Government Executive has three stories (here, here and here) regarding the congressionally described “Dismal State of Information Technology Planning in the Federal Government.”
The stories describe the testimony given at the Senate’s Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security yesterday.
Overall, the testimony paints a discouraging picture of IT risk management – or maybe better termed – risk mis-management – on a large number of government IT projects.
What I find more discouraging is the decision by OMB not to highlight IT projects that poorly manage their risks because, says OMB’s Karen Evans, that “highlighting problem projects would lead agencies to hide poorly performing ones.”
So, OMB admits that government agencies will resort to what amounts to lying about the status of their troubled IT projects if the public spotlight is turned on.
Of course, we all knew that, it is just nice that it is formally on the record.
Taxpayers also will be happy to hear that agencies can't be trusted to tell the truth about the status of their IT projects.
What also is discouraging is how many IT projects still get funding approval year after year given that they are either poorly planned or performing poorly or both: “OMB determined that 352 projects (totaling about $23.4 billion) [on its Management Watch List] are poorly planned. In addition, agencies reported that 87 of their high risk projects (totaling about $4.8 billion) were poorly performing. Twenty-six projects (totaling about $3 billion) are considered both poorly planned and poorly performing.”
Isn't continuing to fund poor planned, poorly performing or worse poorly planned and poorly performing IT projects just throwing good money after bad?
There is a difference between legitimate IT project failures and blunders - the former is where you do everything you are supposed to but hey, bad things still happen. The other is when you don't do the basics (like do proper planning) and things go south as a result.
From what's in the testimony, there are way too many potential IT project blunders being tolerated by OMB (and their funding agencies).
COMMENTS
John, the checks and balances are Legislative Branch and Executive Branch. By definition OMB, as part of the Executive Office of the President, should provide "help" to the agencies to assure the wishes of the Congress are performed properly. You make a great point about how the objectives are not always clear. I would add to that the idea that some of the objectives are primarily political. For example, how many programs do we know that DOD has tried to cancel only to have Congress put them back in the budget? The real suffering happens with the taxpayer who carries the burden.
Bob, thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding. I do believe we are in agreement - especially about the Congressman's charts ;^) Perhaps you could investigate a government program that has been terminated. I would love to understand the hoops one has to jump through to terminate a program. I suspect it isn't easy...
voice_in_dc 08/06/08 09:44 am ET
As Ms. Evans states: "OMB works collaboratively with agencies and their CIOs to improve the management of IT projects". How can a government oversight agency such as OMB, charged primarily with budget oversight, be effective when they also assume responsibility for “helping” the very IT programs that they must objectively assess? This did not work in the accounting community and it does not work in government. Just how can OMB make critical decisions and budget recommendations based on the performance of IT programs that they had a hand in “improving”? Conflict of interest?
The taxpayer is continuously told that IT and other government investments are made to improve the capabilities and performance of the agencies in question, on behalf of the taxpayer. At the program level, OMB supposedly measures and evaluates the performance of each of these programs against pre-defined standards and objectives to ensure that the taxpayer’s money is being spent wisely.
Unfortunately the real performance objectives on most government IT programs are not related to quality, timeliness, efficiency, and effectiveness, as everyone would have us believe. Rather, the objective is to get the program funded and to keep it funded, no matter the cost. Programs do not submit information that puts their continued funding at risk, to OMB or anyone else. The impact of a cancelled program is too extensive.
Ms. Evan’s efforts to have OMB act as performance consultants to IT programs in trouble does nothing more than to perpetuate the inability of government oversight agencies to make the tough calls on IT programs that are not worth the money.
John 08/05/08 09:38 pm ET
Voice in DC – I am sorry that I haven’t been clear, but I think we are generally in agreement. I agree with you that if a project is truly needed (and I must admit to being skeptical that every government IT project being funded today is needed, but that’s for another day), and if it is performing poorly, some mechanism is needed to make it successful. That may mean, as you also state, to shut it down.
Thus, when I say terminate poorly planned and poorly performing projects, I do not mean to imply never to attempt them again if the need (still) exists. If a project needs to be re-competed, so be it.
However, I also content that it is better to terminate IT projects earlier than later. I have never encountered a terminated projects where upon retrospect anyone said, “We terminated this project too early.”
On the other hand, I have heard many times comments about terminating an IT project way too late.
Reinforcing failure is never a good strategy, nor is allowing an IT project to become in essence immortal.
I do not envy government IT project managers – they have to live with more arbitrary constraints than almost any commercial IT project manager I know and with criteria for success that are difficult to measure. The overall risk environment for government IT projects is typically very high. And also unfortunately, too many government IT project managers have been given the task of translating political desires into a technical solution.
That said, my deep heartburn is the routine approval given to poorly planned IT projects that allow them to move into development where many end up becoming poorly performing projects. These projects, as I originally wrote, are nothing more than blunders in the making.
BTW, as far as the chart you linked to, the most I can say about it is that it looks pretty.
Bob Charette 08/05/08 08:18 pm ET
BTW, I would really like to see someone challenge this data that was released prior to the hearing. What is the criteria by which the scores were developed?
http://carper.senate.gov/documents/ReportCards073108.pdf
voice_in_dc 08/05/08 10:10 am ET
I do have a comment on this as I am one of the IT PM's who manage these project. Quite frankly the two biggest issues we have with IT projects is that we don't have business side buyin and what I mean by this they really don't know what they want until something is built and the lack of properly qualifed and certifed PM's from the business side to manage them. Typically what happens is that the IT PM takes the lead on our projects because their are not a cadre of qualified PM's on the business side. If we did not do this more of the projects would fail. Everyone believes that IT is an enable which it is but you still must have PM's who can manage projects.
Gary 08/05/08 10:06 am ET
Bob, I have been a follower of yours for a long time...but I think you are missing something here...or maybe I am missing your point.
All programs in the government are necessary for the function of government. Some are mission oriented and some are back-office oriented (I know, motherhood, but this is where my point lies).
If a program is not needed, then it shouldn't be funded in the first place. As a taxpayer, I would be extremely upset if we are funding programs for program's sake.
Alternatively, if a program is needed, then we need to identify the method of making it successful. That does not mean we cancel the program if it is performing poorly. No, we terminate the contractor, rearrange the program management team, and maybe even restruture the program, but if we need it, we still need it.
To Retired's point, OMB doesn't have enough people to be "performance cops" in every program office in the government. So, as Ms Evans states, she has to rely on the integrity of the program office. She has to build a system that demands integrity while allowing individuals room to take risks and seek improvements. If she doesn't, then the system becomes self-fulfilling in that nobody would take the hard jobs and poorly managed programs will continue to be poorly managed.
To summarize, my point here is that this is a people issue and not a program issue. If the programs are not necessary for the functioning of our government they should be terminated even if they are the best run programs on the planet. Therefore, the real question is, what are we doing, Ms Evans, to ensure those people managing the programs you consider high risk are indeed equipped to be successful? Do we have to wait for Congress to send a tiger team?
voice_in_dc 08/05/08 08:18 am ET
Good idea Rico. Some companies are doing that already. I wrote about such futures markets (and their limitations) for Business Intelligence Review magazine last year here: http://www.dmreview.com/bissues/20070301/2600311-1.html
Bob Charette 08/04/08 08:09 pm ET
What I'm hearing so far sounds like OldGov. Here's a new idea for NextGov: Prediction markets for Federal information technology investments. Prediction markets are currently used for many purposes in the private sector, especially in forward thinking organizations like Google. My recommendation is to establish a prediction market for Federal information technology investments where individuals in the market place, most likely to include all project members place a bet on the success of the project. Project members are guaranteed non-attribution. BluBet is a web site that provides this type of prediction market, the market is continuously updated based on project status and there's no real money involved. The filters come off, OMB gets the information it needs in a highly efficient market environment and there's increased transparency and accountability all around.
rico 08/04/08 06:59 pm ET
Thanks for your clarifying comments, Mrs. Evans. You may not have wished to imply that agencies would lie about the status of their IT projects, but your remarks give that impression – still.
“I did express concern about the chilling effect on agencies' willingness to identify problems if there are no solutions and only public humiliation from OMB,” you write.
If agencies are unwilling to tell OMB the true and complete state of their IT project status, I believe that is called “lying by omission” rather than “lying by commission.” It adds up to the same thing in my book.
As far as looking at only the risk management activity of OMB’s criteria, you mis-characterize my view of what risk management is and what I have written extensively about for almost 25 years. I consider IT project risk management to include the totality of all 10 OMB criteria, as well as many others.
And I am still at a loss to understand why, at the very least, $3 billion of poorly planned and poorly performing IT projects should continue to be funded – and not be terminated. The opportunity costs of keeping marginal IT projects alive are something that can’t be afforded in a time of record deficits.
I also think OMB does a disservice to those IT projects that are well-planned, well-managed and well-executed by coddling those that are not. What message does that send out?
And what about the disservice to taxpayers, as well? Isn’t OMB supposed to be a protector of the public purse? Maybe some “gotcha” is required – for instance, in 2006 when you stated (http://www.govexec.com/features/0106-01/0106-01admt.htm) that IT projects were coming forward with zero variance on their Earn Value Management reports – those projects were lying, had fools for managers, or managers who were able to perfectly predict the future.
I dare say, those projects should have been terminated on the spot.
Is it too much to expect that IT projects are well planned from the start, that have their true costs, schedules and risks well articulated, and skilled personnel in both government and on the contractor side developing and operating them from the beginning? If a project cannot meet some basic set of standards, they should not be started or allowed to continue unless there is a dire national need.
As far as Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del proposing a bill that would create IT Strike Teams, that in itself is a sad commentary on, as Sen. Carper noted, the dismal state of government IT.
Bob Charette 08/04/08 06:10 pm ET
I would like to address Mr. Charette’s mischaracterization of my testimony. I neither said nor implied that agencies would lie about the status of troubled IT projects. However, I did express concern about the chilling effect on agencies' willingness to identify problems if there are no solutions and only public humiliation from OMB. While such rhetoric makes for a compelling headline, it does a disservice to Federal employees, to the work of OMB, and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. Charette’s comments demonstrate a lack of understanding to OMB’s role and relationship with the agencies, the Committee, and GAO. As reflected in the congressional record of last week’s hearing, the Committee clearly understands that OMB works collaboratively with agencies and their CIOs to improve the management of IT projects. Our goal is centered on results - improving services to the citizen and stewarding American taxpayers’ hard-earned money -- not playing “gotcha” with agencies. OMB establishes policies to support these stated goals, and then works with agencies to implement the policies. Only then does OMB publicly release the results of agency efforts. The Committee and GAO, in their appropriate oversight role, review the effectiveness of these policies and implementations.
Furthermore, Mr. Charette focuses solely upon risk management, though only one of the 10 criteria OMB evaluates when assessing IT investments, choosing to ignore the remaining nine: security, privacy, the project manager, acquisition strategy, performance metrics, enterprise architecture, alternatives analysis, policy alignment, and cost and schedule performance. Therefore, when OMB places an investment on our Management Watch List, it may be due to various factors; not solely the “risk mis-management,” as Mr. Charette states.
Mr. Charette also expresses dismay at the continued funding of troubled projects, preferring an immediate termination. However, such an approach does not offer a practical solution. OMB’s strategy, by contrast, is vigilant. Early diagnosis allows agencies a first opportunity to fix the problem; hence, our low threshold for listing projects on the Management Watch List. The Committee seems to agree with this view, as evidenced by the bill they introduced which describes a process of diagnosing and determining solutions to problems in the early stages of the project.
Karen S. Evans, OMB Administrator for E-Government and IT 08/04/08 03:21 pm ET
When you read through the testimonies, you see that one of the elements the Execs have to deal with that isn't in the private sector is a one-year budget that gets adjusted (or not). This puts a restriction that the government has to work within which is outside the pale of typical program management guidelines.
voice_in_dc 08/04/08 11:59 am ET
OMB doesn't have the resources to police the CPIC process at anything more than the 30,000 ft level. The air is pretty thin up there. If the Executive Branch was more serious about the issue outlined in the article, the dynamic would change. Until then, you (continue to) get what you pay for.
Retired Fed 08/04/08 10:59 am ET
Government Agencies and the career executives that help run them are ill equiped to facilitate the successful integration of technology into the business. It is my view that the government places to high a value on an individuals knowledge and capabilities to run a government program absent the full scope of what that means. However, as those programs incorporate the use of technology as a "force multiplier" to assist in the conduct of its programmatic activities, the government will need more technology savvy executives who understand the program. It is not just the job of the "IT guy" to ensure the successful integration of technology into program operations.
The simplest organization has multiple interconnected networks and in todyas environment informatin technology functions as the connecting tissue between the organizations networks. Ultimately, if an agency has poorly integrated technology into the business - the business is necessarily performing at a less than optimal level and the public is spending more and earning less from the government because of the inefficient use of tax dollars.
Greg 08/04/08 09:35 am ET
There is more going on here than meets the eye...
1. Congress has begun to put legislation in place that allows, or directs, them to be in the procurement process. OMB doesn't want this, and I believe the taxpayers wouldn't want it either. For example, look at the appropriations language for Homeland Security and you will see specific programs that have to come back to Congress to be reviewed prior to receiving more money. If lack of professional program management is an issues - and it is - then adding Congress to the program management team doesn't make a lot of sense.
2. We have to remember the separation of powers here. Clearly OMB and everybody in the Executive Branch management chain know who the program managers are with programs that are in trouble, so there is some accountability. It is purely right and acceptable that Congress asks the tough questions to assure that accountability remains. It is purely right and acceptable that the Executive Branch tells them they are working the issue.
The real questions that need to be asked over and over are:
1. What are you (Executive branch) doing to make sure you have program management professionals who are trained and fully equipped? What do we (Congress) have to do to help you?
2. What are the right metrics to be tracking? Are there metrics that apply to all programs? If not, then what is the pool of metrics that is applicable? For example, while having a certified PMP at the helm is indeed a good thing, that metric alone won't make a program successful.
3. Are we funding enough R&D? Or are we expecting programs to fund their own R&D - which leads to delays and undue risks for delivery.
To summarize, I fully believe that Congress should ask the questions they asked. I also understand where the separation of power comes into play. Let's keep the pressure on these Executive Branch programs because, quite honestly, most of the Executives I know want to succeed.
voice_in_dc 08/04/08 07:39 am ET