IPTs are to bring together the different areas of expertise needed to acquire a new product, such as engineering, manufacturing, purchasing, and finance. The essence of the IPT approach is to concentrate this expertise in a single team together with the authority to design, develop, test, manufacture, and deliver a product. The hallmark of these teams is their ability to efficiently make decisions that cross lines of expertise. Over the last two decades, the federal government has taken steps to improve IT acquisitions through the use of IPTs. Building on success from private industry’s use of IPTs, Defense adopted them in an attempt to improve its weapon system acquisitions. In 1996, the department published a guide on integrated product and process development based on its survey of policies and practices for over 80 government and industry organizations. Defense’s intention was to use the teams in the same manner as commercial firms—to integrate different functional disciplines into a team responsible for all aspects of an acquisition. Recognizing IPTs’ potential to improve the federal government’s approach to managing IT investments, OMB has called for the development and use of IPTs for federal IT acquisitions. In 2010, OMB published a 25-point action plan that was intended to address many of the most pressing, persistent challenges to the federal government’s management of IT. One of the actions OMB cited was to require that IPTs were in place before OMB approves program budgets. Additional actions agencies are to take are to dedicate resources to the team throughout the program lifecycle and hold team members accountable for individual goals and overall program success. Subsequently, OMB has incorporated revisions to its Capital Programming Guide and related guidance, which require the use of IPTs prior to OMB’s approval of an investment’s business case. Specifically, OMB requires that each major IT investment establish an IPT that includes, at a minimum, a fully dedicated program manager, a contracting specialist (if applicable), an IT specialist, an IT security specialist, and a business process owner or subject matter expert. Effective IT workforce planning is key to an agency’s success in developing IPTs with the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to execute a range of management functions that support the agency’s mission and goals. Over the past 20 years, various laws were enacted and guidance issued that call for agencies to perform workforce planning activities that ensure the timely and effective acquisition of IT. These laws and guidance focus on the importance of (1) setting the strategic direction for workforce planning, (2) analyzing the workforce to identify skill gaps, (3) developing strategies to address skill gaps, and (4) monitoring and reporting on progress in addressing skill gaps. For example: The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 requires agency CIOs to annually (1) assess the requirements established for agency personnel regarding knowledge and skill in information resource management and the adequacy of such requirements for facilitating the achievement of performance goals; (2) assess the extent to which the positions and personnel at executive and management levels meet those requirements; (3) develop strategies and specific plans for hiring, training, and professional development to address any deficiencies; and (4) report to the head of the agency on the progress made in improving information resources management capability. The E-Government Act of 2002 requires the Director of OPM, in consultation with the Director of OMB, the Chief Information Officers Council, and the Administrator of General Services to (1) analyze, on an on-going basis, the personnel needs of the federal government related to IT and information resource management; and (2) identify where current IT and information resource management training does not satisfy personnel needs. In addition, the law requires the Director of OMB to ensure that agency heads collect and maintain standardized information on their IT and information resources management workforce. In 2010, OMB issued its 25-point plan for IT reform and outlined several action plans to build workforce capabilities, including acquisition and program management. For example, OMB stated that OPM will work with OMB to provide agencies with direct hiring authority for program managers and directed OPM to create a specialized career path. OMB also tasked agencies with identifying program management competency gaps and reporting on those gaps. Subsequent to the 25-point plan, in July 2011, OMB released guidance for agencies to develop specialized IT acquisition cadres. Among other things, this memorandum required agencies to analyze current acquisition staffing challenges; determine if developing or expanding the use of cadres would improve program results; and outline a plan to pilot or expand cadres for an especially high-risk area, if the agency determined that such an effort would improve performance. Further, in November 2011 OPM issued guidance for developing career paths for IT program managers. OPM’s career path guide was to build upon its IT Program Management Competency Model released in July 2011 by serving as a roadmap for individuals interested in pursuing a career in this area and providing employees and their supervisors with a single-source reference to determine appropriate training opportunities for career advancement. In December 2014, Congress enacted legislation commonly referred to as the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA). Among other things, the law aims to ensure timely progress by federal agencies toward developing, strengthening, and deploying IT acquisition cadres consisting of personnel with highly specialized skills in IT acquisition, including program and project managers. Agencies (other than Defense) are required to update their acquisition human capital plans to address how they are meeting their human capital requirements to support timely and effective acquisitions. To assist agencies in implementing the provisions of FITARA and to reinforce provisions of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, OMB issued guidance to agencies in June 2015. In doing so, OMB directed agencies (other than Defense) to, among other things, (1) develop a set of competency requirements for staff, including leadership positions; and (2) develop and maintain a current workforce planning process to ensure the agency can (a) anticipate and respond to changing mission requirements, (b) maintain workforce skills in a rapidly developing environment, and (c) recruit and retain the talent needed to accomplish the mission. Each agency is to conduct an annual self-assessment of its conformity with these requirements and develop an implementation plan describing the changes it will make. In October 2015, OMB required agencies to identify their top five cybersecurity talent gaps by December 2015 as a one-time effort. Specifically, agencies were to participate in an OPM cybersecurity staffing exercise to identify the universe of their cyber talent, understand challenges for retaining talent, and address gaps accordingly. The Federal Cybersecurity Workforce Assessment Act of 2015 required OPM, with support from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, to establish a coding structure to be used in identifying all federal civilian and non-civilian positions that require the performance of IT, cybersecurity, or other cyber-related functions. Agencies, in consultation with OPM, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Homeland Security, were then required to utilize this coding structure to annually assess, among other things, the IT, cybersecurity, and other cyber- related work roles of critical need in the agency’s workforce. We have additional planned work in this area. OMB released its Federal Cybersecurity Workforce Strategy in July 2016. Among other things, the strategy cited the need for agencies to examine specific IT, cybersecurity, and cyber-related work roles, and identify personnel skills gaps, rather than merely examining the number of vacancies by job series. The strategy identified several actions that agencies could take to identify workforce needs, expand the cybersecurity workforce through education and training, recruit and hire highly skilled talent, and retain and develop highly skilled talent. Finally, in July 2016 OMB issued updated policy for the planning, budgeting, governance, acquisition, and management of federal information, personnel, equipment, funds, IT resources and supporting infrastructure and services. Among other things, OMB’s updated circular requires the agency’s chief human capital officer, CIO, chief acquisition officer, and senior agency official for privacy to develop a set of competency requirements for staff and develop and maintain a current workforce planning process. While the laws and guidance focus on IT workforce, there are also other broader initiatives to improve federal human capital management. For example, we and OPM developed human capital management models that call for implementing workforce planning practices that can facilitate the analysis of gaps between current skills and future needs and the development of strategies for filling the gaps, as well as planning for succession. In addition, our Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government stress that management should consider how best to retain valuable employees, plan for their eventual succession, and ensure continuity of needed skills and abilities. We have previously reported on commercial and Defense teaming practices and found that IPTs can develop and deliver superior products within predicted time frames and budgets—often cutting calendar time in half compared with earlier products developed without such teams. In addition, we identified two elements that are essential to an IPT: the knowledge and authority needed to recognize problems and make cross- cutting decisions expeditiously. We noted that knowledge is sufficient when the team has the right mix of expertise to master the different facets of product development and authority is present when the team is responsible for making both day-to-day decisions and delivering the product. We concluded that if a team lacks expertise, it will miss opportunities to recognize potential problems early; without authority, it can do little about them. Regarding broader human capital planning efforts, we first designated strategic human capital management across the government as a high- risk issue in 2001 because of the federal government’s long-standing lack of a consistent approach to human capital management. In February 2011, we narrowed the focus of this high-risk issue to the need for agencies to close mission-critical skill gaps. At that time, we noted that agencies faced challenges effectively and efficiently meeting their missions across a number of areas, including acquisition management.