DOD’s organizational structure includes the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military services, numerous defense agencies and field activities, and various unified combatant commands that contribute to the oversight of DOD’s MAIS programs. Figure 1 provides a simplified depiction of DOD’s organizational structure. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD (AT&L)) serves as the Defense Acquisition Executive and is the official responsible for supervising the acquisition and oversight of MAIS programs. This official is the principal acquisition official of the department and is the acquisition advisor to the Secretary of Defense. The USD (AT&L) has policy and procedural authority for the defense acquisition system, which establishes the steps that DOD programs generally take as the department plans, designs, acquires, deploys, operates, and maintains its IT systems (discussed in more detail following this section). The USD (AT&L)’s authority also includes directing the military services and defense agencies on acquisition matters and— unless the authority is delegated to the service or agency—making milestone decisions for MAIS programs. The Department of Defense Instruction 5000.02 is the policy that establishes guidelines for the management of all acquisition programs. The department’s policy guidance includes six defense acquisition models based on the type of product being acquired (e.g., software- intensive programs and hardware-intensive programs). A generic acquisition model that shows all of the program life-cycle phases and key decision points is shown in figure 2 and described below. Materiel solution analysis: Refine the initial system solution (concept) and create a strategy for acquiring the solution. A decision—referred to as Milestone A, the risk reduction decision point—is made at the end of this phase to authorize entry into the technology maturation and risk reduction phase. Technology maturation and risk reduction: Determine the preferred technology solution and validate that it is affordable, satisfies program requirements, and has acceptable technical risk. A decision—referred to as Milestone B, the program initiation decision point—is made at the end of this phase to authorize entry of the program into the engineering and manufacturing development phase and award development contracts. An acquisition program baseline is first established at the Milestone B decision point. A program’s first acquisition program baseline contains the original life-cycle cost estimate (acquisition and operations and maintenance costs), the schedule estimate (major milestones and decision points), and performance parameters that were approved for that program by the Milestone Decision Authority. The first acquisition program baseline is established after the program has refined user requirements and identified the most appropriate technology solution that demonstrates that it can meet users’ needs. Engineering and manufacturing development: Develop a system and demonstrate through testing that the system meets all program requirements. A decision—referred to as Milestone C, the deployment decision point—is made during this phase to authorize entry of the system into the production and deployment phase or into limited deployment in support of operational testing. Production and deployment: Achieve an operational capability that meets program requirements, as verified through independent operational tests and evaluation, and implement the system at all applicable locations. Operations and support: Operationally sustain the system in the most cost-effective manner over its life cycle. Entities such as the Project Management Institute, the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, IEEE, and GAO have developed and identified leading practices to help guide organizations to effectively plan and manage the acquisition of major IT systems, such as the MAIS programs. Our work has shown that proper implementation of such practices can significantly increase the likelihood of delivering promised system capabilities on time and within budget. These practices include, but are not limited to, Risk management: A process for anticipating problems and taking appropriate steps to mitigate risks and minimize their impact on program commitments. It involves identifying and documenting risks, categorizing them based on their estimated impact, prioritizing them, developing risk mitigation strategies, and tracking progress in executing the strategies. Requirements management: Requirements establish what the system is to do, how well it is to do it, and how it is to interact with other systems. Appropriate requirements development involves eliciting and developing customer and stakeholder requirements, and analyzing them to ensure that they will meet users’ needs and expectations. It also consists of validating requirements as the system is being developed to ensure that the final systems to be deployed will perform as intended in an operational environment. Systems testing and integration management: A rigorous and efficient test and evaluation program provides early knowledge of developmental and operational issues. Correcting these issues early can mitigate risks of cost overruns and schedule slippages, and can ultimately contribute to delivery of effective and suitable systems in a timely manner. System integration ensures that all the “pieces” of the system can work together to realize the program’s goals. It involves the collaborative planning and execution of test phases and events to provide shared data in support of independent analysis, evaluation, and reporting by all stakeholders. The majority of the 18 selected MAIS programs that we reviewed had experienced changes in their planned cost estimates and in their planned schedule estimates when comparing the first acquisition program baseline to the most recent acquisition program baseline estimate. These cost estimate changes ranged from a decrease of $1,466.2 million (-39 percent) to an increase of $1,625.7 million (469 percent), and schedule estimate changes ranged from a slippage of 13 years and 9 months to no change. Further, nine of the programs had met all of their technical performance targets, while four of the programs had partially met the performance targets. The remaining five programs had not yet conducted testing activities. As a result, it is too early to report on the status of technical performance targets. Table 2 shows the extent of changes in planned cost and schedule estimates for each of the selected MAIS programs we reviewed since the first program baseline estimate and the number of technical performance targets met. See appendix II for the detailed profiles of each program. Of the 18 MAIS programs we reviewed, 16 had experienced changes in their planned cost estimates. Specifically, five of the 16 programs had cost decreases that ranged from $58.5 million (-1.5 percent) for the Army’s Global Combat Support System, Increment 1 (GCSS-A Inc 1) program to $1,466.2 million (-39 percent) for the Air Force’s Base Information Transport Infrastructure Wired (BITI Wired) program. Officials reported various reasons for the decreases in planned cost estimates. For example, the Defense Health Agency’s integrated Electronic Health Record Increment 1 (iEHR Inc 1) program reported that the 70 percent cost decrease was due to a reduction in the program’s scope. Officials for the Air Force’s BITI Wired program reported that the 39 percent cost decrease was due to early assumptions about risks not materializing. For example, when the program had solicited bids for the contract, they included risk factors that never materialized. In addition, 11 of the 16 programs had experienced cost increases. These increases ranged from $2.6 million (1 percent) for the Defense Logistics Agency’s Defense Agencies Initiative Increment 2 (DAI Inc 2) program to $1,625.7 million (469 percent) for the Navy’s Common Aviation Command and Control System Increment 1 (CAC2S Inc 1) program. Among the 11 programs that reported an increase, the average increase was $457.2 million. Program officials reported a variety of reasons for the increases in planned cost estimates. For example, officials for the Army’s Tactical Mission Command (TMC) program attributed its 159 percent increase to, in part, higher than expected costs for research and development testing. In addition, officials for the Air Force’s Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System Increment 1 (DEAMS Inc 1) program attributed a 9 percent cost increase to the program’s growth in scope and the addition of software upgrade enhancements. Further, officials for the Navy’s CAC2S system attributed cost increases of 469 percent to the program’s early developmental challenges, which included program scope growth and restructuring. Two programs had not experienced any changes in their cost estimates: These include the Defense Health Agency’s Department of Defense Healthcare Management System (DHMSM) program and the Air Force’s Integrated Strategic Planning and Analysis Network Increment 4 (ISPAN Inc 4) program. Of the 18 selected MAIS programs we reviewed, 14 programs had experienced changes in their planned schedule estimates. These changes consisted of schedule slippages that ranged from 2 months for the Air Force’s BITI Wired program to 13 years and 9 months for the Navy’s CAC2S program. Program officials reported various reasons for the changes in their planned schedule estimates. For example, officials for the Navy’s CAC2S program attributed the schedule slippages to the addition of new requirements and program restructuring. Officials for the Air Force’s AOC- WS Inc 10.2 program reported that the 3 years of schedule slippages were due to a combination of test problems and system maturity issues. In addition, officials for the Air Force’s JMS Inc 2 system cited a larger than expected number of discrepancies in testing that had caused schedule delays totaling 2 years and 10 months. In turn, the program delayed completion of its Milestone C and Full Deployment Decision by more than 1 year beyond the original estimate. Four MAIS programs experienced no change to their planned schedule estimates—the DAI Inc 2, DHMSM, IPPS-A Inc 2, and the ISPAN Inc 4 programs. Among other information, DOD uses key performance parameters as a metric to report on each program’s progress toward meeting the system technical performance targets. This information includes a description of the performance characteristics, the objective and threshold value for each target and, importantly, whether the target has been met in demonstrating performance.