Historically, DOD has used its readiness assessment system to assess the ability of units and joint forces to fight and meet the demands of the national security strategy. DOD’s readiness assessment and reporting system is designed to assess and report on military readiness at three levels—(1) the unit level; (2) the joint force level; and (3) the aggregate, or strategic, level. Using information from its readiness assessment system, DOD prepares and sends legislatively mandated Quarterly Readiness Reports to Congress. DRRS is DOD’s new readiness reporting system that is intended to capture information from the previous system, as well as information about organizational capabilities to perform a wider variety of missions and mission essential tasks. DRRS is also intended to capture readiness information from defense agencies and installations, which were not required to report under the previous system. Some DRRS features are currently fielded and being used to varying degrees by the user community. Laws, directives, and guidance, including a DOD directive, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI), Secretary of Defense and USD (P&R) memorandums, and service regulations and messages, show that readiness information and data are needed to support a wide range of decision makers. These users of readiness data include Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the combatant commanders, the Secretaries of the military departments, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. The directives and guidance also list roles and responsibilities for collecting and reporting various types of readiness data. For example, CJCSI 3401.02A assigns the service chiefs responsibility for ensuring required global status of resources and training system (GSORTS) reports are submitted. GSORTS is DOD’s legacy, resource-based readiness reporting system that provides a broad assessment of unit statuses based on units’ abilities to execute the missions for which they were organized or designed as well as the current missions for which they may be employed. The information in the required GSORTS reports includes units’ abilities to execute the missions for which they were organized or designed, as well as the status of their training, personnel, and equipment. In addition, DOD directive 7730.65, which established DRRS as DOD’s new readiness reporting system, assigns the Secretaries of the military departments and the commanders of the combatant commands responsibilities for developing mission essential tasks for all of their assigned missions. Prior to 1999, we identified challenges with DOD’s existing readiness reporting system, GSORTS, and in 1999, Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to establish a comprehensive readiness reporting system. The legislation requires the system to measure in an objective, accurate, and timely manner the capability of the armed forces to carry out (1) the National Security Strategy prescribed by the President, (2) the defense planning guidance provided by the Secretary of Defense, and (3) the National Military Strategy prescribed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. To address the requirements established by Congress, the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Readiness) began in 2001 to build consensus among DOD’s senior readiness leaders for an improved readiness assessment system. For example, the Deputy’s office distributed a list of key characteristics of the improved readiness assessment system to the leaders in advance of scheduled meetings. The system’s key desired characteristics included allowing near-real-time access to readiness data and trends, enabling rapid, low-cost development using classified Internet technology, and reducing the reporting burdens on people. Since then various directives and memorandums have been issued regarding DRRS responsibilities, requirements, and related issues. For example: On June 3, 2002, the Deputy Secretary of Defense established DOD’s new readiness reporting system, as directed by Congress, by signing DOD Directive 7730.65. According to this directive, DRRS is intended to build upon DOD’s existing processes and readiness assessment tools to establish a capabilities-based, near-real-time readiness reporting system. The DRRS directive assigned USD (P&R) responsibilities for developing, fielding, maintaining, and funding ESORTS (the tool to collect capability, resource, and training information) and overseeing DRRS to ensure accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of its information and data, its responsiveness, and its effective and efficient use of modern practices and technologies. In addition, the USD P&R is responsible for ensuring that ESORTS information, where appropriate, is integrated into DOD’s planning systems and processes. The directive also states that until ESORTS becomes fully operational, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall maintain the GSORTS database. On June 25, 2004, the Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum, which directed USD (P&R) to develop DRRS to support data requirements identified by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the combatant commanders, the Secretaries of the Military Departments, and the Chief, National Guard Bureau to include availability, readiness, deployment, and redeployment data. On November 2, 2004, USD (P&R) issued a DRRS interim implementation guidance memorandum. In this memorandum, the undersecretary noted that he had established a DIO to provide reporting assistance for units. The memorandum also stated that combatant commanders would begin reporting readiness by mission essential tasks by November 30, 2004. The memorandum also directed the services to develop detailed implementing guidance for reporting and assessing mission essential task readiness in ESORTS within their respective services, and set a goal for the services to implement the mission essential task reporting process by September 30, 2005. To meet these mission essential task reporting requirements, USD (P&R) directed commanders to rate their organizational capabilities as (1) yes or “Y”, (2) qualified yes or “Q”, or (3) no or “N.” A “Y” indicates that an organization can accomplish the rated tasks or missions to prescribed standards and conditions in a specified environment. It should reflect demonstrated performance in training or operations. A “Q” indicates that performance has not been demonstrated, and, although data may not readily support a “Y,” the commander believes the organization can accomplish the rated task or mission to standard under most conditions. An “N” indicates that an organization cannot accomplish the rated task or mission to prescribed standards in the specified environment at the time of the assessment. The November 2004 memorandum also stated that the expected transition from GSORTS to ESORTS was scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2005. According to the 2004 memorandum, the ESORTS module of DRRS would provide, among other things, visibility of the latest GSORTS information reported by units, and detailed resource information from authoritative data sources with the capability to aggregate or separate the data. This memorandum signaled a change in program direction. Although the 2002 DOD directive stated that DRRS is intended to build upon DOD’s existing processes and readiness assessment tools, the 2004 memorandum indicated that DRRS was to replace GSORTS, as the ESORTS module of DRRS captured both capabilities and resource data. Since its establishment, the DIO has operated within the Office of USD (P&R) and has relied on multiple contractors. To provide governance of DRRS, and enhance communication between the development community, represented by the DIO and contractors, and the user community, which includes the Joint Staff, military services, and combatant commands, USD (P&R) established various bodies with representatives from the user community, including military services, combatant commands, and the defense agencies. Representatives from the Office of USD (P&R) and the Joint Staff currently serve as cochairs of the various bodies. DRRS Battle Staffs comprise colonels, Navy captains, and similar-graded civilians. They track DRRS development and identify issues with the system. At the one- star level, the DRRS General and Flag Officer Steering Committee discusses issues raised by the Battle Staff. In December 2007, USD (P&R) created a committee at the three-star level, referred to as the DRRS Executive Committee. Its charter, finalized about a year later in January 2009, calls for the committee to review and approve proposals and plans to establish policy, processes, and system requirements for DRRS, including approving software development milestones required to reach objectives. To ensure that leadership is provided for the direction, oversight, and execution of DOD’s business transformation efforts, including business systems modernization efforts such as DRRS, DOD relies on several entities. These entities include the Defense Business Systems Management Committee, which is chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and serves as the department’s highest-ranking governance body and the approval authority for business systems modernization activities; the Investment Review Boards, which are chartered by the Principal Staff Assistants—senior leaders from various offices within DOD—and serve as the review and certification bodies for business system investments in their respective areas of responsibility; and the Business Transformation Agency, which is responsible for supporting the Investment Review Boards and for leading and coordinating business transformation efforts across the department. Among other things, the Business Transformation Agency supports the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition, Technology and Logistics in conducting system acquisition risk assessments. Our research and evaluations of information technology programs, including business systems modernization efforts within DOD, have shown that delivering promised system capabilities and benefits on time and within budget largely depends on the extent to which key program management disciplines are employed by an adequately staffed program management office. Among other things, these disciplines include a number of practices associated with effectively developing and managing system requirements, adequately testing system capabilities, and reliably scheduling the work to be performed. They also include proactively managing the program office’s human capital needs, and promoting program office accountability through executive-level program oversight. DOD acquisition policies and guidance, along with other relevant guidance, recognize the importance of these management and oversight disciplines.