This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-775
entitled 'Electronic Government: Performance Measures for Projects
Aimed at Promoting Innovation and Transparency Can Be Improved' which
was released on September 23, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate:
September 2011:
Electronic Government:
Performance Measures for Projects Aimed at Promoting Innovation and
Transparency Can Be Improved:
GAO-11-775:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-775, a report to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Congress enacted the Electronic Government (E-Gov) Act in 2002 to
promote better use of the Internet and other information technologies
(IT), thereby improving government services for citizens, internal
government operations, and opportunities for citizen participation in
government. Among other things, the act established the E-Gov Fund to
support projects that expand the government’s ability to carry out its
activities electronically. The act also created the Office of
Electronic Government within the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). The Administrator of this office is to assist the OMB Director
in approving projects to be supported by the E-Gov Fund. The General
Services Administration (GSA) is responsible for administering the
fund and notifying Congress of how the funds are to be allocated to
projects approved by OMB. GAO was asked to (1) identify and describe
the projects supported by the E-Gov Fund, including the distribution
of fiscal year 2010 funds among the projects and their expected
benefits; and (2) for selected projects, identify their progress
against goals. To do this, GAO reviewed project and funding
documentation, analyzed project goals, and interviewed agency
officials.
What GAO Found:
The $34 million appropriated by Congress in fiscal year 2010 for the E-
Gov fund was distributed among 16 projects in six investment areas, as
defined by GSA (see table).
Table: Distribution of Fiscal Year 2010 E-Gov Fund Appropriation:
Investment area: Improving Innovation, Efficiency, and Effectiveness
and Federal IT;
E-Gov fund resources: $10 million.
Investment area: Citizens Engagement and Access;
E-Gov fund resources: $5 million.
Investment area: Federal Funding and Accountability Act Initiative;
E-Gov fund resources: $9.5 million.
Investment area: Efficient Federal Workforce;
E-Gov fund resources: $5 million.
Investment area: Accessible and Transparent Government;
Information/Data.gov
E-Gov fund resources: $3 million.
Investment area: E-Gov Project Management Best Practices;
E-Gov fund resources: $1.5 million.
Investment area: Total;
E-Gov fund resources: $34 million.
Source: GSA, OMB, and Treasury data.
[End of table]
One investment area-—Improving Innovation, Efficiency, and
Effectiveness and Federal IT-—accounted for $10 million of the fiscal
year 2010 appropriation. This area included an initiative on federal
cloud computing—-the use of Internet-based computing services. The
remaining investment areas supported projects promoting government
transparency, collaboration, and public participation and a project
for developing best practices for IT management. Among other benefits,
the 16 projects are expected to improve data quality and foster cross-
agency knowledge sharing and communication as well as increase public
access and use of federal datasets.
As of May 2011, the four E-Gov projects GAO selected for more detailed
review had made varying progress toward their goals. For example, a
cloud computing security initiative was still being developed; a
dashboard for displaying target and actual customer service metrics
had been developed in a pilot with four agencies, but had not been
publicly released; a platform for government employees and contractors
to use web-based networking and collaboration tools was in limited
deployment; and a website (Data.gov) that allows the public to find,
download, and use government-generated data had been fully launched.
In addition, the four projects had defined performance metrics that
aligned with many, though not all, of their major goals and intended
benefits. Although the E-Gov Administrator (who serves as the Federal
Chief Information Officer) announced the termination of two of the
four reviewed projects in May 2011, the two ongoing projects do not
yet have fully defined metrics that align with all of their major
goals and intended benefits. Thus, managers and stakeholders cannot
effectively assess project results and provide credible evidence of
progress, which is particularly important in a resource-constrained
environment.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is recommending that GSA ensure that performance metrics that
align with all project goals be developed for ongoing E-Gov projects.
In written comments on a draft of this report, GSA concurred with
GAO’s recommendation.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-775]. For more
information, contact Valerie C. Melvin at (202) 512-6304 or
melvinv@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Briefing for Staff Members of the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
Appendix II: Comments from the General Services Administration:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Distribution of Fiscal Year 2010 E-Gov Fund Appropriation:
Abbreviations:
A&A: authorization and assessment:
API: application programming interface:
CIO: Chief Information Officer:
CMS: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services:
DMS: Dataset Management System:
E-Gov: Electronic Government:
FedRAMP: Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program:
FFATA: Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act:
GSA: General Services Administration:
IRS: Internal Revenue Service:
IT: information technology:
NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
SAJACC: Standards Acceleration to Jumpstart the Adoption of Cloud
Computing:
SSA: Social Security Administration:
VA: Department and Veterans Affairs:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 23, 2011:
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman:
Chairman:
The Honorable Susan M. Collins:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Electronic Government (E-Gov) Act of 2002[Footnote 1] was enacted
with the general purpose of promoting better use of the Internet and
information technology (IT) to improve government services for
citizens, internal government operations, and opportunities for
citizen participation in government. Among other things, the act
established the E-Gov Fund,[Footnote 2] which is to be used to support
projects that enable the federal government to expand its ability to
conduct activities electronically. The act also created, within the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Office of Electronic
Government, to be headed by an Administrator. The E-Government
Administrator is to assist the Director of OMB in approving projects
to be supported by the E-Gov Fund. The General Services Administration
(GSA) is responsible for administration of the fund[Footnote 3] and is
required to submit to Congress a notification of how the funds are to
be allocated to projects approved by OMB. In fiscal year 2010,
Congress appropriated $34 million[Footnote 4] to the fund.
At your request, we reviewed the projects supported by the E-Gov Fund.
Specifically, our objectives were to (1) identify and describe the
projects supported by the fund, including the distribution[Footnote 5]
of the funds appropriated in fiscal year 2010 among the projects, as
well as their expected benefits; and (2) for selected projects,
identify project progress against goals.
On May 25, 2011, we provided to committee staff written briefing
slides that outlined the results of our study; on May 31, 2011, we met
with them to discuss our findings, conclusions, and recommendation.
During our discussion, the committee staff requested that we update
our study results to reflect recent decisions and actions by OMB and
GSA regarding two E-Gov Fund projects that were terminated subsequent
to our review.
The purpose of this report is to provide the updated briefing slides
to you and to officially transmit our recommendation to the
Administrator of GSA. Appendix I of this letter provides the updated
slides, which include details on our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2010 to September 2011
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Our study highlighted the following:
The E-Gov Fund was distributed among 16 projects in six investment
areas defined by GSA in notifications to Congress. Table 1 shows the
investment areas and planned spending, the projects in each investment
area, and the distribution of funds to each project.
Table 1: Distribution of Fiscal Year 2010 E-Gov Fund Appropriation:
Investment area: Improving Innovation, Efficiency, and Effectiveness
of Federal IT;
Project: FedRAMP (Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program);
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $1.91 million.
Project: Apps.gov;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $0.75 million.
Project: E-Mail as a Service;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $0.50 million.
Project: SAJACC (Standards Acceleration to Jumpstart the Adoption of
Cloud Computing);
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $1.00 million.
Project: Data center inventory and consolidation planning;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $0.88 million.
Project: USA.gov redesign;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $0.26 million.
Project: Mobile Apps;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $0.60 million.
Project: Payment Information Repository Proof of Concept;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $1.35 million.
Project: Invoicing Standards Pilot;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $0.15 million.
Project: Data.gov (Innovative functionality)[B];
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $2.50 million.
Project: (Undistributed)[C];
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $0.10 million.
Project: Subtotal;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $10.00 million.
Investment area: Citizens Engagement and Access/Web 2.0;
Project: Citizen Engagement Platform;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $1.51 million.
Project: Citizen Challenge Platform;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $1.00 million.
Project: Citizen Services Dashboard;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $2.49 million.
Project: Subtotal;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $5.00 million.
Investment area: Federal Funding and Accountability Act Implementation;
Project: USAspending.gov and dashboards;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $9.50 million.
Investment area: Efficient Federal Workforce;
Project: FedSpace;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $5.00 million.
Investment area: Accessible and Transparent Government
Information/Data.gov;
Project: Data.gov (Basic functionality)[B];
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $3.00 million.
Investment area: E-Gov Project Management Best Practices;
Project: Project Management Best Practices;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $1.50 million.
Investment area: Total;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $34.00.
Source: GSA, OMB, and Treasury data.
[A] As of November 30, 2010.
[B] Funds for Data.gov were distributed between two investment areas;
for simplicity, we treat Data.gov as one project.
[C] As of November 30, 2010, $100,000 was undistributed.
[End of table]
As the table shows, one investment area supported nine innovation
projects,[Footnote 6] including projects supporting an initiative on
federal cloud computing. For example, the FedRAMP project (Federal
Risk and Authorization Management Program) aims to define and
implement a set of controls and common processes for conducting
security assessments and authorizations of cloud computing systems
offering services to agencies. The remaining investment areas
supported six projects[Footnote 7] promoting the open government
principles of transparency, collaboration, and public participation
and one project to develop best practices for IT management. For
example, the goal of the Citizen Challenge Platform project is to
provide a platform for agencies to post challenges and the public to
submit solutions. The intended benefits of the 16 projects include
improving government services for citizens, internal government
operations, and opportunities for citizen participation in government.
Further details on each project are provided in the briefing (app. I).
As of May 2011, the four E-Gov Fund projects we selected for more
detailed review (FedRAMP, Citizen Services Dashboard, FedSpace, and
Data.gov) had made varying progress toward their goals and had defined
performance metrics that aligned with many, though not all, major
goals and intended benefits.[Footnote 8]
* The FedRAMP project had released a draft proposal for security
assessments and continuous monitoring for cloud computing systems;
however, it had not yet finalized the proposal or begun
implementation, initially expected to occur in September 2010. GSA
officials attributed the delay to the need to collaborate with a wide
range of stakeholders to gain agreement on controls and other issues.
Further, the project had defined performance metrics addressing the
initial adoption of the program by agencies, such as number of
customers, but metrics related to goals such as improving consistency
and fostering cross-agency knowledge sharing and communication of best
practices had not yet been defined.
* The Citizen Services Dashboard was to promote customer service
across the federal government by displaying metrics online for top
citizen-facing services. The project worked with four pilot agencies
to select and define an initial set of customer services and metrics
that would be most meaningful for the public (for example, for the
Social Security Administration, one chosen service was retirement
benefits; a related metric was speed of processing). However, at the
time of our review, the dashboard had not yet been publicly released.
According to GSA officials, this did not occur because of funding
uncertainties. One performance metric, increasing the number of
services displayed, had been defined, but metrics for goals such as
driving service improvements had not yet been fully defined.
* The FedSpace project was to provide a platform for executive branch
employees and contractors to use collaboration and networking tools to
increase cross-agency collaboration and knowledge sharing. The project
implemented a collaboration website and made it available for pilot
testing and use by federal employees. However, according to officials,
funding uncertainties had inhibited the expansion of the pilot to full
deployment, originally scheduled for September 2010. A number of
performance metrics related to increased site participation had been
defined, but metrics for goals such as improving business processes
had not yet been defined.
* The Data.gov project had made progress toward its goals, which
include increasing public access and use of federal datasets. For
example, the site deployed "community pages"--collections of
information on specific topics, such as the "Semantic Web."[Footnote
9] The performance metrics defined for Data.gov address a range of
goals, and the number of metrics has increased since the project's
inception to address more aspects of project goals.
In May 2011, two of the four projects were terminated. Specifically,
Congress passed an appropriation for fiscal year 2011 that provided $8
million for the E-Gov Fund,[Footnote 10] for which $35 million had
been requested. On May 24, the Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO)
announced that as a result of the reduced funding, the scope of
several projects would be altered: among other things, the FedSpace
and Citizen Services Dashboard projects would be terminated, and
planned enhancements to other projects would be postponed. According
to the CIO's announcement, each of these initiatives would be
revisited if the E-Gov Fund received the $34 million requested for
fiscal year 2012.
As of June 2011, GSA officials stated that they had not been able to
identify opportunities for collaborations that would make it
financially feasible to continue using the capabilities developed by
the FedSpace and Citizen Services Dashboard projects. Thus, the
officials told us that they were taking the systems off-line and
planned to archive and store the system software so that it could be
revived and made operational if funding to sustain operations were to
become available in the future.
Conclusions:
The fiscal year 2010 E-Gov Fund appropriation supported 16 projects
that aimed to improve IT and promote innovation, collaboration, public
participation, and transparency. The projects we reviewed had made
varying progress toward their goals and had begun to define metrics to
measure success. Additionally, the projects could potentially lead to
benefits including cost savings and efficiency, customer service
transparency, and governmentwide collaboration and information
sharing. However, defining performance metrics and aligning these with
project goals would help ensure that managers and stakeholders can
assess project results and provide credible evidence of progress,
which is particularly important in a resource-constrained environment.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
We are recommending that for any E-Gov Fund projects that continue to
be supported, the Administrator of the General Services Administration
ensure that performance metrics are developed that align with those
project goals, especially those that currently lack such metrics.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In written comments on a draft of this report, which are reprinted in
appendix II, GSA's Administrator stated that the agency concurred with
our recommendation and will work to align goals and performance
measures for E-Gov Fund projects that currently lack such measures.
The agency also provided a technical comment on the draft report,
which we have addressed as appropriate.
We also provided a draft of this report to the Office of Management
and Budget and the Departments of Commerce and the Treasury. The three
agencies provided e-mail responses, stating that they had no comments
on the draft report.
We are sending copies of this report to the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, the Administrator of the General Services
Administration, the Secretaries of Commerce and the Treasury, and
other interested parties. This report will also be available at no
charge on GAO's website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Should you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-6304 or melvinv@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Valerie C. Melvin:
Director, Information Management and Human Capital Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Briefing for Staff Members of the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
Electronic Government: Projects Aimed at Promoting Improvement,
Innovation, and Transparency:
Briefing for Staff Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs:
May 25, 2011:
These briefing slides have been updated to reflect changes to
electronic government projects that occurred subsequent to the
identified briefing date.
Overview:
Introduction:
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Objective 1 Results: E-Gov Fund Project Descriptions:
Objective 2 Results: Progress of Selected E-Gov Projects:
Conclusions:
Recommendation:
Agency Comments:
Attachment 1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology:
Introduction:
The Electronic Government (E-Gov) Act of 2002[Footnote 11] was enacted
with the general purpose of promoting better use of the Internet and
other information technologies to improve government services for
citizens, internal government operations, and opportunities for citizen
participation in government. Among other things, the act established
the Electronic Government Fund,[Footnote 12] which is to be used to
support projects that enable the federal government to expand its
ability to conduct activities electronically.
The act also created, within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
the Office of Electronic Government, to be headed by an Administrator.
The E-Government Administrator is to assist the Director of OMB in
approving projects to be supported by the E-Gov Fund. The General
Services Administration (GSA) is responsible for administration of the
fund[Footnote 13] and is required to submit to Congress a notification
of how the funds are to be allocated to projects approved by OMB.
In fiscal year 2010, Congress appropriated $34 million to the fund,
which has been used to support, among other things, projects aimed at
expanding federal use of cloud computing[Footnote 14] as well as other
goals. These funds are "no-year" funds; that is, funds that remain
available for an indefinite period of time.
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
You asked that we review the projects supported by the E-Gov Fund.
Specifically, as agreed with your office, our objectives were to (1)
identify and describe the projects supported by the E-Gov Fund,
including the distribution[Footnote 15] of the funds appropriated in
fiscal year 2010 among the projects, as well as their expected
benefits, and (2) for selected projects, identify project progress
against goals.
To address our first objective, we reviewed project and funding
documentation (such as vision statements, business cases, project
plans, schedules, program management briefings, and expenditure plans)
and interviewed cognizant agency officials.
To address our second objective, we analyzed project goals for four of
the projects, which we identified in project documentation (such as
project plans and schedules) and through discussions with agency
officials. We selected these projects based primarily on those that had
the largest distributions from the E-Gov Fund. For the selected
projects, we identified project progress and the extent to which goals
and benefits were achieved, based on our review of management review
briefings and other relevant documentation, as well as functionality of
Web sites and interviews with agency officials. Attachment 1 contains
additional details on our objectives, scope, and methodology.
In addition, following our May 2011 briefing, we agreed with your
office to update our study results to reflect recent developments with
regard to the projects: specifically, the termination of two of the
projects that we had selected for detailed review. To do so, we
reviewed OMB's announcement of the termination and consulted cognizant
GSA officials.
We performed the initial audit work from April 2010 through May 2011;
the work to update the initial audit was performed from June through
September 2011. We conducted our work in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we
plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence
to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on
our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
Results in Brief:
The $34 million that Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2010 for the
E-Gov Fund was distributed among 16 projects in six investment areas.
One investment area supported nine innovation projects,[Footnote 16]
including projects supporting an initiative on federal cloud computing.
For example, the FedRAMP project (Federal Risk and Authorization
Management Program) aims to define and implement a set of controls and
common processes for conducting security assessments and authorizations
of cloud computing systems offering services to agencies. The remaining
investment areas supported one project to develop best practices for
information technology management and six projects promoting the open
government principles of transparency, collaboration, and public
participation. For example, the goal of the project called "FedSpace"
was to promote cross-agency collaboration and knowledge sharing by
providing a platform for executive branch employees and contractors to
use Web 2.0[Footnote 17] networking and collaboration tools. The
intended benefits of the 16 projects include improving government
operations, promoting public participation in government activities,
and improving electronic services to citizens.
Results in Brief:
The four selected projects, FedRAMP, Citizen Services Dashboard,
FedSpace, and Data.gov, made varying progress toward their goals. As of
late May 2011, the projects were in different stages of maturity:
FedRAMP was still being developed; the Citizen Services Dashboard had
been developed in a pilot with four agencies, but was not publicly
released; FedSpace was in limited deployment; and Data.gov was a fully
launched Web site. The four projects had defined performance metrics
that aligned with many, though not all major goals and intended
benefits, with more mature projects having more numerous and well-
aligned goals.
* The FedRAMP project is to develop and implement a process for
conducting joint or shared security assessments, authorizations, and
continuous monitoring for cloud computing systems intended for multi-
agency use. It released a draft proposal, including a set of baseline
security controls, for public comment, and it is currently working to
address comments and develop a process for implementation. However, it
has not yet finalized the proposal or begun implementation, initially
expected to occur in late 2010. GSA officials attributed the delay to
the need to collaborate with a wide range of stakeholders to gain
agreement on controls and other issues. The project has defined
performance metrics addressing the initial take-up of the program, such
as number of customers, but metrics related to goals such as improving
consistency have not yet been defined.
* The Citizen Services Dashboard (subsequently terminated) was to
promote customer service across the federal government by displaying
metrics online for top citizen-facing services. The project worked with
four pilot agencies to select and define an initial set of customer
services and metrics that would be most meaningful for the public (for
example, for the Social Security Administration, one chosen service was
retirement benefits; a related metric is speed of processing). However,
the dashboard had not been publicly released. According to GSA
officials, the dashboard had not yet been released to the public
because of funding uncertainties. One performance metric, increasing
the number of services displayed, had been defined, but metrics for
goals such as driving service improvements had not yet been defined.
* The FedSpace project (subsequently terminated) was to provide a
platform for executive branch employees and contractors to use
collaboration and networking tools to increase cross-agency
collaboration and knowledge sharing. The project implemented a
collaboration Web site and made it available for pilot testing and use
by federal employees. However, according to officials, funding
uncertainties inhibited the expansion of the pilot to full deployment,
originally scheduled for September 2010. A number of performance
metrics related to increased site participation were defined, but
metrics for goals such as improving business processes were not yet
defined.
* The purpose of the Data.gov Web site is to provide public access to
datasets collected or developed by federal agencies. Through
maintaining and enhancing the site, the Data.gov project is making
progress toward goals that include increasing public access and use of
federal datasets. For example, the site deployed "community pages"--
collections of information on specific topics, such as the "Semantic
Web."[Footnote 18] The performance metrics defined for Data.gov address
a range of goals, and the number of metrics has increased since the
project's inception to address more aspects of project goals.
Defining performance metrics and aligning these with project goals will
be important for ensuring that managers and stakeholders can assess
project results and provide credible evidence of progress, particularly
in a resource-constrained environment. We are recommending that for
those projects that continue to be supported, GSA ensure that
performance metrics are developed that align with those project goals
that currently lack such metrics.
We provided a draft of the initial briefing for review and comment to
GSA, OMB, and the Departments of the Treasury and Commerce (which
received E-Gov Fund support for certain projects). In written comments,
the GSA Administrator stated that the agency concurred with our
recommendation. Also, GSA and OMB both provided technical comments,
which we incorporated into the draft as appropriate. OMB offered no
further comment on the draft. The Departments of the Treasury and
Commerce had no comments on the draft.
Background:
A long-standing goal of the Congress has been to improve the
performance and transparency of the federal government by use of
information technology (IT). This was, for example, a major goal of the
E-Government Act of 2002[Footnote 19]. Under the act, the Administrator
of OMB's Office of Electronic Government is responsible for assisting
the Director of OMB in carrying out the act and other e-government
initiatives, including overseeing the distribution of funds from the E-
Gov Fund and ensuring appropriate administration and coordination of
the fund. The current E-Gov Administrator has also been designated the
federal Chief Information Officer (CIO).
Other responsibilities of the E-Gov Administrator include:
* promoting innovative use of IT by agencies;
* leading the activities of the CIO Council;
* working with the Administrator of OMB's Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs in setting strategic direction for e-government
under relevant laws, including the Paperwork Reduction Act and the
Clinger-Cohen Act; and:
* working with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Administrator and other OMB offices to oversee implementation of e-
government under the act and other laws.
According to the act, projects supported by the E-Gov Fund may include
efforts to make federal government information and services more
readily available to members of the public, making it easier for the
public to apply for benefits, receive services, pursue business
opportunities, submit information, and conduct transactions with the
federal government. Such projects may also include efforts to enable
federal agencies to take advantage of IT in sharing information and
conducting transactions with each other and with state and local
governments.
Current and past Administrations have also focused on using IT to
improve the effectiveness of government. In its Analytical Perspectives
on the fiscal year 2010 budget,[Footnote 20] the current Administration
described leveraging the power of technology to transform the federal
government, with a focus on:
* promoting a more transparent, participatory, and collaborative
government through the adoption of innovative Web 2.0 technologies;
* modernizing and improving the effectiveness of government services
through the adoption of modern IT systems;
* securing federal systems and national information infrastructure;
and:
* saving money by improving the IT investment planning process through
leveraging investments for wider use across federal agencies,
eliminating duplicative and poorly managed projects, and streamlining
IT procurement.
The focus on transparency, participation, and collaboration in the
Analytical Perspectives reflects the Administration's emphasis on these
as important principles for open government, as described in a
presidential memorandum of January 2009.[Footnote 21] This memorandum
directed OMB and GSA to work with executive agencies to develop
recommendations for an Open Government Directive. When issued in
December 2009,[Footnote 22] this directive required, among other
things, that agencies publish government information online, develop
Open Government Plans, and improve the quality of government
information. For example, the directive required each agency, within 45
days, to identify and publish online in an open format[Footnote 23] at
least three high-value datasets and to designate a high-level senior
official to be accountable for the quality of federal spending
information publicly disseminated through USAspending.gov and similar
Web sites.
Cloud Computing:
As part of its focus on adopting modern IT systems, the Analytical
Perspectives also highlighted cloud computing, an emerging form of
delivering computing services, as having the potential to provide IT
services more quickly and at a lower cost than traditional methods.
This form of computing relies on Internet-based services and resources
to provide computing services to customers, potentially freeing them
from the burden and costs of maintaining the underlying infrastructure.
Cloud computing takes advantage of several broad evolutionary trends in
IT, including the use of virtualization;[Footnote 24] the decreased
cost and increased speed of networked communications, such as the
Internet; and overall increases in computing power. Examples of cloud
computing include Web-based e-mail applications and common business
applications that are accessed online through a browser, instead of
through a local computer. Depending on the type of service offered,
cloud offerings may be referred to as Software as a Service (such as
offering e-mail or other applications), Platform as a Service (such as
providing the capability for customers to deploy applications), or
Infrastructure as a Service (such as providing data storage or other
computing resources).[Footnote 25]
In May 2010, we reported on information security issues associated with
cloud computing.[Footnote 26] We concluded, among other things, that
cloud computing presents both possible benefits and risks. Benefits
include those related to the use of virtualization (such as faster
deployment of patches) and economies of scale (such as potentially
reduced costs for disaster recovery). Risks include dependence on a
vendor's security practices and assurances, dependency on the vendor,
and concerns related to sharing of computing resources.
We noted that governmentwide cloud computing security initiatives were
under way, but significant work remained. For example, OMB had not yet
finished its cloud computing strategy, GSA faced challenges in
completing a procurement for cloud computing services owing partially
to information security concerns, and NIST had not yet issued cloud-
specific security guidance. We noted also that although the CIO Council
was developing a shared assessment and authorization process,[Footnote
27] which could help foster adoption of cloud computing, this process
remained incomplete.
Accordingly, we made recommendations to OMB, GSA, and NIST regarding
cloud computing security, including that:
* OMB establish milestones for completing a strategy, ensuring that it
addresses the information security challenges associated with cloud
computing, and have the CIO Council develop a plan, with milestones,
for completing a governmentwide security assessment and authorization
process for cloud services;
* GSA ensure that security is considered in its planned procurement of
cloud computing services; and:
* NIST issue guidance related to cloud computing security.
All three agencies generally concurred with our recommendations. In
January, NIST issued a set of draft guidelines, and in February 2011,
OMB issued a strategy.[Footnote 28]
E-Gov Fund Appropriation in Fiscal Year 2010:
In fiscal year 2010, Congress appropriated $34 million to the E-Gov
Fund, administered by GSA.[Footnote 29] Under the E-Gov Act, before the
funds could be transferred to any agency, GSA was required to submit to
the Congress a notification and description of how the funds are to be
allocated and how the expenditure would further the purposes of the
act. In addition, the House report accompanying the 2010 appropriations
bill directed GSA to submit a detailed expenditure plan before
obligation of funds, describing the projects selected and their budget,
timeline, objectives, and expected benefits.[Footnote 30] GSA submitted
a plan in December 2009, as well as a later modification (July 2010);
according to the letter accompanying the plan, it was to serve both as
the expenditure plan and as the notification required in the act.
According to GSA, OMB and GSA collaborated in developing the budget
request and expenditure plan for the E-Gov Fund, involving other
participating agencies and the CIO Council.
According to the expenditure plan, as modified in July 2010, these
funds were to be divided among six investment areas, as shown in table
1.
Table 1: Planned Use of Fiscal Year 2010 E-Gov Fund Appropriation (as
Modified in July 2010):
Investment areas: 1. Improving Innovation, Efficiency and Effectiveness
and Federal IT;
Planned spending: $10.0 million.
Investment areas: 2. Citizens Engagement and Access/Web 2.0;
Planned spending: $5.0 million.
Investment areas: 3. Federal Funding and Accountability Act
Implementation;
Planned spending: $9.5 million.
Investment areas: 4. Efficient Federal Workforce;
Planned spending: $5.0 million.
Investment areas: 5. Accessible and Transparent Government Information/
Data.gov;
Planned spending: $3.0 million.
Investment areas: 6. E-Gov Project Management Best Practices;
Planned spending: $1.5 million.
Investment areas: Total;
Planned spending: $34.0 million.
Source: GSA.
[End of table]
Oversight Board:
To oversee the projects, an E-Gov Fund Projects Oversight Board was
established; the board's charter was approved in July 2010. It
describes the board as responsible for executive review, opportunity
and risk management, and decision-making of the E-Gov Fund technology
projects and advising the federal CIO on critical matters and project
direction, as appropriate. According to the charter, the oversight
board is to provide recommendations to the federal CIO regarding:
* approval, disapproval, or modification of funding of E-Gov Fund
projects;
* corrective actions for investments not meeting cost, schedule, or
benefit expectations;
* project terminations at key milestones or when they fail to meet
performance, cost, or schedule criteria;
* migration paths for transitioning pilot projects to production
environments; and:
* approval of funding and strategy for transitioning pilot projects to
ongoing operational status.
In addition, the board is to meet at least once a month.
The charter describes the membership of the board, shown in table 2.
Table 2: Membership of E-Gov Fund Projects Oversight Board:
Role: Chair;
Agency: OMB;
Member: Deputy Administrator for E-Government
and Information Technology.
Role: Co-chairs;
Agency: GSA;
Member: Associate Administrator for the Office of Citizen Services and
Innovative Technologies;
Member: Deputy Associate Administrator for the
Office of Governmentwide Policy.
Role: Voting members:
Agency: OMB;
Member: E-Gov Portfolio Manager for General Government.
Agency: OMB;
Member: Federal Chief Architect.
Agency: Role: OMB;
Member: Role: E-Gov Capital Planning Policy Lead.
Agency: Role: GSA;
Member: Role: E-Gov Project Portfolio Officer.
Agency: Role: Treasury;
Member: Role: E-Gov Project Portfolio Officer.
Agency: Role: CIO Council (excluding OMB);
Member: Role: Two representatives, appointed by the federal CIO.
Agency: Role: OMB;
Member: Role: General Government Resource Management Officer.
Agency: GSA;
Member: Chief Financial Officer's Office.
Role: Nonvoting members;
Agency: (varies);
Member: E-Gov Program Managers.
Source: GSA and OMB data.
[End of table]
Recent Changes to E-Gov Fund Resources:
On October 1, 2010, GSA notified the Congress that during the fiscal
year 2011 Continuing Resolution (CR) period, it intended to use $1.8
million for E-Gov Fund projects and activities, specifying that this
amount would support efforts to improve transparency in federal
spending data, including management of USAspending.gov[Footnote 31] and
the IT Dashboard[Footnote 32] (these projects were funded by the $9.5
million planned for "Federal Funding and Accountability Act
Implementation" in table 1).
On March 7, 2011, GSA notified the Congress of its intention to change
its expenditure plan for the E-Gov Fund and redistribute those funds
remaining from the $34 million in fiscal year 2010 appropriated funds
and the $1.8 million referred to in its October 2010 letter. According
to the notification, these unspent funds amounted to approximately $2.6
million. To meet short-term requirements until additional funds were
appropriated, GSA intended to focus the $2.6 million on funding the
operation of systems supported by the E-Gov Fund, including
USAspending.gov. The distribution was as shown in table 3.
Table 3: Planned Use of Remainder of Fiscal Year 2010 E-Gov Fund
Appropriation and Funds from Fiscal Year 2011 CR (per March 2011
Notification):
Investment areas: Transparency and Accountability in Government
Information;
Planned spending: $1.82 million.
Investment areas: Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness of Federal IT;
Planned spending: $0.78 million.
Investment areas: Total;
Planned spending: $2.60 million.
Source: GSA.
[End of table]
According to GSA officials, the first area in table 3 combines
investment areas 3 and 5 in table 1 ("Federal Funding and
Accountability Act Implementation" and "Accessible and Transparent
Government Information/Data.gov"). The second combines the other areas.
The most recent (April 2011) appropriation for fiscal year 2011
provided $8 million for the E-Gov Fund,[Footnote 33] for which $35
million had been requested. At a Senate hearing on April 12,[Footnote
34] the federal CIO said that the implications of the cut were still
being evaluated, "but we are going to have to make some tough decisions
around which systems are going to have to go off-line versus what can
be supported with $8 million in funds." GSA officials told us they were
also considering options for transferring projects to other portfolios.
Following the April 12 hearing, the federal CIO announced on May 24
that, as a result of the reduced funding, plans for the E-Gov Fund for
fiscal year 2011 were revisited, and the scope of several projects was
altered. The CIO stated, among other things, that two projects,
FedSpace and the Citizen Services Dashboard, would be terminated, and
planned enhancements to other projects would be postponed.
Additionally, the CIO stated that each of these initiatives would be
revisited if the E-Gov Fund received the $34 million requested for
fiscal year 2012.
Objective 1 Results: E-Gov Fund Project Descriptions:
The E-Gov Fund supported 16 projects with the $34 million appropriated
for fiscal year 2010. The bulk of the projects were led by GSA in its
role as provider of services to government agencies. In addition, funds
were provided to NIST for a cloud standards effort, and to the
Department of the Treasury for efforts regarding invoicing and federal
payment information.
Table 4 shows the distribution of funds among the projects in the
expenditure plan before the request for redistribution of March 7,
2011. The projects are listed according to the investment areas in the
expenditure plan as amended in July 2010.[Footnote 35] The table also
presents GSA's estimated balance of funds remaining for each project
before the redistribution.[Footnote 36]
E-Gov Fund Project Descriptions:
Table 4: Distribution of Fiscal Year 2010 E-Gov Fund Appropriation
before March 2011 Redistribution:
Expenditure plan investment areas and projects:
1. Improving Innovation, Efficiency and Effectiveness and Federal IT:
Federal Cloud Computing Initiative:
Expenditure plan investment areas and projects: FedRAMP (Federal Risk
and Authorization Management Program);
Lead agency: GSA;
E-Gov Fund resources [A]: $1.91 million;
Estimated balance before redistribution[B]: <$0.001 million.
Expenditure plan investment areas and projects: Apps.gov;
Lead agency: GSA;
E-Gov Fund resources [A]: $0.75 million;
Estimated balance before redistribution[B]: $0.
Expenditure plan investment areas and projects: E-Mail as a Service;
Lead agency: GSA;
E-Gov Fund resources [A]: $0.50 million;
Estimated balance before redistribution[B]: <$0.001 million.
Expenditure plan investment areas and projects: SAJACC (Standards
Acceleration to Jumpstart the Adoption of Cloud Computing);
Lead agency: NIST;
E-Gov Fund resources [A]: $1.00 million;
Estimated balance before redistribution[B]: $0.
Expenditure plan investment areas and projects: Data center inventory
and consolidation planning;
Lead agency: GSA;
E-Gov Fund resources [A]: $0.88 million;
Estimated balance before redistribution[B]: $0.
Expenditure plan investment areas and projects: USA.gov redesign;
Lead agency: GSA;
E-Gov Fund resources [A]: $0.26 million;
Estimated balance before redistribution[B]: $0.11 million.
Expenditure plan investment areas and projects: Mobile Apps;
Lead agency: GSA;
E-Gov Fund resources [A]: $0.60 million;
Estimated balance before redistribution[B]: $0.38 million.
Expenditure plan investment areas and projects: Payment Information
Repository Proof of Concept;
Lead agency: Treasury;
E-Gov Fund resources [A]: $1.35 million;
Estimated balance before redistribution[B]: $0.39 million[C].
Expenditure plan investment areas and projects: Invoicing Standards
Pilot;
Lead agency: Treasury;
E-Gov Fund resources [A]: $0.15 million;
Estimated balance before redistribution[B]: $0.
Expenditure plan investment areas and projects: Data.gov (Innovative
functionality)[D];
Lead agency: GSA;
E-Gov Fund resources [A]: $2.50 million;
Estimated balance before redistribution[B]: $0.
Expenditure plan investment areas and projects: Subtotal;
E-Gov Fund resources [A]: $9.90 million[E].
2. Citizens Engagement and Access/Web 2.0:
Expenditure plan investment areas and projects: Citizen Engagement
Platform;
Lead agency: GSA;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $1.51 million;
Estimated balance before redistribution[B]: $0.30 million.
Expenditure plan investment areas and projects: Citizen Challenge
Platform;
Lead agency: GSA;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $1.00 million;
Estimated balance before redistribution[B]: $0.01 million.
Expenditure plan investment areas and projects: Citizen Services
Dashboard;
Lead agency: GSA;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $2.49 million;
Estimated balance before redistribution[B]: <$0.001 million.
Expenditure plan investment areas and projects: Subtotal;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $5.00 million.
3. Federal Funding and Accountability Act Implementation:
Expenditure plan investment areas and projects: USAspending.gov and
dashboards;
Lead agency: GSA;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $9.50 million[F];
Estimated balance before redistribution[B]: $0.07 million.
4. Efficient Federal Workforce:
Expenditure plan investment areas and projects: FedSpace;
Lead agency: GSA;
E-Gov Fund resources[ A]: $5.00 million;
Estimated balance before redistribution[B]: $0.05 million.
5. Accessible and Transparent Government Information/Data.gov:
Expenditure plan investment areas and projects: Data.gov (Basic
functionality);
Lead agency: GSA;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $3.00 million;
Estimated balance before redistribution[B]: $0.96 million.
6. E-Gov Project Management Best Practices:
Expenditure plan investment areas and projects: Project Management Best
Practices;
Lead agency: GSA;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $1.50 million;
Estimated balance before redistribution[B]: $0.03 million.
Source: GSA, OMB, and Treasury data.
[A] As of November 30, 2010.
[B] As of January 22, 2011, except as noted.
[C] In May 2011, the Treasury planned to return this balance to the E-
Gov Fund.
[D] Funds for Data.gov's basic functionality were also distributed
from investment area 5.
[E] Of $10 million planned for this investment area (see table 1),
about $100,000 was not distributed as of November 30, 2010.
[F] GSA notified the Congress in October 2010 that it intended
to use an additional $1.8 million of Continuing Resolution funds for
this project.
[End of table]
E-Gov Fund Project Descriptions:
The following slides describe the 16 projects, ordered according to the
six investment areas in GSA's spend plan for the E-Gov Fund
appropriation. For each project, we present first basic information:
the project's name; the E-Gov Fund resources from the fiscal year 2010
appropriation distributed to the project (before the March 2011
reallocation); the project's status (completed or ongoing); and
approximate time frames (based on project documentation and statements
from agency officials), that is, approximate dates that project
planning began, and for projects that are completed, when the project
was completed.[Footnote 37]
We then summarize the project's purpose and intended benefits, followed
by a brief project description.
E-Gov Fund Project Descriptions: Investment area 1:
Investment area 1 (Improving Innovation, Efficiency and Effectiveness
and Federal IT) supported nine projects that are to promote innovations
and improvements in federal IT, as well as the innovative portions of
the Data.gov project.[Footnote 38] Four of these projects are related
to the Federal Cloud Computing Initiative, a set of efforts to support
the Administration's emphasis on moving government IT toward a cloud
model:
* Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP),
* Apps.gov,
* E-Mail as a Service, and:
* Standards Acceleration to Jumpstart the Adoption of Cloud Computing
(SAJACC).
Although GSA leads the Federal Cloud Computing Initiative as a whole,
SAJACC is led by NIST. According to GSA officials, planning for the
Federal Cloud Computing Initiative began in early 2009. GSA's current
investment plans for Cloud Computing extend through September 2014.
[Footnote 39]
E-Gov Fund Project Descriptions: Investment area 1: FedRAMP:
Project: FedRAMP;
FY 2010 E-Gov Fund resources: $1.91 million;
Status: Ongoing; Time frames: Sept. 2009-.
Purpose: To provide joint security assessments, authorizations, and
continuous monitoring of cloud computing systems.[Footnote 40]
Intended benefits: Facilitate adoption of cloud computing, allow
agencies to leverage other agencies' assessments and authorizations,
avoid duplication, save or avoid cost.
Description: Part of the Federal Cloud Computing Initiative, FedRAMP is
intended to address security authorization of cloud computing systems,
among other things. To do so, FedRAMP aims to define an agreed-upon set
of baseline security controls applicable to assessing the security
posture of low-and moderate-impact cloud systems.[Footnote 41] The
project is then to develop and implement processes based on the
controls. The program structure is to include a Joint Authorization
Board to perform authorizations and a FedRAMP Office to manage and
support the program. (More information on this project is provided
under objective 2 in this briefing.)
E-Gov Fund Project Descriptions: Investment area 1: Apps.gov:
Project: Apps.gov;
FY 2010 E-Gov Fund resources: $0.75 million;
Status:
Ongoing; Time frames: April 2009-[Footnote 42].
Purpose: To (1) establish a GSA storefront to help agencies research
and procure cloud computing products and services (the Apps.gov Web
site) and (2) set up cloud-related operational structures and
processes:
Intended benefits: Facilitate adoption of cloud computing:
Description: Part of the Federal Cloud Computing Initiative, Apps.gov
is an online GSA storefront that presents GSA cloud offerings,
categorized by type. In addition to GSA contract cloud offerings, the
site includes numerous free Web 2.0 offerings that have agreed to terms
of service appropriate for federal agencies. Launched on September 15,
2009, the Apps.gov site was built on GSA's online shopping and ordering
system, GSA Advantage, and is also linked to eBuy, GSA's online request
for quotation tool.
Associated with Apps.gov is another site, info.apps.gov, which provides
information on federal cloud computing. It includes information about
the Federal Cloud Computing Initiative, the FedRAMP project, getting
started with cloud computing, resources such as case studies and other
documents, and a calendar of cloud-related events.
E-Gov Fund Project Descriptions: Investment area 1:
With regard to its second purpose (setting up cloud-related operational
structures and processes), the project worked, for example, to
establish appropriate terms of service for the free Web 2.0 offerings
on Apps.gov and to develop a blanket purchase agreement[Footnote 43]
for Infrastructure as a Service offerings such as Web hosting, cloud
storage, and virtual machines. However, these offerings have not yet
been made available through Apps.gov; according to GSA, the vendors'
systems are still undergoing security assessment and authorization.
E-Gov Fund Project Descriptions: Investment area 1: E-mail as a
Service:
Project: E-Mail as a Service;
FY 2010 E-Gov Fund resources: $0.50 million;
Status: Ongoing; Time frames: April 2009-[Footnote 44].
Purpose: Facilitate agencies' procurement of e-mail services hosted in
a cloud computing infrastructure:
Intended benefits: Lower cost, reduce e-mail system duplication, and
increase the number of e-mail systems that are interoperable across the
federal government:
Description: Part of the Federal Cloud Computing Initiative, this
project is aimed at enabling agencies to acquire common, cloud-hosted
e-mail services. In June 2010, a working group was formed whose focus
included developing a set of baseline functional and technical
requirements for a common, cloud-hosted federal e-mail solution, as
well as requirements for a blanket purchase agreement for
governmentwide procurement of cloud-based e-mail services. GSA's
issuance of a request for quotation for these services was announced on
May 11, 2011.
E-Gov Fund Project Descriptions: Investment area 1: SAJACC:
Project: SAJACC (NIST);
FY 2010 E-Gov Fund resources: $1.00 million;
Status: Ongoing;
Time frames: March 2010-.
Purpose: Drive the formation of cloud computing standards, through
collaboration with government, industry, and academia, by developing
and making available usage scenarios (use cases) and other information:
Intended benefits: Facilitate standards development organizations in
developing standards that address portability, interoperability, and
security of cloud system interfaces:
Description: Part of the Federal Cloud Computing Initiative, the SAJACC
project aims to develop and make cloud system use cases available on a
Web portal[Footnote 45] and provide examples showing how these use
cases can be supported on cloud systems. By generating and
disseminating data about how different kinds of cloud system interfaces
can support portability, interoperability, and security, this effort is
intended not only to facilitate the development of standards addressing
these needs, but also to increase the level of confidence to enable
cloud computing adoption. Through a working group, the project has
developed and posted 24 key use cases. According to NIST, cloud
interfaces have been tested on 7 of the 24 use cases. In the future,
NIST plans, among other things, to refine the use cases and draft a
second version of the use case document.
E-Gov Fund Project Descriptions: Investment area 1: Data center
inventory and consolidation planning:
The remaining five projects in investment area 1 are not part of the
Federal Cloud Computing Initiative.
Project: Data center inventory and consolidation planning;
FY 2010 E-Gov Fund resources: $0.88 million;
Status: Completed;
Time frames: Feb.-July 2010.
Purpose: Develop an inventory of existing federal data centers and
develop consolidation plans:
Intended benefits: Enable improved efficiency, lower cost:
Description: In February 2010, the federal CIO began a data center
consolidation initiative,[Footnote 46] an effort to reduce costs and
increase efficiency. According to GSA officials, GSA developed
templates for agencies to inventory their data centers and craft data
center consolidation plans, and then performed analysis of the results
and reported to OMB. The inventory was intended to provide a baseline
for planning the initiative and assessing its progress.
E-Gov Fund Project Descriptions: Investment area 1: USA.gov redesign:
Project: USA.gov redesign;
FY 2010 E-Gov Fund resources: $0.26 million;
Status: Completed;
Time frames: March-July 2010[Footnote 47].
Purpose: Redesign the federal government Web portal:
Intended benefits: Improve usability and customer satisfaction:
Description: The USA.gov redesign project aimed to improve the
usability and functionality of the government's "front door" portal.
According to GSA officials, this effort involved incorporating new
technology in the form of an improved search engine; in addition to
search results, this engine provides information related to a search,
such as other related searches, frequently asked questions, government
forms, and popular searches. GSA also reports that the new search
engine is nine times faster than the previous search engine. Among
other things, the redesigned site includes a panel providing featured
information (such as public service announcements).
E-Gov Fund Project Descriptions: Investment area 1: Mobile apps:
Project: Mobile Apps;
FY 2010 E-Gov Fund resources: $0.60 million;
Status: Completed;
Time frames: July-Sept. 2010[Footnote 48].
Purpose: Develop a gallery of software applications that tap federal
information through mobile devices:
Intended benefits: Improve service to members of the public who use
mobile devices:
Description: This effort included developing and encouraging the
development of new applications providing government information to
users of mobile devices, as well as showcasing these and existing apps
on USA.gov. USA.gov now includes a "Featured App" on its home page, as
well as a link to "Find More Apps."
Although the project concluded at the end of fiscal year 2010, the
effort to encourage mobile apps development continues; according to
GSA, as of October 1, 2010, a GSA staff member was assigned to
facilitate governmentwide coordination of mobile device efforts.
E-Gov Fund Project Descriptions: Investment area 1: Payment
Information Repository:
Project: Payment Information Repository Proof of Concept (Treasury);
FY 2010 E-Gov Fund resources: $1.35 million;
Status: Ongoing;
Time frames: March 2010-[Footnote 49].
Purpose: Develop proof of concept for a central source for all federal
payment information to better support governmentwide accounting and
transparency initiatives:
Intended benefits: Reduce cost, increase efficiencies, provide more
accurate and timely payment information, and make financial information
accessible to stakeholders:
Description: The project, led by the Department of the Treasury, aims
to develop a scalable centralized payment information repository for
vendor invoice payment data and provide these data to USAspending.gov
for matching to obligations contained in USAspending.gov. According to
Treasury officials, the proof of concept also includes developing a
Web-enabled front-end interface to the repository that provides basic
query capabilities to authorized users. After completion of the proof
of concept, the Treasury plans to develop a business case for the
development and implementation of a payment information repository to
harmonize, manage, and centralize all types of payment data across the
federal government. According to the Treasury, the proof of concept
project is to be completed in June 2011.
E-Gov Fund Project Descriptions: Investment area 1: Invoicing
Standards Pilot:
Project: Invoicing Standards Pilot (Treasury);
FY 2010 E-Gov Fund resources: $0.15 million;
Status: Ongoing; Time frames: Aug. 2010-[Footnote 50].
Purpose: Create and pilot baseline data standards to facilitate
electronic invoicing from suppliers to the government:
Intended benefits: Facilitate expansion of e-commerce, reduce cost of
invoicing:
Description: According to Treasury, the Invoicing Standards Pilot is an
effort with the Social Security Administration to establish a baseline
of invoice data standards for use with the Treasury's Internet Payment
Platform, a centralized electronic invoicing and payment Information
service available to federal agencies and their suppliers. These
standards are intended to facilitate expansion of e-commerce and reduce
the cost of invoicing. In addition, the project includes the
implementation of an interface between the Social Security
Administration and the Internet Payment Platform. Treasury officials
told us that they will consider the project to be completed on May 30,
2011, when they expect this interface to go into operation.
E-Gov Fund Project Descriptions: Investment area 2: Citizen Engagement
Platform:
Investment area 2 (Citizens Engagement and Access/Web 2.0) supported
three projects: the Citizen Engagement Platform, Citizen Challenge
Platform, and the Citizen Services Dashboard.
Project: Citizen Engagement Platform;
FY 2010 E-Gov Fund resources: $1.51 million;
Status: Ongoing; Time frames: Feb. 2010-.
Purpose: Provide a platform for agencies to interact with the public
using Web 2.0 tools:
Intended benefits: Facilitate engagement with public, avoid
duplication:
Description: Federal agencies have begun to interact with the public
through Web 2.0 tools (such as blogs,[Footnote 51] wikis,[Footnote 52]
and discussion forums). The Citizen Engagement Platform is intended to
facilitate this process by providing a central platform for agencies to
deploy such tools. A central platform is intended to allow agencies to
deploy tools for which technology and policy issues have already been
addressed, rather than each agency needing to do so independently. The
project launched the citizen.apps.gov site in August 2010. As of April
2011, the site reported that about 44 agencies had deployed tools.
(Current statistics on site usage are provided at citizen.apps.gov/
reports.php.) According to GSA, funding to support this site will run
out in July 2011.
E-Gov Fund Project Descriptions: Investment area 2: Citizen Challenge
Platform:
Project: Citizen Challenge Platform;
FY 2010 E-Gov Fund resources: $1.00 million;
Status: Ongoing; Time frames: March 2010-[Footnote 53].
Purpose: Provide a platform for agencies to post challenges and the
public to submit solutions:
Intended benefits: Solve problems at lower cost, encourage public
participation in government:
Description: OMB issued a memo in March 2010 that committed the
Administration to make available, within 120 days, a Web-based platform
for prizes and challenges.[Footnote 54] In April, GSA issued a request
for information from providers wishing to offer a no-cost solution for
a governmentwide challenge platform.[Footnote 55] According to GSA, the
platform was intended to provide agencies with a free tool (compliant
with federal policy) for posting challenges eliciting solutions to
government problems. GSA officials told us that challenge.gov was
launched to agencies on July 6, 2010, meeting OMB's deadline, and that
the public launch occurred in September 2010, providing the public with
a central forum for finding challenges and responding to them. As of
April 2011, the site reported over 80 challenges, of which about 19
were still open.
E-Gov Fund Project Descriptions: Investment area 2: Citizen Services
Dashboard:
Project: Citizen Services Dashboard;
FY 2010 E-Gov Fund resources: $2.49 million;
Status: Terminated[Footnote 56];
Time frames: May 2010-May 2011.
[End of table]
Purpose: Provide customer service metrics for top citizen-facing
services:
Intended benefits: Increase transparency, ensure accountability, and
improve service delivery:
Description: The online Citizen Services Dashboard was intended to
promote customer service across the federal government by displaying
target and actual service metrics. Under this initiative, the dashboard
was being piloted with four agencies (the Internal Revenue Service,
Department of Veterans Affairs, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services, and Social Security Administration). These agencies were
initially to report metrics for seven different top citizen-facing
services, including metrics on speed, quality, and satisfaction. The
dashboard had not been made available to the public before the decision
to terminate it. (More information on this project is provided under
objective 2, later in this briefing.)
E-Gov Fund Project Descriptions: Investment area 3: USAspending.gov
and dashboards:
Project: USAspending.gov and dashboards;
FY 2010 E-Gov Fund resources: $9.50 million;
Status: Ongoing;
Time frames: December 2007-.
Purpose: Provide spending data in compliance with the Federal Funding
Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) of 2006;[Footnote 57]
support online dashboards of federal data:
Intended benefits: Improve transparency and usability of data:
Description: This project operates, maintains, and enhances
USAspending.gov, a free, publicly accessible Web site, containing data
on federal awards (e.g., contracts, loans, and grants), as required by
FFATA. The law required OMB to establish the site by January 1, 2008,
and include the name and location of the entity receiving the award,
award amount, and other information on the award. The site was launched
in December 2007. However, posting of subaward data was not achieved by
the law's January 2009 deadline;[Footnote 58] the site began reporting
subaward data in October 2010.[Footnote 59] In 2010, hosting of the
site was moved to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's
cloud computing environment, and additional features were provided,
such as the ability to compare spending across agencies.
The USAspending.gov project also supports other dashboard Web sites,
including:
* the IT Dashboard, itdashboard.gov, showing information on federal IT
investments;[Footnote 60]
* PaymentAccuracy.gov, which provides information about improper
payments (rates and amounts, why they occur, and agencies' actions to
reduce and recover such payments);
* the Performance.gov dashboard, an online management tool for
quarterly tracking of agency progress on certain performance goals
(this site is not currently public, but the Administration has stated
that it intends to open portions of the site to the public);[Footnote
61] and:
* the Small Business Dashboard, smallbusiness.Data.gov, which displays
information about federal contracts awarded to small businesses based
on a subset of the information available on USAspending.gov.
According to GSA, the project used the USAspending.gov framework to
develop or to provide data for these dashboards.
E-Gov Fund Project Descriptions: Investment area 4: FedSpace:
Project: FedSpace;
FY 2010 E-Gov Fund resources: $5.00 million;
Status: Terminated[Footnote 62];
Time frames: Feb. 2010-May 2011.
Purpose: Provide a platform for executive branch employees and
contractors to use Web 2.0 networking and collaboration tools:
Intended benefits: Create a secure collaboration workspace for
employees, make it easier to find people and information in government,
improve business processes and reduce redundancies, drive innovation
and discovery, and build effective relationships across the federal
government:
Description: This project was to develop a platform with a suite of
collaboration tools (such as wikis, a governmentwide employee
directory, shared workspaces, and blogs), intended to promote cross-
agency collaboration and knowledge sharing. The project was to take
advantage of the authentication system used by OMB's MAX system,
available to federal employees and contractors.[Footnote 63] Before the
project's termination, the FedSpace Web site was in beta testing;
[Footnote 64] according to GSA, about 500 users had access to
the site. (More information is provided under objective 2, later in
this briefing.)
E-Gov Fund Project Descriptions: Investment area 5: Data.gov:
Project: Data.gov;
FY 2010 E-Gov Fund resources: $5.50 million[Footnote 65];
Status: Ongoing;
Time frames: Feb. 2009-.
Purpose: Increase public access to machine readable datasets generated
by the executive branch of the federal government:
Intended benefits: Make federal data more accessible and usable; drive
accountability; facilitate public education, engagement, and
innovation; and improve the federal data management process.
Description: After a planning phase, Data.gov was launched in May 2009
to provide access to federal government data. This site allows the
public to find, download, and use machine-readable datasets that are
generated or collected by executive branch agencies. Providing these
data is intended to enable research, oversight, and knowledge
discovery, as well as potential economic opportunities for
entrepreneurs who may harness the data by creating applications. The
Data.gov project covers operation and maintenance of the site as well
as enhancements, such as improved search tools and features that
promote use and dissemination of the data. The project also operates a
system that allows agencies to supply the site with datasets and
information about each dataset. (More information is provided under
objective 2, later in this briefing.)
E-Gov Fund Project Descriptions: Investment area 6: Project Management
Best Practices:
Project: Project Management Best Practices;
FY 2010 E-Gov Fund resources: $1.50 million;
Status: Completed;
Time frames: Aug.-Dec. 2010[Footnote 66].
Purpose: Analyze best practices in IT program management and
procurement:
Intended benefits: Enable improved federal IT management and
procurement:
Description: This project reviewed best practices related to procuring
technology and managing IT programs successfully from design through
implementation. The initiative was intended to help enable the federal
government to reform the management of IT projects in an effort to
lower costs and improve government performance. The results of the
review were used as input to the federal CIO's plan to reform federal
IT management, released in December 2010.[Footnote 67]
Objective 2 Results: Progress of Selected E-Gov Projects:
Four selected projects (FedRAMP, Citizen Services Dashboard, FedSpace,
and Data.gov) have made varying degrees of progress toward their goals.
They have also defined performance metrics that align with many, though
not all major goals and intended benefits. Continuing to define
performance metrics and align these with project goals will be
important for ensuring that managers and stakeholders can assess
project results and provide credible evidence of progress, particularly
in a resource-constrained environment.
The importance of performance metrics for gauging the progress of
programs and projects is well recognized. OMB has directed agencies to
define and select meaningful outcome-based performance metrics that
measure the intended result of carrying out a program or activity.
[Footnote 68] Additionally, as we have previously reported,
aligning performance metrics with goals can help to measure progress
toward those goals, emphasizing the quality of the services an agency
provides or the resulting benefits to users.[Footnote 69] Furthermore,
industry experts describe performance measures as necessary for
management and planning and for monitoring the performance of a project
against plans and stakeholders' needs.[Footnote 70]
Progress of Selected E-Gov Projects: FedRAMP:
FedRAMP. The FedRAMP project has made progress toward developing a
governmentwide risk and authorization management program to provide
joint security assessment, authorizations, and continuous monitoring of
cloud computing services. The project reached preliminary consensus on
baseline controls and processes[Footnote 71], developed and issued a
draft proposal for a security authorization, assessment, and continuous
monitoring program,[Footnote 72] and collected stakeholder comments.
However, the development of the proposal has taken longer than
originally expected, owing, according to GSA and OMB officials, to the
wide range of stakeholders involved in this process. As a result, the
project has not yet developed a model for implementing the FedRAMP
process, or begun implementation (initially expected to occur in late
2010). The project has defined performance metrics related to the
initial take-up of the program (number of customers and number of cloud
products to receive authorizations to operate); however, it has not
defined metrics related to other goals, such as improving consistency
and fostering cross-agency knowledge sharing and communication of best
practices.
Background: Planning for the FedRAMP project began in 2009 under the
auspices of the CIO Council's Cloud Computing Executive Steering
Committee. The CIO Council established the committee to promote the use
of cloud computing in the federal government, with technical and
administrative support provided by GSA's Cloud Computing Program
Management Office. The Executive Steering Committee launched the inter-
agency Cloud Computing Security Working Group, which, among other
things, worked to develop a set of baseline security controls for cloud
computing systems, as well as high-level concepts for a common
authorization and assessment (A&A) process.
Also, the federal CIO tasked a Joint Authorization Board to be
responsible for authorizing cloud computing systems. The board is to
perform determination and acceptance of FedRAMP-authorized systems and
have the final decision-making authority on FedRAMP security controls,
policies, and procedures. Permanent members of the board are the CIOs
of the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and
GSA.[Footnote 73] In addition, each member appoints a technical
representative. The Joint Authorization Board has also been acting as a
review board for issues related to the FedRAMP process. According to
GSA officials, the Security Working Group presents issues and concerns
related to FedRAMP controls to the board at monthly meetings.
The following are the goals for the FedRAMP project, based on project
documentation and discussions with agency officials:
* Develop a cloud computing security requirements baseline that is used
across the federal government.
* Develop and implement processes for joint security assessment,
authorizations, and continuous monitoring of cloud computing services.
* Promote consistent interpretation of cloud service provider
authorization packages through a standard set of processes and
evaluation criteria.
* Improve consistency and efficiency of continuous monitoring of cloud
computing systems and foster cross-agency knowledge sharing and
communication of best practices.
* Obtain interagency vetting and buy-in of the approach to security
assessment, authorizations, and continuous monitoring of cloud
computing services.
Achieving these goals is intended to facilitate adoption of cloud
computing, allow agencies to leverage other agencies' assessments and
authorizations, avoid duplication, and save or avoid cost.
Table 5 shows the progress of the FedRAMP project against its goals.
Table 5: Progress of FedRAMP Project:
Goal: Develop a cloud computing security requirements baseline that is
used across the federal government;
Progress: The draft released for comment in November 2010 includes a
proposed baseline set of security controls for low-impact and moderate-
impact cloud systems. The draft also describes requirements for
continuous monitoring of security controls. GSA worked with security
officials across government to agree on the controls and solicited
comments from industry and government. According to GSA officials, in
responding to comments they are further refining the controls and
requirements.
Goal: Develop and implement processes for joint security assessment,
authorizations, and continuous monitoring of cloud computing services;
Progress: Process descriptions were presented in the November 2010
draft; however, GSA has not yet completed an operational model for
implementation or begun implementation.
Goal: Promote consistent interpretation of cloud service provider
authorization packages through a standard set of processes and
evaluation criteria;
Progress: The November 2010 draft presents proposed processes and
evaluation criteria for cloud service provider authorization packages.
Goal: Improve consistency and efficiency of continuous monitoring of
cloud computing systems and foster cross-agency knowledge sharing and
communication of best practices;
Progress: The November 2010 draft proposes a set of requirements for
continuous monitoring that are intended to provide a baseline standard
and improve consistency and efficiency. Draft includes description of
proposed means of knowledge sharing through a repository/database of
authorized cloud systems.
Goal: Obtain broad agency vetting and buy-in of the approach to
security assessment, authorizations, and continuous monitoring of cloud
computing services;
Progress: Development of proposal included broad agency vetting
through CIO Council and other groups (including industry and nonprofit
security groups, according to GSA officials); comments were received
from major agencies.
Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.
[End of table]
The project has made progress toward its goals, as shown in table 5,
but the project has taken longer to reach implementation than
originally expected. The FedRAMP project plan envisioned initiating the
first FedRAMP A&A in the fall of 2010. According to GSA officials, the
project time was extended primarily because the time required for
collaboration among stakeholders to develop and vet the baseline
controls was greater than anticipated. For example, the comment period
for the draft proposal, originally due to end on December 2, 2010, was
extended until January 17, 2011.
According to GSA officials, they extended the comment period to ensure
that comments were captured from major stakeholders in industry,
government, and the public, having received requests from various
stakeholders for the extension. These officials said that the extension
was useful as it helped the agency receive comments from industry,
including cloud related companies, and all but 4 of the 24 Chief
Financial Officers Act agencies.
To respond to comments, the project enlisted "Tiger Teams" of
representatives from across government to work through comments.
According to project officials, many of the comments focused on
specific controls and the number of controls, including those related
to continuous monitoring; these officials stated that the project
worked with the National Security Agency, the CIO Council's Information
Security and Identity Management Committee, and other security experts
on changes including reducing the number of controls requiring
continuous monitoring. According to these officials, these changes have
been presented to the security working group and Joint Authorization
Board.
According to GSA officials, they are currently working on a model for
operationalizing the proposed FedRAMP process, having concentrated
first on its technical aspects. They plan to complete the process model
in late summer or early fall 2011, hoping to have a beta version of the
FedRAMP process by the summer. These officials believe that getting
consensus across agencies on the proposed controls was an important
step and that the proposal had increased the willingness among agencies
to accept the value in the concept of leveraging another agency's
documentation for A&A of cloud solutions. However, these officials
stated that as a new process, FedRAMP will require time to obtain buy-
in from potential user agencies.
With regard to the funding uncertainties arising as a result of the
reduction to the requested E-Gov Fund resources in fiscal year 2011,
GSA officials told us that, as for all E-Gov Fund projects, funding for
FedRAMP will need to be revisited.
GSA established performance metrics for FedRAMP in its Fiscal Year 2012
Capital Asset Plan and Business Case Summary for Cloud Computing:
* Number of new federal customers using FedRAMP services:
* Number of cloud products to receive [authorizations][Footnote 74]
from FedRAMP:
Project officials have also identified additional possible metrics:
* Savings to agencies for leveraging FedRAMP authorizations:
* Efficiencies of FedRAMP over agency-specific A&A process:
Such metrics would be useful indicators of the main benefits identified
for the program, as they address the initial buy-in and take-up of the
program by agencies, as well as cost and duplication avoidance.
However, the project has not developed metrics to measure the degree to
which goals such as improving consistency and communicating best
practices are being achieved, nor defined measures for "efficiencies."
Defining performance metrics that align with these goals would improve
the ability of managers and stakeholders to assess project results and
provide credible evidence of progress.
Progress of Selected E-Gov Projects: Citizen Services Dashboard:
Citizen Services Dashboard. Before its termination, the Citizen
Services Dashboard had made progress toward developing a capability to
display customer service metrics on the top federal citizen-facing
services, but this capability had not yet been made public. The
dashboard was piloted with four agencies, reporting metrics for seven
customer services; according to project officials, development of the
dashboard was mostly complete. Until the site was publicly launched,
however, the project could not achieve all its planned goals and
benefits. Further, although one performance metric, increasing the
number of services displayed, had been defined, metrics for goals such
as "improving customer service through citizen collaboration and
engagement" had not yet been established.
Background: Agencies are required to post customer service standards
and report results to customers, according to a 1993 Executive Order
issued by President Clinton and a related 1995 memorandum.[Footnote 75]
However, as we reported in October 2010, although service standards
exist, they have not always been made easily available to the public
and sometimes were not made available at all.[Footnote 76]
We also reported that OMB was pursuing initiatives to promote federal
agencies' responsibility for quality customer service to their
customers, including the pilot dashboard, and that it expected to
launch the dashboard publicly in late fall 2010.[Footnote 77]
Four agencies participated in the pilot: the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS), Social Security Administration (SSA), Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA), and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). In
developing the pilot, OMB asked participating agencies to review their
existing strategic and operating plans to identify meaningful customer
service metrics, without necessarily creating new ones.
The following were the goals of the project, based on project
documentation and discussions with agency officials:
* Provide public and government access to meaningful data on government
performance for key citizen-facing services.
* Help manage and fulfill citizen expectations of government services,
including educating citizens on government services.
* Improve customer service through citizen collaboration and
engagement.
* Improve agency management's understanding of agency performance over
time on key metrics.
Achieving these goals was intended to increase transparency, ensure
accountability, and improve service delivery.
The progress of the project in meeting its goals, prior to its
termination, is presented in table 6.
Table 6: Progress of Citizen Services Dashboard Project:
Goal: Provide public and government access to meaningful data on
government performance for key citizen-facing services;
Progress: The four participating agencies agreed upon seven key
citizen-facing services, for which performance metrics were being
tracked:
IRS: Individual income taxes;
SSA: Retirement benefits;
disability benefits;
VA: Veterans pension benefits; veterans disability compensation;
veterans education benefits;
CMS: Medicare benefits;
The dashboard generally reported target and actual performance
information on these services, presented in three areas: speed,
quality, and satisfaction. (Not all metrics included target data.
Also, VA services did not include satisfaction metrics.) For example,
SSA featured the following metrics related to retirement benefits:
Speed: On average, how long will callers be on hold before their call
to the SSA 800 number is answered;
Quality: What percentage of claims payments cases are free of
underpayments;
Satisfaction: What percentage of customers filing for SSA's retirement
benefits are satisfied with the overall claims filing process;
Dashboard users could also view additional information on metrics such
as the channel of delivery for the service (i.e., phone, mail) and the
metrics' target and actual values for the current period (e.g., fiscal
year 2010).
Goal: Help manage and fulfill citizen expectations of government
services, including educating citizens on government services;
Progress: The dashboard's "Did You Know" section provided links to Web
sites that include information on the service displayed. For example,
for SSA's retirement benefits service, this section included a link to
an agency Web page that featured an online calculator for estimating
citizens' retirement benefits and information on how to use it. The
"What We Are Working On" section provided links to Web sites that
display related agency efforts. For example, for the retirement
benefits service, this section included a link to a retirement benefits
estimator in Spanish. The "Get Help" section featured direct links to
agency Web sites for more information on services. For example, for the
retirement benefits service, this section included a link for citizens
to get more information on the retirement benefits application
process.
Goal: Improve customer service through citizen collaboration and
engagement;
Progress: The "Help Us Improve" feature of the dashboard allowed users
to generate and post suggestions for improving each of the federal
services. Dashboard users also had the ability to vote in
support of particular suggestions.
Goal: Improve agency management's understanding of agency performance
over time on key metrics;
Progress: According to the Citizen Services Dashboard Operating
Manual, the dashboard was to include current and historical data for
each of the metrics depending on the length of time data are
available, for a maximum of 5 years including the current period.
Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.
[End of table]
As shown in table 6, the project made significant steps to meet its
goals. However, since the dashboard had not been released to the
public, most could not be fully met. GSA officials told us that the
dashboard was launched internally in October 2010, but OMB made a
policy decision not to launch publicly because of funding
uncertainties.
According to the CIO's May 24, 2011, announcement, this project was
terminated because of the reduced funding provided in the fiscal year
2011 appropriation. GSA officials stated, as of June 2011, that they
had not been able to identify opportunities for collaboration that
would make it financially feasible to continue using the capabilities
developed by the project. Instead, they told us that they were taking
the system off-line and planned to archive and store the system
software in an organized way so that it could be revived and made
operational if new funding were to become available.
GSA established a performance metric for the project in its Capital
Asset Plan and Business Case Summary for fiscal year 2012: increasing
the total number of services displayed. In addition, according to
project officials, once the dashboard was formally launched, they would
be able to gauge to what extent the dashboard achieved the intended
benefits using Web analytics (such as number of site visits) and
feedback from the public. However, no specific metrics had been defined
for goals such as "improve customer service through citizen
collaboration and engagement," and "help manage and fulfill citizen
expectations of government services, including educating citizens on
government services." If the project were to be revived, defining
performance metrics aligned with these goals would help in assessing
project results and progress.
Progress of Selected E-Gov Projects: FedSpace:
FedSpace. Before its termination, the FedSpace project had made
progress toward providing a platform offering Web 2.0 networking and
collaboration tools to enable executive branch employees and
contractors to work collaboratively across agencies. As of May 2011,
the FedSpace Web site was in beta testing. According to GSA, an initial
pilot test group of about 70 (around July 2010) had grown to
approximately 500 users, including users from GSA, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Commerce, and
others in the MAX community. The most recent beta version, pilot
release 1.0, became available in January 2011. However, GSA had noted
that the project has not yet moved to full deployment to all potential
users; this was originally scheduled for September 2010. According to
officials, deployment was postponed primarily because of funding
uncertainty. The project defined a number of performance metrics
related to increased participation in the site, but metrics for other
goals, such as improving business processes, had not yet been defined.
The following were the goals of the project, based on project
documentation and discussions with agency officials:
* Provide an integrated suite of collaboration tools such as wikis,
shared workspaces, and blogs,to enable secure collaboration across the
federal government.
* Make it easier to find and connect people in government.
* Facilitate the building of relationships across the federal
enterprise.
* Enable the sharing of information such as ideas, best practices, and
knowledge among people in government.
* Make it easier to find information in government.
* Drive innovation and discovery.
* Improve business processes and reduce redundancies.
Achieving these goals was expected to promote cross-agency
collaboration and knowledge sharing. GSA indicated that collaboration
would be achieved by strategically leveraging a shared secure platform,
making content and resources available more consistently, and providing
Web 2.0 technologies.
The progress of the project in meeting its goals, prior to termination,
is presented in table 7.
Table 7: Progress of FedSpace Project:
Goal: Provide an integrated suite of collaboration tools such as
wikis, shared workspaces, and blogs, to enable secure collaboration
across the federal government;
Progress: FedSpace pilot release 1.0 became available in January 2011.
According to GSA, FedSpace project concept planning began in February
2010, and from October to December 2010, the project launched several
releases of the platform for user testing. The FedSpace site provided
collaboration tools including wikis, blogs,microblogs, forums,
calendars, and communities of common interest. To create a secure
collaboration environment, FedSpace made use of the user
authentication and authorization process currently used for the MAX
federal community. According to GSA officials, the security A&A for
the FedSpace system was expected to be completed by the end of May
2011.
Goal: Make it easier to find and connect people in government;
Progress: FedSpace included directory features that allowed users to
search for FedSpace and MAX users. FedSpace user profiles included
contact information and (optionally) a picture and attributes such as
projects worked on, professional experience, and education.
Goal: Facilitate the building of relationships across the federal
enterprise;
Progress: User profiles and communities facilitated relationships.
Users could post "status" updates on their own activities and could
choose to "follow" other users to view recent activity such as status
updates, postings, and so on. A "People You May Know" feature showed a
user's picture, agency, and job title.
Goal: Enable the sharing of information such as ideas, best practices,
and knowledge among people in government;
Progress: A "Create & Share Content" feature allowed users to add
bookmarks and create wiki pages. Users could, through a social
bookmarking feature, share bookmarks with other users. The site
provided lists of top five "popular discussions" and "recently viewed
discussions.".
Goal: Make it easier to find information in government;
Progress: The site included a search feature that queried, among other
things, wiki pages, microblogs, and community announcements. However,
the limited deployment reduced the amount of information that was
stored in FedSpace and could thus be found.
Goal: Drive innovation and discovery;
Progress: Limited deployment reduced the amount of information in
FedSpace that could drive innovation and discovery.
Goal: Improve business processes and reduce redundancies;
Progress: The deployment had the potential to reduce redundancy
through providing a cross-agency collaboration platform.
Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.
[End of table]
As the table shows, the project had made progress in meeting goals
related to enabling collaboration. However, several of FedSpace's goals
depended to some extent on a wide deployment of the site and its use by
a substantial number of users. Recognizing this, GSA had developed an
outreach plan with the aim of, among other things, motivating the use
of FedSpace among its target population. Specific planned outreach
actions included, for example, the posting of banners in Web sites, an
e-mail campaign, press interviews, public speaking engagements, and
participation in conferences.
According to the CIO's May 24, 2011, announcement, this project was
terminated because of the reduced funding provided in the fiscal year
2011 appropriation. GSA officials stated, as of June 2011, that they
had not been able to identify opportunities for collaboration that
would make it financially feasible to continue using the capabilities
developed by the project. Instead, they told us that they were taking
the system off-line and planned to archive and store the system
software in an organized way so that it could be revived and made
operational if new funding were to become available.
GSA established metrics in its Fiscal Year 2012 Capital Asset Plan and
Business Case Summary for the FedSpace project. GSA reported that it
met all of its performance metrics for fiscal year 2010; additionally,
it reported that all but one performance metric was met for fiscal year
2011.[Footnote 78] These metrics, shown in table 8, could generally be
linked to individual goals or the project goals overall, through user
take-up of the site.
Table 8: Metrics Established for FedSpace, 2010-2012:
Metric: Increase awareness and usage of the tool by 5% of 29,000
existing OMB MAX users;
Fiscal years: 2010;
Relevant goals: This user take-up metric would be relevant to the
overall success of the FedSpace project.
Metric: Increase agency participation in the directory service by 12.5%
of the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act agencies;
Fiscal years: 2010-2012;
Relevant goals: Make it easier to find and connect people in
government.
Metric: Increase active participation through the tool by 5% of the
baseline;
Fiscal years: 2010;
Relevant goals: This user take-up metric would be relevant to the
overall success of the FedSpace project.
Metric: Increase the number of code or widget uploads to the
repository;
Fiscal years: 2010;
Relevant goals: Enable the sharing of information such as ideas, best
practices, and knowledge among people in government.
Metric: Increase the number of communities by 30;
Fiscal years: 2011-2012;
Relevant goals: Provide an integrated suite of collaboration tools to
enable secure collaboration across the federal government. Enable the
sharing of information among people in government.
Metric: Increase the number of wiki pages by 50;
Fiscal years: 2011-2012;
Relevant goals: Provide an integrated suite of collaboration
tools to enable secure collaboration across the federal government.
Enable the sharing of information among people in government.
Metric: Increase active participation through the tool by 600 users;
Fiscal years: 2011-2012;
Relevant goals: This user take-up metric would
be relevant to the overall success of the FedSpace project.
Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.
[End of table]
However, metrics were not defined for goals such as driving innovation
and discovery, improving business processes, and reducing redundancies.
GSA indicated that in formulating the goal of improving business
processes, it had "no preconceived processes in mind." Instead, it
suggested that "any number of processes could be improved as site users
explore and compare existing processes and share existing resources
across government." GSA provided the example of e-learning and data
management, which it commented are prevalent across federal agencies.
If the project were to be revived, it would be difficult for the
project to demonstrate that these goals were being met without a
defined metric.
Progress of Selected E-Gov Projects: Data.gov:
Data.gov. Data.gov has made progress toward increasing public access to
federal datasets and enabling their use. The Data.gov project is
maintaining and enhancing the site, increasing the number of datasets
that are available and improving the discovery and technical
capabilities of the site. The project has also developed performance
metrics that are well aligned with its goals.
Background: Initially launched in May 2009 as the Administration's
flagship initiative for open government, the site is aimed primarily at
three general types of users:
* researchers, who typically download data for analysis;
* application developers, who typically create applications that
exploit datasets; and:
* the general public, who can use the platform to download and explore
datasets and tools, as well as (recently) to perform visualizations of
certain datasets.
The following are the goals of the project, based on project
documentation and discussions with agency officials:
* Focus on access. Increase access to authoritative sources of federal
data through a transparent, collaborative, and participatory platform
that fosters development of applications and analyses by third parties.
* Open platform. Facilitate shared services for agencies and enable the
development of third party tools by using a modular architecture with
application programming interfaces (API).[Footnote 79]
* Disaggregation of data. Provide data at the lowest analytical unit so
that users can make their own analyses of the agency-provided
information.
* User feedback. Grow and improve Data.gov through user feedback in
areas such as identifying high-value data sets and setting priorities
for new and existing datasets, agency-provided applications, and
improvements to usability of disseminated data and applications.
* Program responsibility. Ensure agencies retain responsibility for
ensuring information quality, providing context and meaning for data,
protecting privacy, and assuring information security, as well as
establishing effective data management.
* Rapid integration. Provide a vehicle to rapidly disseminate new data
(in accordance with the Open Government Directive) and to improve
access to and usability of currently available data.
* Best practices. Implement, enhance, and propagate best practices for
data and information management, sharing, and dissemination across
agencies, with international, state, local, and tribal partners.
Achieving these goals is intended to make federal data more accessible
and usable; drive accountability; facilitate public education,
engagement, and innovation; and improve the federal data management
process.
The progress of the project toward its goals is presented in table 9.
Table 9: Progress of Data.gov Project:
Goal: Increase access to authoritative sources of federal data through
a transparent, collaborative, and participatory platform that fosters
development of applications and analyses by third parties;
Progress:
The site provides access to;
* data in platform-independent, machine-readable formats, such as
Extensible Markup Language (XML), character-separated values (CSV),
and others (listed in the "raw data" catalog);
* geodata--federal geospatial data (listed in the geodata catalog);
* tools such as data extraction tools, applications, and other services
(listed in the apps catalog).
The site provides statistics on increases in the number of datasets
provided, reporting that from May 2010 to April 2011, 2,977 datasets
and tools were added. According to GSA officials, during that same
time period, 115,625 additional geodata datasets were added. The site
facilitates collaboration and participation, as well as discovery and
use of data, through "community" pages that collect information on
specific topics: e.g., "Semantic Web" community pages provide
demonstrations and information on this technology. Other deployed
communities are RestoreTheGulf, Law, Open Data, and Health. The
platform provides opportunities for collaboration and participation
through discussion forums and feedback mechanisms, such as dataset
rating and commenting. "Developer's corner" contains links providing
access to tutorials and videos assisting users on how to develop
applications using datasets within Data.gov.
Goal: Facilitate shared services for agencies and enable the
development of third party tools by using a modular architecture with
APIs;
Progress: The Dataset Management System (DMS), used by agencies
to submit datasets for posting, is a Data.gov module that provides a
shared service for agencies. Data.gov's recently released Next
Generation Platform enables users to search and manipulate certain
datasets through a Web browser. An Open Data API is also available
through a link on the site.
Goal: Provide data at the lowest analytical unit so that users can make
their own analyses of the agency-provided information;
Progress: Data in the raw data catalog are provided in formats such as
CSV, which enables users to make their own analyses.
Goal: Grow and improve Data.gov through user feedback in areas such as
identifying high-value data sets and setting priorities for new and
existing datasets, agency-provided applications, and improvements to
usability of disseminated data and applications;
Progress: The site shows several mechanisms for collecting user
feedback: users can rate datasets, comment on datasets, and suggest
other datasets.
Goal: Ensure agencies retain responsibility for ensuring information
quality, providing context and meaning for data, protecting privacy,
and assuring information security, as well as establishing effective
data management;
Progress: This goal is supported through Data.gov's DMS. The workflow
provides a mechanism for agency review of metadata and attestation of
conformance with privacy requirements and agency data quality
standards. The process also provides a step for a National Security
Council liaison to review datasets for privacy and security, including
risk of inadvertent disclosures as a result of combining diverse
datasets ("mosaic" effect); liaison is to work with agencies to
resolve issues.
Goal: Provide a vehicle to rapidly disseminate new data (in accordance
with the Open Government Directive) and to improve access to and
usability of currently available data;
Progress: The site is a vehicle for dissemination of new data, and
discovery features provide access to available data. Time required to
process datasets for publication was reportedly reduced from about 5
days to about 2 days in fiscal year 2010. DMS includes metadata
template to guide agencies in including documentation. Data.gov
reports user ratings of datasets overall and on data utility,
usefulness, and ease of access. Users can also suggest datasets.
Goal: Implement, enhance, and propagate best practices for data and
information management, sharing, and dissemination across agencies,
with international, state, local, and tribal partners;
Progress: The project held a first International Open Government Data
Conference in November 2010, at which Data.gov's Open Data Community
was launched. The Open Data Community shares information on open data
standards, best practices, and policies.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
GSA has also established performance metrics in its Capital Asset Plan
and Business Case Summary for the Data.gov project (table 10); GSA
reported meeting the targets for all these metrics in fiscal years 2009
and 2010, except one:
* GSA reported that in 2009, it did not meet the target that visitors
using the 5-star rating would rate datasets and tools at least 4 stars
75 percent of the time, having achieved this rating 50 percent of the
time. In 2010, it changed the metric to ratings of at least 3 stars 75
percent of the time, and reported that this target was met.
* The table shows the modifications and additions to metrics over the
years, including one that was dropped:
* After 2010, GSA dropped a metric on increasing the number of
participating agencies by 50 percent each fiscal year; it reported 144
agencies participating at the end of 2010. In May 2011, the Data.gov
site reported 172 agencies and subagencies participating.
Table 10: Performance Metrics Established for Data.gov, 2009-2012:
Metric: Number of participating agencies increase by 50 percent each
fiscal year, beginning with 20 by end of first fiscal year;
Fiscal years: 2009-2010;
Relevant goals: Access.
Metric: Number of published datasets and tools contributed by agencies
will reach 324 in fiscal year 2009 and increase by 100 a year; ... by
100 a year. (2011) ... by 100 a year. (2012);
Fiscal years: 2009-2012;
Relevant goals: Access; disaggregation of data.
Metric: Number of suggestions received from visitors will reach 750 by
end of fiscal year 2009 and grow by 100 each fiscal year;
Fiscal years: 2009-2012;
Relevant goals: Feedback.
Metric: Time to process datasets and tools from POCs to the time of
publication will begin with 5 business days and decrease each year;
Fiscal years: 2009-2012;
Relevant goals: Rapid dissemination; open platform (shared services).
Metric: Visitors using the 5-star rating will rate datasets and tools
at least 4 stars 75 percent of the time. (2009); ... at least 3 stars
75 percent of the time. (2010-2012);
Fiscal years: 2009-2012;
Relevant goals: Feedback; rapid dissemination (usability).
Metric: Data.gov system will be available 99 percent of the time;
Fiscal years: 2010-2012;
Relevant goals: Access.
Metric: Sustain the number of visitor hits to Data.gov. (2010);
Sustain or increase the number ... (target 100 million) (2011-2012);
Fiscal years: 2010-2012;
Relevant goals: Access.
Metric: Number of Chief Financial Officer Act agencies with data
quality standards posted at agency Web sites will increase. (target of
15 (FY2010), then 20 (FY 2011), then 25 (FY 2012));
Fiscal years: 2010-2012;
Relevant goals: Access (authoritative sources); program responsibility
(information quality).
Metric: Data.gov will result in a number of applications and research.
(target of 40 per year);
Fiscal years: 2011-2012;
Relevant goals: Access (foster development).
Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.
[End of table]
As the table shows, the project has added metrics over time, addressing
more aspects of project goals. For example, the most recently added
metric, regarding applications and research, is associated with
fostering development of applications and analyses by third parties--an
aspect of the overall access goal. Most of the goals can be associated
with at least one metric.[Footnote 80]
The Data.gov Web site also includes a "Metrics" section that includes
statistics on each dataset (number of downloads and user ratings). The
site posts:
* aggregate information on agency participation at Data.gov (including
statistics per agency on the numbers of raw datasets, tools, and
geodata contributed; the number of times these agency postings were
downloaded within the past week; and the date of the most recent
addition to the agency's postings) and:
* visitor statistics (including numbers of visitors, downloads, and
hits over time; top 10 visiting countries and states; and top 10
datasets by downloads and ratings).
These metrics are primarily related to adoption and use of the site and
the datasets by both agencies and users.
These metrics are also indicators, though not necessarily direct
measures, of the intended benefits of the site: that is, making federal
data more accessible and usable; driving accountability; facilitating
public education, engagement, and innovation; and improving the federal
data management process. For example, providing raw data for download
does make data more usable by enabling the public having the necessary
expertise to use the data for analysis or other purposes.
The project has considered additional possible metrics related to the
site's goals and intended benefits. For example, the Data.gov Concept
of Operations interprets increasing usability as clearly and completely
conveying the strengths and weaknesses of agency data through technical
documentation. To assess this, the Concept of Operations proposes
metrics such as the completeness of the metadata provided by agencies
(that is, the absence of blank data elements); the detail of key words;
proper descriptions for all relevant columns in a dataset; and user
dataset scoring. The addition of such metrics as the project continues
to mature would provide additional indications of the project's
performance in relation to its goals and intended benefits.
With regard to Data.gov's future in light of the E-Gov Fund reduction
for fiscal year 2011, GSA officials told us that they planned to fund
the site at a level sufficient to keep it in operation.
Conclusions:
The fiscal year 2010 E-Gov Fund appropriation supported 16 projects
aiming to improve IT and promote innovation, collaboration, public
participation, and transparency. Four selected key projects have made
varying progress toward their goals, and all have begun to define
metrics to measure success, with less mature projects defining fewer
and more basic metrics, and the more mature adding metrics over time.
These projects could potentially lead to benefits including cost
savings and efficiency, customer service transparency, and
governmentwide collaboration and information sharing.
Currently, because of reduced funding, two of the projects supported by
the fund have been terminated. For those that continue, defining
performance metrics and aligning the metrics with project goals would
help ensure that managers and stakeholders can assess project results
and provide credible evidence of progress, which is particularly
important in a resource-constrained environment.
Recommendation:
We are recommending that for any E-Gov Fund projects that continue to
be supported, the Administrator of the General Services Administration
ensure that performance metrics are developed that align with project
goals, especially those that currently lack such metrics.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this briefing for review and comment to OMB,
GSA, and the Departments of the Treasury and Commerce.
* OMB provided technical comments on the draft orally, which we
incorporated into the draft as appropriate, but it had no comment
otherwise.
* In written comments, the GSA Administrator stated that the agency
concurred with our recommendation. GSA also provided technical comments
orally and in writing, which we incorporated into the draft as
appropriate.
* The Departments of Commerce and the Treasury had no comment.
Attachment 1: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were to (1) identify and describe the projects supported
by the Electronic Government (E-Gov) Fund, including the distribution
of the funds appropriated in fiscal year 2010 among the projects, as
well as their expected benefits, and (2) for selected projects,
identify project progress against goals.
To identify and describe the E-Gov Fund projects, we reviewed vision
statements, business cases, project plans and schedules, and other
relevant project documentation from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), the General Services Administration (GSA), the Department of the
Treasury, and the Department of Commerce's National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST). To describe the distribution of the E-
Gov Fund appropriation for fiscal year 2010 among the projects, we
reviewed GSA's expenditure plans and updates, agency program management
briefings, and other relevant funding documentation. To describe
expected benefits, we reviewed vision statements, business cases,
project plans and schedules and other agency project documentation.
Additionally, we reviewed information gathered from interviews with
cognizant agency officials.
To determine our selection for identifying project progress against
goals, we made a nonprobability sample of four projects supported by
the FY 2010 E-Gov Fund--Data.gov, FedSpace, Citizen Services Dashboard,
and FedRAMP.[Footnote 81] We selected these projects because they
represent the four highest funded projects under the FY 2010 E-Gov Fund
appropriation, except that we excluded a project that had already been
reviewed by GAO--USAspending.gov.[Footnote 82] The four projects in our
nonprobability sample accounted for approximately 44 percent (or about
$15 million) of the $34 million appropriated in fiscal year 2010 for
the E-Gov Fund. To identify the goals of the selected projects, we
reviewed information gathered from agency documentation and interviews
with cognizant agency officials; we confirmed the identified goals with
these officials. To identify project progress against goals, we
obtained and analyzed agency documentation and interviewed program
officials. Specifically, we compared the project goals with the
reported status of efforts to achieve the goals, corroborating
officials' statements about progress through analyses of available
documentation including management review briefings, performance
reports, Web site screen shots, and observations of the functionality
of Web sites, both directly and through demonstrations.
We also reviewed agency documentation for the selected projects,
including capital asset plans and business case summaries ("OMB Exhibit
300's") to determine whether the project's performance metrics measure
the extent to which the identified goals are being met.
To assess the reliability of project funding and schedule data, we
compared them with other available supporting documents to determine
data consistency and reasonableness. In addition, we talked with agency
officials about data quality control procedures and to corroborate that
key dates and milestones were completed. From these efforts, we believe
the information we obtained is sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
We conducted our initial performance audit from April 2010 through May
2011. In accordance with your request, following our May 2011 briefing,
we conducted additional audit work; specifically, we reviewed OMB's
announcement of the termination of two projects and consulted cognizant
GSA officials in order to update the initial briefing. We conducted
this work from June through September 2011. All audit work was
conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
GAO on the Web:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/].
Contact:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, Public Affairs, youngc1@gao.gov (202)
512-4800, U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room
7149, Washington, D.C. 20548:
Copyright:
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. The published product may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission
from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or
other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary
if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the General Services Administration:
GSA Administrator:
U.S. General Services Administration:
1235 First Street, NE:
Washington, DC 213417:
September 71, 2011:
The Honorable Gene L. Dodaro:
Comptroller General of the United States:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Dodaro:
The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) appreciates the
opportunity to review and comment on the draft report entitled
"Electronic Government: Performance Measures for Projects Aimed at
Promoting Innovation and Transparency Can be Improved" (GAO 11-775).
The U.S Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommends that GSA
ensure that performance metrics that align with all project goals be
developed for ongoing E-Gov projects.
We concur with the recommendation. The E-Gov Fund initiatives are fast
moving and leading edge that, at times, provide challenges in
establishing what can be measured at various project phases. GSA will
work to ensure alignment between the goals and performance measures
for the initiatives that currently lack such measures.
A specific comment that clarifies statements in the draft report is
enclosed. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me. Staff inquiries may be directed to Mr. Keith Thurston,
Assistant Associate Administrator for E-Govemment. Mr. Thurston can be
reached at (202) 501-0705.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Martha Johnson:
Administrator:
Enclosure:
cc: Ms. Valerie C. Melvin:
Director:
Information Management and Human Capital Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Valerie C. Melvin at (202) 512-6304 or melvinv@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, key contributions were made
to this report by Mark Bird (Assistant Director), Barbara Collier,
Kelly Dodson, Teresa M. Neven, Lee A. McCracken, Dana Pon, Bradley
Roach, Matthew Snyder, and Daniel Swartz.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. 107-347 (Dec. 17, 2002).
[2] Pub. L. 107-347, sec. 101(a); 44 U.S.C. § 3604.
[3] This includes transferring funds to agencies that are responsible
for allocating funds for the project.
[4] These funds are "no-year" funds; that is, funds that remain
available for an indefinite period of time.
[5] In this report, distribution is used to refer to both the transfer
of funds to another agency's account and the allocation of funds
within an agency.
[6] The investment area also supported innovative aspects of one
project, the Data.gov website; the site's basic functions were
supported by another of the six investment areas. For simplicity, we
treat Data.gov as one project categorized under the investment area
related to accessible government information.
[7] These projects include Citizen Engagement Platform, Citizen
Challenge Platform, Citizen Services Dashboard, USAspending.gov and
dashboards, FedSpace, and Data.gov.
[8] OMB has directed agencies to define and select meaningful outcome-
based performance metrics that measure the intended result of carrying
out a program or activity. We have also reported that aligning
performance metrics with goals can help to measure progress toward
those goals, emphasizing the quality of the services an agency
provides or the resulting benefits to users. Industry experts describe
performance measures as necessary for management and planning and for
monitoring the performance of a project against plans and
stakeholders' needs.
[9] Defined as "a web of data that can be processed directly and
indirectly by machines," the Semantic Web involves the use of machine-
readable metadata that reflect the semantics, or meaning, of
information on the web, increasing the potential usefulness of the
data.
[10] Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2011, Pub. L. 112-10 (Apr. 15, 2011).
[11] Pub. L. 107-347 (Dec. 17, 2002).
[12] Pub. L. 107-347, sec. 101(a); 44 U.S.C. § 3604.
[13] This includes transferring funds to agencies that are responsible
for allocating funds for the project.
[14] Cloud computing relies on Internet-based services and resources to
provide computing services to customers.
[15] In this briefing, distribution is used to refer to both the
transfer of funds to another agency's account and allocation of funds
within an agency.
[16] It also supported innovative aspects of one of the projects, the
Data.gov Web site: the site's basic functions were supported by another
of the six investment areas; for simplicity, we treat Data.gov as one
project.
[17] Web 2.0 refers to a second generation of the World Wide Web as an
enabling platform for communities of interest, collaboration, and
interactive services. Technologies include Web logs ("blogs"), which
allow users to respond online to postings; social-networking sites
(such as Facebook and Twitter), which can facilitate informal sharing
of information among organizations and individuals; and "wikis," which
allow individual users to directly collaborate on the content of Web
pages.
[18] Defined as "a web of data that can be processed directly and
indirectly by machines," the Semantic Web involves the use of machine-
readable metadata that reflect the semantics, or meaning, of
information on the Web, increasing the potential usefulness of the
data.
[19] Pub. L. No. 107-347 (Dec. 17, 2002).
[20] OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States
Government, Fiscal Year 2010. The Analytical Perspectives is one of
several documents that support the President's annual budget request to
Congress.
[21] Presidential memorandum, Transparency and Open Government (Jan.
21, 2009).
[22] OMB Memorandum, M-10-06, Open Government Directive (Dec. 8, 2009).
[23] The directive defines an open format as one that is platform
independent, machine readable, and made available to the public without
restrictions that would impede its re-use.
[24] Virtualization allows multiple, software-based "virtual"
machines, which may have different operating systems, to run in
isolation, side-by-side, on the same physical machine. Virtual machines
can be stored as files, making it possible to save a virtual machine
and move it from one physical server to another.
[25] The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has
developed a draft special publication to define cloud computing: NIST,
The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing (Draft), Recommendations of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Special Publication
800-145 (Draft) (Gaithersburg, Md., January 2011).
[26] GAO, Information Security: Federal Guidance Needed to Address
Control Issues with Implementing Cloud Computing, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-513] (Washington, D.C.: May 27,
2010).
[27] This process would address authorizing operation of a system,
including the development and implementation of risk assessments and
security controls. The assessment and authorization process is
described in NIST's SP 800-37, Guide for Applying the Risk Management
Framework to Federal Information Systems, revision 1. This process
replaces the certification and accreditation process described in the
previous version, entitled Guide for the Certification and
Accreditation of Federal Information Systems.
[28] NIST, Guidelines on Security and Privacy in Public Cloud
Computing, Draft Special Publication 800-144 (January 2011); Vivek
Kundra, U.S. CIO, Federal Cloud Computing Strategy (Feb. 8, 2011).
[29] In fiscal year 2008, $3 million was appropriated for the E-Gov
Fund; in fiscal year 2009, no money was appropriated for the fund.
[30] House Committee Report 111-202, Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations bill, 2010 (July 10, 2009); see also, Pub. L.
111-117, 123 Stat. 3190, and Conference Report 111-366 (Dec. 8, 2009).
[31] USAspending.gov is a free, publicly accessible Web site,
containing data on federal awards (e.g., contracts, loans, and grants),
as required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act
of 2006.
[32] The IT Dashboard, itdashboard.gov, displays information on federal
IT investments.
[33] Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act,
2011, Pub. L. 112-10 (Apr. 15, 2011).
[34] Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government
Information, Federal Services, and International Security (under Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs), April 12,
2011.
[35] Subtotals are provided for those investment areas having multiple
projects; see table 1 for planned funding per investment area.
[36] Treasury also supplied balance information.
[37] For ongoing projects, projected completion dates are uncertain in
light of funding uncertainties.
[38] For simplicity, we treat Data.gov as one project despite this
funding division, discussing it under investment area 5.
[39] GSA's fiscal year 2012 Capital Asset Plan and Business Case
Summary, Exhibit 300.
[40] This is the effort to develop a shared assessment and
authorization process, as mentioned in our previous work: GAO-10-513.
[41] That is, systems for which agencies have assigned a security
impact value of low or moderate for the security objectives of
confidentiality, integrity, or availability. In accordance with the
Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002, agencies must
categorize their information and information systems according to a
range of risk levels based on the sensitivity and criticality of the
federal information that these systems process, store, and transmit.
NIST, Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and
Information Systems, Federal Information Processing Standard 199
(February 2004).
[42] Although the site launched in September 2009, GSA told us that
this project began in April 2009.
[42] A blanket purchase agreement is intended to be a simplified method
of fulfilling repetitive needs for supplies and services and also
provides an opportunity to seek reduced pricing from vendors' schedule
prices.
[43] GSA officials told us that this project began in April 2009,
although the working group was not established until June 2010.
[44] [hyperlink, http://www.nist.gov/itl/cloud/sajacc.cfm]. See also
[hyperlink, http://www.collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-cloud-
computing/bin/view/CloudComputing/SAJACC].
[45] The larger Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative is being
funded from a variety of sources.
[46] GSA reported.
[47] GSA reported.
[48] Treasury reported.
[49] Treasury reported.
[50] Blogs are Web sites where regular entries are made (such as in a
journal or diary), presented in reverse chronological order.
[51] Wikis are collections of Web pages that encourage users to
contribute or directly modify content.
[52] GSA reported.
[53] OMB Memorandum M-10-11, Guidance on the Use of Challenges and
Prizes to Promote Open Government (Mar. 8, 2010).
[54] The request stated that after the OMB memorandum, more than one
provider had alerted GSA to possible no-cost solutions.
[55] On May 24, 2011, the federal CIO announced the termination of
this project owing to reduced funding.
[56] Pub. L. 109-282 (Sept. 26, 2006); 31 U.S.C. § 6101 note.
[57] GAO, Electronic Government: Implementation of the Federal Funding
Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-365] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 12,
2010).
[58] As stated in GSA's October 2010 notification to the Congress, $1.8
million in CR funding was to be used to support transparency in federal
spending data; GSA and OMB officials told us that these funds were used
for the FFATA Subaward Reporting System.
[59] See GAO, Information Technology: OMB's Dashboard Has Increased
Transparency and Oversight, but Improvements Needed, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-701] (Washington, D.C.: July 16,
2010).
[60] OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States
Government, Fiscal Year 2012.
[61] On May 24, 2011, the federal CIO announced the termination of
this project owing to reduced funding.
[62] The MAX Federal Community is used by federal agencies to share
information and collaborate, such as when agencies submit budget
information to OMB. Federal employees in the executive branch and
government contractors with a valid .gov, .mil, or .fed.us e-mail
address are eligible for MAX accounts; however, they must register to
gain access to the system.
[63] Beta testing is testing of a prerelease version of software by
selected cooperating users.
[64] Of this total, $2.5 million is from investment area 1 for
innovative functionality.
[65] GSA reported.
[66] U.S. CIO, 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal
Information Technology Management (Dec. 9, 2010).
[67] OMB, Guide to the Performance Assessment Rating Tool.
[68] GAO, NextGen Air Transportation System: FAA's Metrics Can Be Used
to Report on Status of Individual Programs, but Not of Overall NextGen
Implementation or Outcomes, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-629] (Washington, D.C.: July 27,
2010).
[69] Thomas Wettstein and Peter Kueng, "A Maturity Model for
Performance Measurement Systems," and Karen J. Richter, Ph.D.,
Institute for Defense Analyses, CMMI® for Acquisition (CMMI-ACQ)
Primer, Version 1.2.
[70] The controls, which are applicable in assessing the security
posture of low-and moderate-impact cloud systems, are based on NIST
guidance, primarily NIST Special Publication 800-53, Revision 3,
Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems and
Organizations (August 2009, including updates as of May 1, 2010).
[71] CIO Council, Proposed Security Assessment & Authorization for U.S.
Government Cloud Computing, Draft ver. 0.96 (Nov. 2, 2010).
[72] During a FedRAMP A&A of a cloud system, an official representing
the agency sponsoring the system would also be a rotating member.
[73] Although the document refers to "ATOs" (authorizations to
operate), GSA and OMB officials told us that they do not plan to
continue using this term and asked that it be changed as shown.
[74] Exec. Order No. 12862, "Setting Customer Service Standards,"
September 11, 1993; 58 Fed. Reg. 48257 (Sept. 14, 1993).
[75] GAO, Managing for Results: Opportunities to Strengthen Agencies'
Customer Service Efforts, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-44] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 27,
2010). This report described results of a survey we performed of
selected services.
[76] OMB is the executive sponsor of the dashboard and GSA funds the
project through the E-Gov Fund.
[77] GSA reported that the performance metric "Agency participation in
the Directory Service by 12.5% of the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act
Agencies" was not met in fiscal year 2011.
[78] An API is a set of instructions and standards that provides a way
for software programs to interact with each other. An API is generally
developed by the programmer providing software so that other
programmers can make their own software or Web site more powerful by
integrating several programs together.
[79] The exception is the goal regarding best practices, for which no
metric has yet been set.
[80] Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make
inferences about a population because in a nonprobability sample some
elements of the population being studied have no chance or an unknown
chance of being selected as part of the sample.
[81] GAO, Electronic Government: Implementation of the Federal Funding
Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-365] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 12,
2010).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: