Hearing Committee on Government Reform - Omb Management Watch List: $65 Billion Reasons to Ensure the Federal Government is Effectively Managing...
HEARING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM - OMB MANAGEMENT WATCH LIST: $65 BILLION REASONS TO ENSURE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS EFFECTIVELY MANAGING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS
April 21, 2005
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. Watson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure that I heard clearly or that I was able to decipher the response when asked what is needed to be able to do the management watch that is necessary. And I also want to know how long is the evaluation after you put a particular project on the watch list, how long do you followup? Is there a long-range follow through? I was trying to read through our information to see if it stated what that period of time would be, but maybe you can respond. And this question is to Ms. Evans.
Ms. Evans. Sure. We would followup, depending on what the problem is that we would identify within an agency, through the life cycle. So if an investment is going to go 3 to 5 years, we continuously work with the agency through that period. So it would depend on what you identify as the issue.
Say, for example, if everything in the agency we failed a business case because they had bad cyber security, they just did not have a good cyber security plan, that is something that this committee measures as well, and say the agency had an F on the cyber security from your scorecard, we would continue to work on the issue of cyber security within that agency and then work with them then to see how and ensure that what they are putting in their program then cascades down through the management practices they have for projects. So if they say that they are doing something in the security area, you followup to make sure that it is actually followed through in the actual projects as they execute out multiple projects within the agency.
So it would depend on what the problem is. But we continuously followup. When we talk about the management watch list specifically as we look at these numbers, 342, 621, we try to address what is the over-arching problem there--is it a leadership problem, is it a risk management problem, is it a cyber security problem--and then work at that high level and then work with the agency to have processes in place so that it will perpetuate throughout the organization so that they can move forward on that.
I do not know if that is getting to all the issues, but it is always ongoing. We do not just say, OK, this one is good to go and then walk away from that. We continuously work with the agency on the problems that we would identify.
Ms. Watson. Thank you. I heard you respond that you thought you had the resources to do this long-term. The way you explain it, it would take various units depending on where the problem really resides. Do you have the personnel, do you have the resources to do that kind of in-depth followup?
Ms. Evans. And the short answer again is, yes. Because part of what we do is we work with the agency, we identify areas, we offer suggestions and recommendations, but the hard work of remediating the problems and ensuring things are done at the agencies. The agencies are the ones who have to change their management practices, the agencies are the ones who have to take the corrective action, and then we work with them. The hard work is actually fixing the problem and that is where the resources are needed, and that is with the agencies.
Ms. Watson. So many of these agencies seem to be short-changed in recent budgets. So that is where my interest is, do we have the resources? Thank you very much. I appreciate your response.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_house_hearings&docid=20953.wais