BLM’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The bureau is responsible for approximately 264 million acres of public land in 28 states and public resources, including rangelands, timber, minerals, watersheds, wildlife habitats, wilderness and recreation areas, and archeological and historical resources. It also manages the subsurface mineral resources underlying another 300 million acres of land administered by other government agencies or owned by private interests. The bureau has 189 offices that maintain over 1 billion paper documents, including land surveys and surveyor notes, records of land ownership, mining claims, and oil and gas leases. According to BLM, most of the paper documents are deteriorating and are becoming increasingly difficult to read. In the mid-1980s BLM began planning to acquire a land and mineral case processing system to keep up with its increasing workload and automate its manual records and case processing activities. By 1993, BLM decided on the scope and functionality of the project, called the ALMRS/Modernization. The project consisted of three major components: the ALMRS IOC, a geographic information system, and the modernization of BLM’s computer and telecommunications infrastructure and rehost of selected management and administrative systems. ALMRS IOC—the flagship of the ALMRS/Modernization—was to provide the capability to more efficiently record, maintain, and retrieve land description, ownership, and use information to support BLM, other federal programs, and interested parties. Since 1995 we have issued several reports and made numerous recommendations to address the problems and risks that threatened the successful development and deployment of the ALMRS/Modernization. In October 1998 an operational assessment test and evaluation showed that ALMRS IOC was not ready to be deployed because it did not meet BLM’s business needs. The bureau subsequently stopped the ALMRS project. At the time the project was terminated, BLM estimated that from 1983 through 1998 it had obligated about $411 million for the ALMRS/Modernization project, of which over $67 million was spent to develop ALMRS IOC software. In 1999, we testified on the long-standing project weaknesses at BLM that threatened the ALMRS/Modernization and increased the risks that future efforts would result in a similar outcome. We recommended that BLM assess the usefulness of ALMRS IOC and other alternatives to meeting the bureau’s business needs, and strengthen its investment management processes and systems acquisition capabilities. In February 2000, we reported that BLM was in the early stages of addressing our recommendations, and we further recommended that BLM develop a plan to integrate all these corrective actions and establish a schedule for completing them. Because of the enormous investment made in ALMRS IOC and the failure of the software to meet BLM’s needs, we recommended that the Secretary of the Interior ensure that BLM thoroughly analyze the ALMRS IOC software to determine whether it could be cost beneficially modified to meet the bureau’s needs. We pointed out that this analysis should be part of an overall effort to identify and assess all alternatives, including (1) modifying the ALMRS IOC software, (2) modifying existing land and recordation systems, (3) acquiring commercial, off-the-shelf software, or (4) developing new systems. We also stated that the alternatives analysis should clearly identify the risks, costs, and benefits of each alternative and should be performed after BLM is assured that it has verified its current business requirements. In February 2000, we reported that BLM had prepared a preliminary report on its technical and functional analysis of ALMRS IOC, and concluded that ALMRS IOC was not operationally ready for deployment because it did not meet the bureau’s business needs. This conclusion was based on the determination that ALMRS IOC (1) was difficult to use and labor-intensive, (2) was poorly integrated into BLM’s business processes, (3) was too slow, and (4) would be difficult and costly to maintain and operate. The bureau stated that although some of these problems could be solved, ALMRS IOC could not be repaired without a major technical effort and significant costs. At that time, BLM’s CIO told us that the bureau planned to complete its analysis of ALMRS IOC and other alternatives after it established the bureau architecture and its business needs were known. The CIO noted that establishing an architecture is a necessary precursor to completing the analysis of ALMRS IOC and other alternatives because the architecture would document the bureau’s business processes and information needs. As part of its final analysis, BLM planned to determine whether parts of ALMRS IOC could be useful for future IT efforts. BLM developed an initial version of the bureau architecture in early 2000. It has also used non-software portions of ALMRS IOC, such as system specifications and documentation, to support other, ongoing information systems efforts. BLM’s CIO told us that the bureau does not plan to complete a final analysis of ALMRS IOC and other alternatives until it finishes additional work to complete the bureau architecture. The bureau expects to complete its work on the architecture by the end of 2003. The absence of adequate investment management processes and practices at BLM was a significant factor contributing to the failure of ALMRS IOC. To reduce the risk that future IT efforts would fail and to help establish disciplined investment management as required by the Clinger-Cohen Act, we recommended that the Secretary of the Interior ensure that BLM assess and strengthen its investment management practices to help avoid future problems. Sound investment management practices include (1) developing a capital asset plan, (2) developing strategic plans, (3) establishing an investment management board, (4) developing and implementing investment selection, control, and evaluation processes, (5) assessing staff skills, and (6) developing an information technology architecture to help properly manage new and ongoing IT projects. The Clinger-Cohen Act requires agencies to use capital planning to guide the acquisition and management of IT, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has issued guidance to assist agencies in developing a disciplined capital planning process. OMB’s guidance describes the key elements of an agency capital asset plan, including a statement of the relevant agency strategic plans, an analysis of existing systems and planned acquisitions, a gap analysis that identifies the agency objectives that cannot be met with existing IT assets, and justification for new spending. BLM approved an IT capital asset plan, dated October 25, 1999, which outlines capital planning procedures for major IT acquisitions. The plan specifies the relationship between BLM’s IT assets and the program performance goals identified in its strategic business plan. However, the plan is not yet complete, in that it does not include an analysis of the IT assets already owned by the agency and assets being acquired, an analysis of the gap between actual and planned performance, or justification for new acquisitions proposed for funding, as recommended by OMB guidance. According to BLM’s Deputy CIO, the bureau expects to revise and restructure its capital asset plan now that an initial version of the bureau architecture has been developed. The Deputy CIO added that BLM is planning to incorporate OMB’s recommended analyses and justifications in its revised plan. The analyses and justifications should help to guide the acquisition and management of BLM’s IT assets and investments. BLM expects to finish revising the capital asset plan by the end of fiscal 2001. The Clinger-Cohen Act requires agencies to ensure that IT is acquired and information resources are managed in a manner consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The Paperwork Reduction Act requires agencies to develop and maintain a strategic IRM plan that integrates IT investment processes with their processes for making budget, financial, and program management decisions. OMB has issued guidance to assist agencies in developing strategic IRM plans that are consistent with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. BLM is revising its 1997−2002 strategic IRM plan, dated March 12, 1998. Our review of a draft of BLM’s 2001−2005 strategic IRM plan showed that the draft plan includes a section on organizational effectiveness. The plan also shows how BLM’s IRM goals relate to, and support, bureauwide goals and objectives. However, the plan is not yet complete in that it does not describe how IRM activities will help accomplish BLM’s mission, nor does it ensure that IRM decisions are integrated with decisions on organizational planning, budget, procurement, financial management, human resources management, and programs, both of which are recommended by OMB in its strategic planning guidance. BLM’s Deputy CIO told us that the bureau is revising its draft strategic IRM plan now that an initial version of the bureau architecture has been developed. According the Deputy CIO, the revised strategic IRM plan will be completed by the end of fiscal year 2001 and will include the information recommended by OMB. Inclusion of the information recommended by OMB should help ensure that BLM’s strategic IRM plan will support IT investment management at the bureau. The Clinger-Cohen Act requires agencies to manage IT investments by using processes and information to ensure that IT projects are implemented at acceptable costs and within reasonable and expected time frames, and are contributing to tangible and observable improvements in mission performance. OMB’s and our joint guidance identifies attributes that are critical for achieving successful investment management practices, including senior management attention to those practices. Senior managers should have the authority to make key business and funding decisions on IT projects and use a disciplined and structured management forum for making key IT investment decisions with the authority to approve, cancel, or delay projects, mitigate risks, and validate expected returns.