterfall development methodologies. We agree that VA has taken an important step toward improving its development capability and that it has developed significant segments of its new education benefits system with its new methodology. However, as we noted in our briefing, the department had not fully established metrics for its goals, which are essential to fully gauge its progress beyond past initiatives. While we believe that VA has made substantial progress in implementing a new process to develop its system, we stand by our position that there is still an opportunity for the department to improve its new development process in accordance with our recommendations. Doing so would further increase the likelihood that VA fully develops and delivers the end-to-end benefits processing capabilities envisioned to support the Post-9/11 and the needs of veterans. We are sending copies o committees, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. f this report to appropriate congressional If you or your staffs have questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6304 or melvinv@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. In June 2008, Congress passed the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (commonly referred to as the Post-9/11 GI Bill or Chapter 33). This act amended Title 38 United States Code to include Chapter 33, which provides educational assistance for veterans and members of the armed forces who served on or after September 11, 2001. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is responsible for processing claims for the Chapter 33 education benefit, which is a three-part benefit—tuition and fee payments, housing allowance, and book stipend. The benefit is determined based upon an individual’s aggregate qualifying active duty service. A key milestone in the Chapter 33 legislation was the requirement that VA provide the new educational assistance benefits to service members and veterans beginning on August 1, 2009. In considering its implementation of the legislation, the department concluded that it did not have a system capable of calculating the new benefit. As a result, the department undertook an initiative to modernize its education benefits processing capabilities. . 5001-5003, Jne 30, 2008. VA’s initiative to modernize its education benefits processing involved interim and long- term solutions to deliver new processing capabilities. According to the department, the interim solution was intended to augment existing processes by providing temporary applications and tools, such as a spreadsheet that aided claims examiners in manually collecting data from VA legacy systems and to calculate the new benefits. At the same time that it began the interim solution, the department also initiated a long- term solution that was intended to fully automate the manual processes for calculating education benefits for service members and veterans. Specifically, the long-term solution was intended to provide a system to replace the interim solution as well as provide automated interfaces with existing legacy systems. The department intended to complete enough of the functionality in the long-term solution to replace the interim solution by June 2010, and to include additional capabilities for full deployment of the new education benefits system by December 2010. legcy tem, mong other, inclde finncil pyment tem, n edtion informtion tem, nd veterdemogrphic nd ervice d tem. Thee legcy tem contin essentil informtion reqired for clcting the enefit, such as prior enefit pyment, demic intittion rte, nd veter’ ervice dte. To develop the system for its long-term solution, VA is relying on contractor assistance and is using an incremental development approach, called Agile software development, which is to deliver software functionality in short increments before the system is fully deployed. Agile software development has key practices such as working as one team. This one team is to define business priorities and, based on those priorities, deliver work in short increments. Each increment of work is inspected by the team and the project’s plans and priorities are adapted accordingly. Historically, VA has experienced significant IT development and delivery difficulties. In the spring of 2009, the department reviewed its inventory of IT projects and identified ones that exhibited serious problems with schedule slippages and cost overruns. The department noted that an incremental approach, such as Agile software development, was considered to be an effective way to support the long-term system solution development. oftwre development i not et of tool or ingle methodology, bu philoophy based on elected v such as, the highet priority i to satify customer throgh erly nd continus delivery of vuable oftwre, delivering working oftwre freqently, from cople of week to cople of month, nd tht working oftwre i the primry measure of progress. For more informtion on Agile development, ee http://www.gilellince.org. Given the importance of delivering education benefits to veterans and their families, we were asked to review the long-term solution to determine the status of VA’s development and implementation of its information technology (IT) system to support the implementation of education benefits identified in the Post-9/11 GI Bill and evaluate the agency’s effectiveness in managing its IT project for this initiative. To determine the status of VA’s development and implementation of IT system to support the implementation of education benefits identified in the Post-9/11 GI Bill, we reviewed VA and contractor plans for system development, observed project status meetings, and compared the actual status of development and implementation to the planned status, and discussed the department’s plans and implementation with VA and contractor officials to determine the functionality completed and demonstrated. . 5001-5003 nd Pub. L. No. 111-32, Sec. 1002. gement Accontability Stem (PMAS) Gide 1.0, Mrch 2010. 7 analyzed requirements and testing artifacts for 20 segments of system features developed to determine the traceability of requirements and testing coverage; observed key agency and contractor development meetings such as daily discussions, bi-weekly software reviews and planning meetings, where management decisions were made and Agile practices were demonstrated; and interviewed department and contractor officials about the management and oversight of requirements, testing, and transition plans. The information on cost estimates and costs that were incurred for long-term solution development were provided by VA officials. We did not audit the reported costs and thus cannot attest to their accuracy or completeness. We conducted this performance audit at the Department of Veterans Affairs headquarters in Washington, D.C., and at a contractor facility in Chantilly, Virginia, from November 2009 to September 2010 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. VA has developed and implemented the first two of four releases of software planned for its new education benefits processing system as scheduled, with these deployments occurring on March 31, 2010, and June 30, 2010. In doing so, VA provided its regional processing offices with key automated capabilities to prepare original and amended benefit claims. In addition, VA responded to legislative changes and provided for housing rate adjustments. While VA did not previously estimate costs for these releases and, as such, could not track estimated to actual costs, it has reported that about $84.6 million has been obligated through July 2010. The department noted that its Agile process allowed the flexibility to adapt to legislative changes and provide functionality according to business priorities. However, VA did not ensure that certain critical tasks were performed that were expected to be part of the second release. Specifically, it did not complete the conversion of data from systems in the interim solution to the systems developed for the long-term solution and did not complete the development of interfaces between the new system and legacy systems. nned to complete interfce to ll legcy tem except for it finncil pyment tem, which i plnned for the third release. Further, because of these delays, VA is in the process of determining and prioritizing what functionality will be developed in its third release by September 30, 2010. For its fourth release, it intends to reduce its planned functionality of providing full self-service capabilities to veterans by December 31, 2010. However, VA intends to provide this capability after its fourth release or under a separate initiative. As such, VA estimates that the total system development actual and planned obligations through 2011 will be about $207.1 million. er repreent ctual expenditre, oligted fnd, nd plnned oligted fnd throgh fil yer 2011. VA has demonstrated key Agile practices that are essential to effectively managing its system development, but certain practices can be improved. Specifically, the department has ensured that teams represent key stakeholders and that specific Agile roles were fulfilled. For example, the teams consist of subject matter experts, programmers, testers, analysts, engineers, architects, and designers. The department has also made progress toward demonstrating the three other Agile practices—focusing on business priorities, delivering functionality in short increments, and inspecting and adapting the project as appropriate. However, VA can improve its effectiveness in these areas. Specifically: To ensure business priorities are a focus, a project starts with a vision that contains, among other things, purpose, goals, metrics, and constraints. In addition, it should be traceable to requirements. VA has established a vision that captures the project purpose and goals; however, it has not established metrics for the project’s goals or prioritized project constraints. VA officials stated that project documentation is evolving and they intend to improve their processes based on lessons learned; however, until it identifies metrics and constraints, the department will not have the means to compare the projected performance and actual results of this goal. VA has also established a plan that identifies how to maintain requirements traceability within an Agile environment; however, the traceability between legislation, policy, business rules, and test cases was not always maintained. VA stated its 11 requirements tool did not previously have the capability to perform this function and now provides this traceability to test cases. Nonetheless, if VA does not ensure that requirements are traceable to legislation, policies, and business rules, it has limited assurance that the requirements will be fully met. To aid in delivering functionality in short increments, defining what constitutes completed work (work that is “done”) and testing functionality is critical. However, VA has not yet established criteria for work that is considered “done” at all levels of the project. Program officials stated that each development team has its own definition of “done” and agreed that they need to provide a standard definition across all teams. If VA does not mutually agree upon a definition of “done” at each level, confusion about what constitutes completed work can lead to inconsistent quality and it may not be able to clearly communicate how much work remains. In addition, while the department has established an incremental testing approach, the quality of unit and functional testing performed during Release 2 was inadequate in 10 of the 20 segments of system functionality we reviewed. Program officials stated that they placed higher priority on user acceptance testing at the end of a release and relied on users to identify defects that were not detected during unit and functional testing. Until the department improves testing quality, it risks deploying future releases that contain defects which may require rework. tht the delivery of completed oftwre e defined, commonly referred to as the definition of “done.” Thi criticl to the development process to help ensure tht, mong other thing, teting has een dequately performed nd the reqired docmenttion has een developed. In order for projects to be effectively inspected and adapted, management must have tools to provide effective oversight. For Agile development, progress and the amount of work remaining can be reflected in a burn-down chart, which depicts how factors such as the rate at which work is completed (velocity) and changes in overall product scope affect the project over time. While VA has an oversight tool that shows the percentage of work completed to reflect project status at the end of each iteration, it does not depict the velocity of the work completed and the changes to scope over time. Program officials stated that their current reporting does not show the changes in project scope because their focus is on metrics that are forward looking rather than showing past statistics for historical comparison. However, without this level of visibility in its reporting, management may not have all the information it needs to fully understand project status. To help ensure successful implementation of the Chapter 33 initiative, we are recommending that VA establish performance measures for goals and identify constraints; establish traceability between requirements and legislation, policies, and business rules; define the conditions that must be present to consider work “done;” review and improve the unit and functional testing processes; and implement an oversight tool to clearly communicate velocity and the changes to project scope over time. We received oral comments on a draft of this briefing from VA officials, including the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Legislative Affairs and the Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology. In their comments, the officials stated that the department was not in a position to concur or not concur with our recommendations, but planned to provide formal comments on our final report. The officials also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated in the briefing as appropriate. In recognition of their service to our country, VA provides medical care, benefits, social support, and lasting memorials to veterans, service members, and their families. VA is the second largest federal department with more than 270,000 employees. In fiscal year 2009, the department reported incurring more than $100 billion in obligations for its overall operations. The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), one of VA’s three line administrations, provides assistance and benefits, such as educational assistance, through four veterans’ regional processing offices. In 2009, the department reported that it provided more than $3.5 billion in educational assistance benefits to approximately 560,000 individuals. In 2011, it expects the number of all education claims to grow by 32 percent over 2009, increasing from 1.7 million to 2.25 million. two other line dminitrtion re the Veter Helth Adminitrtion nd the Ntionl Cemetery Adminitrtion. l processing office re locted in Atlnt, Georgi; Bfflo, New York; Muskogee, Oklhom; nd St. Lo, Missri. 16 insufficient to support the demands for processing the new benefit. In October 2008, VA established its Chapter 33 initiative to develop the capability to process the new education benefit. The initiative involved both an interim and long-term solution: The interim solution, deployed in November 2009, provided applications and tools, such as a spreadsheet that aided claims examiners in manually collecting data from VA legacy systems to calculate the new education benefit. The long-term solution was expected to be complete enough to replace the interim solution by June 2010 and to include additional capabilities to provide a fully automated end-to-end system to support the delivery of education benefits by December 2010. Among other features, by December 2010, the new education benefits system was to modernize processing of new Chapter 33 awards and amended existing Chapter 33 claims, to include automated calculations of benefits, such as tuition and fee payments, housing allowance, and book stipends; increase claims processing efficiency to all regional offices, such as providing capability to automatically access veteran demographic and service data; interface with VA’s existing legacy systems that contain information required to calculate benefits, such as a financial payment system; and create veteran self-service capabilities such as the capability to estimate and apply for benefits online. To oversee the development and implementation of the new education benefits system, VA has formed a governance structure that includes executive level management from VBA and the department’s Office of Information and Technology (OI&T). The VBA Under Secretary of Benefits has primary responsibility for coordinating the Chapter 33 initiative. For example, the Under Secretary ensures collaboration for the effective management and coordination of VA resources in support of the Chapter 33 implementation. To develop and implement the long-term solution, VA’s OI&T entered into an interagency agreement with the Department of Defense’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center– Atlantic (SPAWAR) to develop the long-term solution. SPAWAR is managing multiple contractors to develop the system and is providing technical, information assurance, and program management services. SPAWAR is also providing operational services and engineering, planning, and analysis to support application development. VA and SPAWAR work together to manage and develop the system. Specifically, VBA subject matter experts and OI&T technical representatives are part of the system development teams. , contrctor such as Agilex Technologie, Inc., Booz Allen Hmilton, GeoLogic, nd Lockheed Mrtin, support the Chpter 33 tem development. gement Accontability Stem (PMAS) Gide 1.0, Mrch 2010. Provide improved claims-processing functionality, such as the ability to calculate new original awards, amend awards, and convert beneficiary data from systems supporting the interim solution to the new system. To be deployed to a limited number of claims examiners in the regional processing offices. Increase automation and efficiency to all regional processing offices, as well as develop interfaces to legacy systems (excluding the financial system). Develop an interface between the new system and the department’s legacy financial system. Provide other end user features to further improve processing efficiencies, such as self-service functionality aimed at improving the veteran’s experience. timte doe not inclde mintennce coast the end of fil yer 2011 ecause progrm offici ted thi will budgeted nder different VBA inititive. rnegie Mellon Softwre Engineering Intitte, Mry Ann Lphm, et l., Considerations for Using Agile in DOD Acquisition (Pittsburgh, Penn., April 2010). Product owner. The product owner’s primary duties include making sure that all team members are pursuing a common vision for the project, establishing priorities so the highest-valued functionality is always being worked on, and making decisions that lead to a good return on investment. rief hitory on itertive nd incrementl development nd the origin of Agile method, ee Crnegie Mellon Softwre Engineering Intitte, Hillel Glzer, et l., CMMI® or Agile: Why Not Embrace Both! (Pittsburgh, Penn., Novemer 2008). nifeto was written nd igned grop of methodologi, who clled themelve the Agile Allince. Basic principle re et forth in thi docment nd inclde, for exmple, thbusiness people nd developerust work together dily nd throghot the project. For more informtion on the cretion of the Agile Mnifeto, ee http:// gilemnfeto.org/hitory.html. ton, Mass.: Peon Edtion, Inc., 2010); Agile Estimating and Planning (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Peon Edtion, Inc., 2006); User Stories Applied (Boton, Mass.: Peon Edtion, Inc., 2004); nd Ken Schwaber, Agile Project Management with Scrum (Redmond, Wash.: Microoft Press, 2004). analysts, database engineers, usability experts, technical writers, architects, and designers. The team members are responsible for developing high-quality functionality as prioritized by the product owner. Project manager. The project manager focuses more on leadership than on management and is a facilitator for the team working together. In addition, he or she is responsible for removing project obstacles that may impede the team’s performance. Additionally, best practices state that it is essential for a systems development team to have involvement from other stakeholders, such as executive level management and senior management. Such involvement helps to minimize project risk by ensuring that key requirements are identified and developed, problems or issues are resolved, and decisions and commitments are made in a timely manner. titte of Electricnd Electronic Engineer (IEEE), Stem nd oftwre engineering – oftwre life cycle process, IEEE Std. 12207-2008, (Piy, N.J., Juary 2008) nd Crnegie Mellon Softwre Engineering Intitte, CMMI for Development, Verion 1.2, CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008 (Pittsburgh, Penn., Aust 2006). of implementing Agile v Scrm. For more informtion on the Scrpproch ee http://www.crllince.org/. ne 24, 2009, mended the Pot-9/11 Edtionl Assnce Act of 2008 dding the Mrine Gnnery Sergent John Dvid Fry Scholhip (ee 38 U.S.C. § 3311), which inclde in the ct enefit for the children of ervice memer who died in the line of dty on or fter Sept. 11, 2001. Eligile children ttending chool my receive p to the highet public, in-te ndergruate tition nd fee, plus monthly living tipend nd ook llownce nder the progrm. titte of Electricnd Electronic Engineer (IEEE), Stem nd oftwre engineering – oftwre life cycle process, IEEE Std. 12207-2008, (Piy, N.J., Juary 2008) nd Crnegie Mellon Softwre Engineering Intitte, CMMI for Development, Verion 1.2, CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008 (Pittsburgh, Penn., Aust 2006). of the decision-making bodies in the governance structure, see attachment III.) The department has also established multiple, cross-functional teams to develop the system. These teams consist of VA subject matter experts as well as contractors that are programmers, testers, analysts, database engineers, architects, and designers. These teams hold daily Scrum meetings to discuss work that has been planned and accomplished, and any impediments to completing the work. At the completion of each iteration, which in VA’s case is every 2 weeks, a review meeting occurs between the cross-functional teams and VA stakeholders to review and demonstrate completed system functionality. Following this meeting, planning sessions are held to discuss the work to be accomplished in the next iteration based on the next highest-prioritized requirements contained in user stories. In addition, VA has identified project managers from both VA and SPAWAR that focus on leadership of the initiative. These project managers monitor and facilitate meetings and provide clarification to contractors, subject matter experts, and other developers. They are also responsible for addressing impediments discussed at the review meetings. With this involvement from key stakeholders, VA has established a team structure that fulfills the key roles within an Agile team and has better positioned itself to effectively manage the initiative. rnegie Mellon Softwre Engineering Intitte, Cability Mrity Model® Integrtion for Development, Verion 1.2 (Pittsburgh, Penn., Aust 2006), nd Softwre Acqition Cability Mrity Model® (SA-CMM®) verion 1.03, CMU/SEI-2002-TR-010 (Penn., Mrch 2002); nd the Intitte of Electricnd Electronic Engineer (IEEE), 1362-1998, IEEE Gide for Informtion Technology— Stem Definition— Concept of Opertion Docment (New York, N.Y.,1998). intining idirectionl reqirement trceability me thtem-level reqiremente trced oth backwrd to higher-level business or opertionl reqirement, nd forwrd to tem deign pecifiction nd tet pl. rtment offici noted tht prior to thi pgrde, they were able to eablih trceability to tet casually. er 1998); Information Technology: Customs Automated Commercial Environment Progressing, but Need for Management Improvements Continues, GAO- 05-267 (Washington, D.C.: Mr. 14, 2005); nd Homeland Security: Visitor and Immigrant Status Program Operating, but Management Improvements Are Still Needed, GAO-06-318T (Washington, D.C.: Jn. 25, 2006). presented user stories as “done” without having completed all testing. Program officials stated that each development team has their own definition of “done” and agreed that they need to provide a standard definition across all teams. If VA does not mutually agree upon and document this definition at each level and ensure it conforms to the department’s standards, conventions, and guidelines, confusion about what constitutes completed work could lead to inconsistent quality and unreliable performance and progress reporting. Further, in the absence of an agreed-upon definition, VA is not able to clearly communicate how much work remains for completing the system. rther informtion on nit nd fnctionl teting, ee GAO, Indian Trust Funds: Challenges Facing Interior’s Implementation of New Trust Asset and Accounting Management System, GAO/T-AIMD-99-238 (Washington, D.C.: Jl. 14, 1999) nd GAO, Financial Management Systems: Additional Efforts Needed to Address Key Causes of Modernization Failures, GAO-06-184 (Washington, D.C.: Mrch 27, 2006). er were reported as of Jne 29, 2010. Progrm offici decried high-priority defect as defect tht cold “rek” the tem nd muse fixed. tion on how defect result in nplnned rework nd increased co, ee GAO-06-184. m offici ted tht they hd previously used burn-down chrt thhowed velocity for ll te in Release 1. However, in Release 2, they decided tht they wold provide burn-down chrt t the tem level, but not t the overll project level. To help guide the development and implementation of the Chapter 33 long-term solution, we recommend that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct the Under Secretary for Benefits to take the following five actions: establish performance measures for goals and identify constraints to provide better clarity in the vision and expectations of the project; establish bidirectional traceability between requirements and legislation, policies, and business rules to provide assurance that the system will be developed as expected; define the conditions that must be present to consider work “done” in adherence with agency policy and guidance; improve the adequacy of the unit and functional testing processes to reduce the amount of system rework; and implement an oversight tool to clearly communicate velocity and the changes to project scope over time. 48 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation We received oral comments on a draft of this briefing from VA officials, including the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Legislative Affairs and the Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology. In the comments, the Deputy Assistant Secretary stated that the department was not in a position to concur or not concur with our recommendations but planned to provide formal comments on our final report. The officials provided additional clarification on why the department experienced delays in data conversion. Specifically, they noted that, consistent with Agile practices, the department reprioritized work and adapted the system to add selected functionality, such as the 2010 housing rate adjustments. They added that the Joint Executive Board had made this decision to ensure that claims examiners would have the most recent rate to process benefits for the fall 2010 enrollment season. Additionally, the department recognized lessons learned with the Agile approach, and it intends to incorporate them in future development work. The officials provided other technical comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate. In further comments, the Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology emphasized that using Agile system development for this initiative allowed the department to provide significant system functionality incrementally that had far exceeded its past IT initiatives. Specifically, he noted that the project had delivered working software close to schedule and had been more successful than past system development efforts. Funds obligated and transferred to SPAWAR but not yet expended Planned and obligated costs to complete Release 3 (VA and SPAWAR program costs) Planned but not obligated FY2011 cost to complete Release 4 (VA and SPAWAR program costs) Co-chaired by the Under Secretary for Benefits and the Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology, this senior governing body provides executive-level oversight and strategic guidance for implementation of the initiative. It is responsible for ensuring that communications, strategies, planning, and deliverables enable the initiative to meet its mission, goals, and objectives. Co-chaired by the Director of Education Service and the Program Manager, the Steering Committee advises the Joint Executive Board on requirements, policies, and standards. It is responsible for the oversight of program planning and execution to ensure that the strategic vision is incorporated into the business operations. Co-chaired by the Leader of the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) Education Service Program Executive Office and the Dependency Lead, Office of Information and Technology, Chapter 33 Program Management Office, the Working Group provides oversight and governance to workgroups leading programmatic and technical interests of the initiative. It defines and prioritizes business requirements, identifies and escalates issues and risks, and makes recommendations to the Executive Steering Committee on which requests to approve and resource. Eight workgroups, led by Education Service and Office of Information and Technology staff, provide daily operations management and ensure that requirements areas are identified and defined for each of the following areas: Benefits Delivery Network/Financial Accounting System, Business Requirements, Certification and Accreditation/Security, Infrastructure, Interfaces, Strategic Planning, Training, and the Security Review Board. In addition to the contact named above, key contributions to this report were made by Christie M. Motley, Assistant Director; Rebecca E. Eyler; David A. Hong; Ashley D. Houston; John C. Martin; and Charles E. Youman.

Summary: The Post-9/11 GI Bill was signed into law in June 2008 and provides educational assistance for veterans and members of the armed forces who served on or after September 11, 2001. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is responsible for processing claims for these new education benefits. VA concluded that its legacy systems and manual processes were insufficient to support the new benefits and, therefore, began an initiative to modernize its benefits processing capabilities. The long-term solution was to provide a fully automated end-to-end information technology (IT) system to support the delivery of benefits by December 2010. VA chose an incremental development approach, called Agile software development, which is intended to deliver functionality in short increments before the system is fully deployed. GAO was asked to (1) determine the status of VA's development and implementation of its IT system to support the implementation of education benefits identified in the Post-9/11 GI Bill and (2) evaluate the department's effectiveness in managing its IT project for this initiative. VA has made important progress in delivering key automated capabilities to process the new education benefits. Specifically, it deployed the first two of four releases of its long-term system solution by its planned dates, thereby providing regional processing offices with key automated capabilities to prepare original and amended benefit claims. In addition, the Agile process allowed the department the flexibility to accommodate legislative changes and provide functionality according to business priorities. While progress has been made, VA did not ensure that certain critical tasks were completed that were initially expected to be included in the second release by June 30, 2010. For example, the conversion of data from systems in the interim solution to systems developed for the long-term solution was not completed until August 23, 2010. Because of the delay, VA planned to reprioritize the functionality that was to be included in the third release. Further, while VA plans to include full self-service capabilities to veterans, it will not do so in the fourth release as scheduled; instead it intends to provide this capability after the release or in a separate initiative. VA reported obligations and expenditures for these releases, through July 2010, to be approximately $84.6 million, with additional planned obligations of $122.5 million through fiscal year 2011. VA has taken important steps by demonstrating a key Agile practice essential to effectively managing its system development--establishing a cross-functional team that involves senior management, governance boards, key stakeholders, and distinct Agile roles. In addition, VA made progress toward demonstrating three other Agile practices--focusing on business priorities, delivering functionality in short increments, and inspecting and adapting the project as appropriate. Specifically, to ensure business priorities are a focus, VA established a vision that captures the project purpose and goals and established a plan to maintain requirements traceability. To aid in delivering functionality, the department established an incremental testing approach. It also used an oversight tool, which was intended to allow the project to be inspected and adapted by management. However, VA could make further improvements to these practices. In this regard, it did not (1) establish metrics for the goals or prioritize project constraints; (2) always maintain traceability between legislation, policy, business rules, and test cases; (3) establish criteria for work that was considered "done" at all levels of the project; (4) provide for quality unit and functional testing during the second release, as GAO found that 10 of the 20 segments of system functionality were inadequate; and (5) implement an oversight tool that depicted the rate of the work completed and the changes to project scope over time. Until VA improves these areas, management will lack the visibility it needs to clearly communicate progress and unresolved issues in its development processes may not allow VA to maximize the benefits of the system. To help guide the full development and implementation of the long-term solution, GAO is recommending that VA take five actions to improve its development process for its new education benefits system. VA concurred with three of GAO's five recommendations and provided details on planned actions, but did not concur with the remaining two.