Executive Guide: Improving Mission Performance Through Strategic
Information Management and Technology (Other Written Prod., 05/01/94,
GAO/AIMD-94-115).

Making government more effective and efficient is a national issue.
Today's information systems offer the government unprecedented
opportunities to provide higher quality services tailored to the
public's changing needs. Unfortunately, federal agencies have not kept
pace with evolving management practices and skills necessary to (1)
precisely define critical information needs and (2) select, apply, and
control changing information technologies. The result, in many cases,
has been wasted resources, a frustrated public unable to get quality
service, and a government ill-prepared to measure and manage its affairs
in an acceptable, businesslike manner. Despite spending more than $200
billion on information management and systems during the last 12 years,
the government has too little evidence of meaningful returns. The
consequences--poor service, high costs, low productivity, unnecessary
risks, and unexploited opportunities for improvement--cannot continue.
This report focuses on what agencies can do now to improve performance
by using new approaches to managing information and their related
technologies. It summarizes 11 fundamental practices that improved
performance in leading private and public organizations. GAO's case
studies of these organizations shows that these practices make it
possible to do far more with less.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  AIMD-94-115
     TITLE:  Executive Guide: Improving Mission Performance Through 
             Strategic Information Management and Technology
      DATE:  05/01/94
   SUBJECT:  Management information systems
             Federal agency reorganization
             ADP
             Information processing operations
             Productivity
             Information resources management
             Information systems
             Strategic information systems planning
             Agency missions
             Systems evaluation
IDENTIFIER:  National Performance Review
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Reort.                                                   **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************

GAO

May 1994

Executive Guide

Improving Mission
Performance Through
Strategic Information
Management and
Technology


Learning from Leading
Organizations


GAO/AIMD-94-115


"Our information technologies and our knowledge economy give us the 
opportunity to do things we never dreamed possible 50 years ago.  But 
to seize this opportunity, we must pick up the wreckage of our 
industrial era institutions and rebuild."



          David Osborne and Ted Gaebler, Reinventing Government (New 
          York:  Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1992)

                              Preface

Making government more effective and efficient is a national issue.  
But getting it to work better and cost less will be impossible if 
federal agencies cannot learn to manage with modern practices the 
information age demands.  Today's information systems offer the 
government unprecedented opportunities to provide higher quality 
services tailored to the public's changing needs, delivered more 
effectively, faster, and at lower cost.  Moreover, they can enhance 
the quality and accessibility of important knowledge and information, 
both for the public and for federal managers.

Unfortunately, federal agencies have not kept pace with evolving 
management practices and skills necessary to (1) precisely define 
critical information needs, and (2) select, apply, and control 
changing information technologies.  The result, in many cases, has 
been wasted resources, a frustrated public unable to get quality 
service, and a government ill-prepared to measure and manage its 
affairs in an acceptable, businesslike manner.  Despite spending more 
than $200 billion on information management and systems in the last 12 
years, the government has too little evidence of meaningful returns.  
The consequences--poor service quality, high costs, low productivity, 
unnecessary risks, and unexploited opportunities for 
improvement--cannot continue in today's environment.  

Solutions to this problem are not simple.  However, several critical 
elements necessary to bring about management change are already in 
place or are being considered--from the Chief Financial Officers Act 
(to reinforce financial accountability), to the Government Performance 
and Results Act (to emphasize results-oriented management), to the 
National Performance Review (a variety of initiatives to modernize 
federal operations), to the Paperwork Reduction Act (to improve 
federal information management).  Additional legislative and 
regulatory changes may well be required.  Yet, federal executives need 
not wait to take aggressive actions to improve how they manage 
information to affect performance.

Fortunately, solutions to seemingly intractable, complex information 
management problems do exist.  This report focuses on what agencies 
can do now to improve performance by using new approaches to managing 
information and their related technologies.  It is the first step of 
many toward defining what federal executives must do to modernize 
their operations.  It summarizes 11 fundamental practices that led to 
performance improvements, both short- and long-term, in leading 
private and public organizations.  Our case studies of these 
organizations provide evidence that these practices make it possible 
to do far more with less--including significant service quality 
improvements, cost savings, and productivity gains.  The issue before 
federal executives and policymakers, then, is not whether to change 
federal information management practices, but exactly what to change 
and how to do it.





Charles A. Bowsher
Comptroller General of the United States

Contents


______________________________________________________________________
The Federal Information Management Problem                      7

______________________________________________________________________
Business as Usual Is Not Enough for the
Federal Government to Succeed                                   8

______________________________________________________________________
Learning From Leading Organizations                             8

______________________________________________________________________
Strategic Information Management:
Fundamental Practices                                          10

   Decide to Change                                            13
   Direct Change                                               21
   Support Change                                              33

______________________________________________________________________
Results That Can Occur by Implementing
the Fundamental Practices                                      40

______________________________________________________________________
Getting Started:  Recommended Actions
for Senior Executives                                          42

______________________________________________________________________
Research Objectives, Scope, and Methodology                    43

______________________________________________________________________
Major Contributors to This Report                              45

Project Advisers                                               46

The Federal Information Management Problem

Within the past decade, the public has grown accustomed to the 
benefits of using information technology to improve the cost, quality, 
and timeliness of product and service delivery.  Americans now expect 
to solve a problem with one telephone call, obtain customer service 24 
hours a day, withdraw cash from automated teller machines around the 
country, and get products delivered almost anywhere overnight.  
Consequently, at a time when almost anyone can get eyeglasses in about 
an hour, veterans cannot fathom why they must wait 6 weeks to obtain 
them.  Similarly, the general public cannot understand why it takes 
weeks, instead of days, to process an income tax refund or months to 
determine eligibility for social security disability benefits.

Federal agencies spent at least $25 billion on information systems[1] 
in 1993, and more than $200 billion over the last 12 years.  Despite 
this huge expenditure, it is unclear what the public has received for 
its money.  At the same time, critical information assets are 
frequently inaccurate, inaccessible, or nonexistent.  Efforts across 
the government to improve mission performance and reduce costs are 
still too often limited by the lack of information or the poor use of 
information technology.

There is a striking resemblance between the problems currently 
experienced in the federal government and those initially faced by the 
leading organizations we studied.  Yet, while leaders have emerged in 
the private sector and the states, few federal agencies have learned 
how to manage information and information technology to achieve 
consistent results.  Our transition reports in 1988 and 1992 
underscored how agencies lack critical information needed to analyze 
programmatic issues, control costs, and measure results.[2]  In our 
reports to Congress in the last 10 years, we have documented numerous 
examples of federal systems failures, such as

-  the outlay of millions of dollars of unauthorized student loans 
   because of poor information tracking, 

-  over $1 billion of mistaken Medicare payments, 

-  the release of highly sensitive computer data on informants for 
   federal law enforcement agencies through mismanagement of security, 
   and


-  inadequate financial data on agencies' basic operations that makes 
   responsible financial management and auditing using accepted 
   accounting standards extremely difficult.

Business as Usual Is Not Enough for the
Federal Government to Succeed

Given both the risks of the status quo and the potential for 
improvement, business as usual is simply no longer a tenable option 
for federal executives.  The administration's dramatic goals, ranging 
from setting customer service standards for all federal agencies to 
making targeted improvements in major areas, cannot be achieved 
without successful information management.  For example, improvements 
from reengineering with the aid of information technology account for 
over 40 percent of the estimated savings projected by the National 
Performance Review over the next 5 years.

Strategic information management (i.e., managing information and 
information technology to maximize improvements in mission 
performance) will also be a crucial initiative for all federal 
agencies as they move to implement the Government Performance and 
Results Act, which is focused on results-oriented management.  With 
it, improved management information and restructured work processes 
can gradually reduce costs and increase service levels.  Without it, 
many agencies will find their efforts to move to results-oriented 
management hindered by their inability to develop vital data and 
useful information systems that support performance measurement and 
substantive mission improvements.  

Without action by federal executives, the gap between public 
expectations and agency performance will continue to expand.  Program 
risks will continue and unique opportunities for improvement will 
remain unexploited.  Many low-value, high-risk information systems 
projects will continue to be developed unimpeded and undermanaged as 
leaders blindly respond to crises by purchasing more technology.  Most 
federal managers will continue to operate without the financial and 
management information they need to truly improve mission performance.  
Moreover, many federal employees will struggle unsuccessfully, under 
increasing workloads, to do their jobs better as they are hampered 
with information systems that simply add on another automated layer of 
bureaucracy.  Given these risks, sustained Congressional attention is 
vital to reinforce the link between accountability for returns on 
information-related investments and the satisfaction of real public 
needs.  

Learning From Leading Organizations

Rather than continuing to analyze the causes of failure, we decided to 
learn how leading organizations, private or public, consistently apply 
information technology to improve mission performance.  We performed 
case studies of the information management practices of senior 
management teams in 10 leading organizations.  The five private sector 
and five state government organizations we examined have been 
recognized by peers and independent researchers for their progress in 
managing information to improve service quality, reduce costs, and 
increase workforce productivity and effectiveness.  In addition, we 
selectively chose nine federal agencies to assess the applicability of 
outside practices and to improve our understanding of how federal 
organizations compare against private and state organizations.



         Leading Organization Case Studies

   Private sector                State government

   American Airlines             California
   Kodak                         Florida
   Royal Bank of Canada          Minnesota
   United Services Automobile Association (USAA)Oregon
   Xerox                         Texas

                         
          Federal Government Case Studies

     Army Corps of Engineers  Veterans Affairs
     Coast Guard              Commerce
     Environmental Protection AgencyFederal Trade Commission
     Housing and Urban DevelopmentSocial Security Administration
     Soil Conservation Service






















Data were collected through interviews and documentary analysis, not 
direct observation.  We consulted with experts in the information 
technology field and federal senior information management 
professionals.  To ensure the quality of our case study methods, we 
used a  consultant with expertise in researching public sector 
information management issues and experienced with case study 
methodologies.  We also gave over 60 briefings to federal agency 
management teams--including officials from the Office of Management 
and Budget and the General Services Administration--to discuss the 
applicability of our results to the federal environment.  (A more 
detailed description of our scope and methodology can be found at the 
end of the report.)  

The senior leadership of the successful organizations we studied took 
information 
management very seriously.  Increasingly asked to do more with less, 
they have learned to focus carefully on the stream of dollars invested 
in information technology and critical information resources and 
knowledge assets.  New ways of managing information and information 
technology have become either a critical path or a stumbling block to 
nearly every significant level of performance improvement.  When 
applied well, information technology can yield dramatic successes.  
This is well known.  Frequently underestimated, however, is the fact 
that when neglected, it can produce painful failures and actually 
inhibit improvement efforts.  Three factors stood out in our 
conversations with leading executives about the importance of 
strategic information management:

-  Size and neglect:  Information technology and information assets 
   are typically  substantial, poorly understood, and under-controlled 
   areas of capital investment and expenditure that are growing, not 
   shrinking.

-  Risk:  Large, complex information systems projects have an 
   inherently high risk of failure, delay, or overspending.

-  Benefits and leverage:  In most organizations, information and 
   information technology influences the quality, cost, and speed of 
   nearly every major function and the decision- making, productivity, 
   and even morale of employees.  

Among other factors, strategic information management makes a 
difference by

-  enhancing decision-making at all levels by providing better 
   quality, more relevant, and more timely data and information, 
   delivered to the right people at the right time;

-  driving the simplification and automation of processes, tasks, and 
   transactions to increase speed, lower costs, and improve 
   productivity and quality; and

-  improving the integration of employees and customers by connecting 
   them in new ways over large geographic areas and organizational 
   boundaries.


Strategic Information Management:
Fundamental Practices

Strategic information management is one critical, integrated part of 
any general management framework.  Similar to the way modern 
organizations have gradually become dependent on information 
technologies, it has become an indispensable lens through which to 
view most vital general management decisions.  Strategic information 
management typically involves defining a mission based on customer 
segments and needs; establishing core processes that accomplish the 
mission; understanding the key decisions that guide mission delivery 
processes; supporting those decisions with the right information 
available to the right people at the right time; and using technology 
to collect, process, and disseminate information in ways that improve 
the delivery of products, goods, and services to customers.  The 
following diagram illustrates critical issues senior executives are 
faced with in each of these areas.





Strategic Information Management Issues







We found that senior managers in leading organizations used a 
consistent set of practices to improve mission performance through 
strategic information management.  Each organization applied them in 
different management contexts.  However, our analysis suggests a 
strong association between their consistent, effective use and 
successful performance outcomes.

The practices worked because, over time, they institutionalized new 
ways of doing business that are required to capture the value of 
information and information technology.  They are also most effective 
when implemented together as mutually reinforcing activities, rather 
than as ad hoc efforts.  

We have grouped the fundamental practices according to three key 
functions critical to building a modern information management 
infrastructure:  (1) deciding to work differently, (2) directing 
resources toward high-value uses, and (3) supporting improvement with 
the right skills, roles, and responsibilities.  Beginning on page 13, 
we briefly discuss the 11 practices within the confines of these 
functions. In addition, we present examples from our case studies that 
best illustrate how an organization selectively used the practices to 
achieve meaningful results that were in many cases quantifiable.  We 
also suggest some initial actions for federal executives to consider 
in applying the practices to their organization.
   







"To start managing our information and information technology 
differently, we had to make a complete transformation . . . that 
started with a consensus that there was a problem and that both the 
business and the information management side were part of it."

                  -- a Chief Information Officer


Decide to Change: Initiate, mandate, and facilitate major changes in 
                  information management to improve performance
Many federal agencies have an approach to information management 
characterized by (1) a short-term focus that emphasizes the status 
quo, (2) line management that is not engaged in, accountable for, or 
knowledgeable of information management issues, and (3) a largely 
paper- oriented planning process that is tied to existing ways of 
doing business.

In contrast, senior management in the leading organizations we studied 
made a personal commitment to improve by (1) recognizing the need to 
fundamentally change information management, (2) creating line 
management ownership to incorporate information management into 
business planning, and (3) taking specific actions to maintain 
momentum over time.  Such action resulted in a serious, motivated, 
sustainable improvement effort that had a wide impact throughout the 
entire organization.





   Decide to Change

1   Recognize and communicate the urgency to change information 
    management practices

2   Get line management involved and create ownership

3   Take action and maintain momentum





                           Direct Change
                      
                      4 Anchor strategic planning in customer needs 
                        and mission goals
                      
                      5 Measure the performance of key mission 
                        delivery processes
                      
                      6 Focus on process improvement in the context of 
                        an architecture
                      
                      7 Manage information systems projects as 
                        investments
                      
                      8 Integrate the planning,  budgeting, and 
                        evaluation processes   Support Change
                                            
                                            9   Establish 
                                                customer/supplier 
                                                relationships between 
                                                line  and information 
                                                management 
                                                professionals
                                            
                                            10  Position a Chief 
                                                Information Officer as 
                                                a senior management 
                                                partner
                                            
                                            11  Upgrade skills and 
                                                knowledge of line and 
                                                information management 
                                                professionals


Practice 1    Recognize and communicate the urgency to change 
              information management practices

"When I arrived here, I couldn't believe anyone could responsibly run 
a multibillion dollar operation with such poor management 
information."  --  Head of a state agency


Specific Attributes

x    Assess mission performance and the contribution made by 
     information and technology assets

x    Clearly understand how information management is critical to 
     solving performance problems and exploiting opportunities

x    Communicate specific mission-related performance problems and 
     make the business case for changing the current information 
     management approach
Without senior executives recognizing the value of improving 
information management, meaningful change is slow and sometimes nearly 
impossible.  Significantly increasing the rate of change requires new 
techniques, new processes, and new ways of doing business.  Given the 
competing demands on senior managers, building a sustainable level of 
commitment to and involvement in a process improvement program 
requires a thorough understanding and recognition of information 
technology's critical role.

In recognizing and communicating the need to improve, successful 
organizations assess specific mission-related performance problems; 
clarify the linkage to information management; and emphasize the need 
for a priority solution that integrates mission and information 
technology decision-making organizationwide. Almost universally, they 
also aggressively study, or benchmark themselves against, other 
leading organizations both to challenge accepted habits and to set 
appropriate targets for change. 

Senior executives usually decide to change for one reason--strong 
pressure to cut costs or increase service quality. As such, they are 
forced to assess ways of achieving cost reductions or service 
improvements, including improving mission benefits captured from 
information systems investments.  Many find their information systems 
are both a large, uncontrolled area of expenditure and a neglected 
tool.  Once the decision to change this situation is made, top 
management typically communicates goals for improvement with a clear, 
concise vision or principle statement that describes how information 
technology will be used to improve mission performance.



Case Study: Recognizing the Need to Improve and Exercising Leadership
            to Make It Happen

Driven by budget constraints and public demands to stop ignoring a 
several hundred-million dollar information technology (IT) budget, one 
chief executive took strong action to scrutinize information 
management operations.   By doing so, the executive showed how 
critical information technology improvements were to solving 
performance problems.   He also consistently communicated to the 
senior management team that business as usual would not suffice.  
These actions (1) illustrated the severity of the problems facing the 
organization, (2) emphasized a visible, fact-based case for 
information management's role in improving mission performance, and 
(3) modeled the behavior expected of senior managers in getting to the 
root causes of problems in their respective areas of responsibility.
 
In 1989 line managers in a large private sector company increasingly 
complained that new software applications did not meet their needs, 
were delivered late, did not work as intended, or cost much more than 
they expected.  These problems kept them from effectively developing 
new lower cost products for a highly competitive, but evolving 
marketplace.  

The division president, recognizing the impact of these problems, took 
several steps to more precisely define and address the issues.  First, 
the division conducted an extensive internal analysis of its 
performance problems and the role of information management.  The 
results were revealing--less than a small fraction of the expected 
benefits used to justify information systems projects were actually 
being realized.  Moreover, line managers clearly viewed these problems 
as the sole responsibility of the IT shop.  Second, the division used 
an outside consulting group to conduct an independent analysis of the 
information management organization and benchmark its performance 
against counterparts in comparable organizations.  Again, the facts 
were overpowering--compared to an industry standard, the division took 
twice as long and consumed four times the resources to build, test, 
and deliver information systems.  Third, to develop and implement 
corrective actions, the division president, working with the Chief 
Information Officer, fostered partnerships between line managers and 
the information management professionals that focused on building 
information systems with measurable mission benefits.  

By the end of 1992, the division saw a marked improvement in 
measurable returns from its information system investments.  These 
returns rose from $2 million to $20 million per year, while 
applications development savings and productivity improvements 
increased steadily ($5 million in the first year), and more flexible, 
effective use of staff resources was possible (some 100 people moved 
from maintaining existing computer applications to strategic, 
reengineering development and support). 

How to Get Started

To assess and make the business case for change, senior executives 
should

  - initiate a thorough review of (1) current performance, (2) 
    information systems spending, (3) projected versus realized 
    results, and (4) major information management problems; and
 
  - benchmark information management practices against leading 
    organizations--preferably chosen according to objective data or 
    recognized criteria.
Practice 2    Get line management involved and create ownership

"Without top management commitment, you might as well not start." -- 
Program official



Specific Attributes

x     Hold line management accountable for the mission impact of 
      information management 

x     Get line managers meaningfully involved in critical information 
      management decisions

Line ownership and accountability starts with the chief executive.  In 
every one of the successful organizations we studied, chief executives 
played a strong leadership role in strategic information management. 
Once the need to change is established, executives soon realize that 
getting line managers to work differently means putting them in charge 
of the change process.  Consequently, they move to set clear 
expectations and reinforce responsibility for information management 
decisions and results with line executives who deal directly with the 
customer.  Where mission goals require work process innovation and 
information systems that cut across program or functional lines, 
accountability must also be aligned with the decision-making authority 
necessary to raise issues above existing stovepipes.
  
Increasing line executives' accountability and involvement works 
because it immediately focuses information management decision-making 
and systems development activities on measurable mission outcomes of 
strategic importance.  In successful organizations, such a focus 
ensures more realistic benefits projections, greater attention to 
improving performance, and more extensive and intensive line actions 
to realize benefits throughout the life of a project.  Without such 
accountability, it is too easy for the line organization to delegate 
decision-making irresponsibly, accept project delays, or fail to 
discern the loss of projected benefits. 

Because the term of office of political appointees is limited, they 
should work with a committed cadre of senior executives to provide 
management continuity and agency ownership of major information 
management and technology projects.  A good example is IRS' tax system 
modernization strategic plan which is now being initiated.  It was 
developed over the years by IRS commissioners working closely with the 
top career executives, and will take years to implement.  



Case Study: Putting Line Management in Charge Creates Necessary 
            Ownership

Creating line management ownership for driving information management 
decisions and project implementation stops the "pushing a string" 
problem that results from information technology  departments trying 
too hard to run the business.  In one organization, line managers, who 
could best judge customer needs, took a direct role in defining 
product characteristics, process design specifications, and 
information system requirements.  As such, every stage of system 
construction focused on the goals of decreasing costs, improving 
service levels, and increasing customer responsiveness. 

In the early 1980s, a private sector organization was confronted with 
information systems that could not keep pace with business growth.  
The only way to change the existing cumbersome processes--responsible 
for long customer waits and unacceptable error and rework rates--was 
to improve the ability to rapidly process and move large amounts of 
information.  Although the CEO fully recognized the central importance 
of information management, the difficulty was that the company's IT 
unit was unable to work with the business units.  IT managers usually 
gave senior line managers excuses why certain solutions could or 
should not be developed based on cost and existing capabilities.

This frustrating situation forced a fragmentation of information 
systems development efforts throughout the organization.  Everyone 
built their own systems because they could not agree on what should be 
built together.  To break the deadlock, the CEO gave a senior line 
official responsibility for a major officewide information systems 
project to develop a "paperless" process.  While knowing nothing about 
information systems, the line official ensured that divisions drove 
all the major project decisions.  He forced these divisions to justify 
individual projects on net benefits.  Information management 
professionals were made responsible for supporting implementation of 
this critical effort by functioning as investment counselors and 
product/service providers.  Moreover, throughout the project life 
cycle, corporate leadership reinforced the new line ownership and 
facilitated the process of ironing out the wrinkles in the new way of 
doing business.    

When the systems and new processes went on-line, the pay-off sunk in.  
A customer process that used to involve 55 people and 55 procedural 
steps was reduced to one person, one phone call, and one step.  
Improved information management reduced data redundancies, improved 
communications so that staff  throughout the organization could be 
reorganized around the new process, sped the delivery of data and 
information to both internal and external customers, and increased 
data quality.  For example, documentation on new service contracts 
sent out to customers went from 14 days down to 3 days.
How to Get Started

To increase line management accountability for the mission impact of 
information management decisions, senior executives should

  - establish an organizationwide information management steering 
    committee chaired by the chief executive and led by senior line 
    management, and

  - identify executive-level sponsors for each major information 
    systems project.
Practice 3    Take action and maintain momentum

"The single-most important thing we did was fully educate our line 
managers about where information technology could add value in their 
operations." -- a Chief Information Officer



Specific Attributes

x     Act short term:  exploit or create windows of opportunity to 
      signal or reinforce an improvement initiative

x     Think long term:  clearly set direction, goals, and milestones 
      for an information management program 

x     Pick and place internal champions to shepherd day-to-day 
      improvement actions 

x     Establish incentives tied to successful resolution of 
      performance problems identified by top management

A willingness to take action and maintain momentum is the difference 
between lip service and real improvement.  Recognizing a problem and 
creating ownership are only the first steps toward action.  Because of 
the barriers that exist to improving information management, leading 
organizations give considerable attention to initiating the change 
process and ensuring that it maintains momentum.

Perhaps the most important starting point is educating line 
management.  Unless all line executives begin to understand how 
information management can make a difference in their performance, 
only marginal change will occur.  Carefully picked and placed 
champions also create daily pressure to change by removing bottlenecks 
and resolving thorny operational issues that can easily stall an 
improvement initiative, particularly in public sector organizations.  
Finally, incentives become the tangible representation of the 
organization's level of interest in changing.  Once performance 
evaluations include information management issues, previously embedded 
behavior frequently begins to improve.  Education, champions, and 
incentives all work because they address the root causes that inhibit 
change--ignorance, lack of focus, and lack of interest.  Without 
addressing these root causes, even improvement efforts that get a good 
start tend to fade quickly. 

Agency secretaries and deputies lacking background and experience with 
information systems projects need to educate themselves about how such 
projects can and should be used as a lever to achieve performance 
improvement.  Only with such an education are they likely to make 
information management a key part of their strategic business plans 
and recognize the importance of identifying and encouraging department 
and program champions to help them succeed.  They are also more likely 
to monitor and stay involved in the projects, which in turn helps key 
agency personnel know that the projects are top priority and that they 
will be suitably recognized and rewarded for their contribution to 
success.



Case Study: Taking Action by Educating Line Management on the Mission 
            Value
            of Information Technology

In this case study, investments in line management education moved 
managers from a posture of discomfort and ignorance to a new level of 
comfort and awareness about the opportunities and risks of using 
information technology.  This helped to pinpoint the most relevant 
technology issues and spurred  new relationships and a common language 
that eventually helped put the management team on a new learning 
curve.  The fate of line and information management executives was 
tightly linked by establishing incentives that were tied to successful 
resolution of performance problems. 

This organization began its information management improvement program 
by concentrating on educating line managers.  Previously, most 
managers had little understanding of what information technology was, 
how it could help or hurt them in their business, and even who to go 
to for help and assistance in developing information systems 
solutions.  It was relatively easy for simple projects with a "back 
office" orientation to get off the ground as compared to 
mission-critical projects because it was much harder for line 
management to articulate their needs.

Senior executives were specifically picked and placed by the CIO and 
the head of human resources as internal champions to shepherd 
day-to-day improvement efforts.  The CIO and several line managers 
jointly decided that the likely cause of the organization's failure to 
use information technology effectively stemmed from poor communication 
and education among line managers and information professionals.  As a 
result, technology either did not get used or systems projects failed 
at unacceptable rates.

Management training and education was started that centered on 
integrating information management and mission functions.  Formal 
meetings and seminars were used to set the direction, goals, and 
milestones for an information management improvement program. The CEO 
and senior line managers also had 5-day seminars, off-site, to focus 
on information management training and planning.  The organization 
also initiated a program to provide senior managers with hands-on 
experience in the information management organization.  Managers were 
rotated for a set time, lasting up to several years, in order to learn 
what information management had to offer and so information 
professionals could learn from the executives' business experience.  
The result:  line managers became motivated, knowledgeable leaders in 
developing new applications of information technology to the business.  
For example, new integrated customer data files were created that gave 
field representatives important information about the relative 
profitability of key customer segments and allowed them to focus their 
energies and priorities on better meeting the needs of these groups.
How to Get Started

To initiate an improvement program and maintain its momentum, senior 
executives should

  - educate senior line management through a combination of 
    conferences, training, co-location and rotation programs at all 
    levels, and joint visits with information management professionals 
    to organizations that use technology well; and

  - identify an informed, committed opinion-leader to be a champion in 
    supporting information management improvement.








"Institutionalizing organizationwide decision-making processes and an 
architecture is the key to all of our information system development 
efforts
. . . and our primary measure of success is impact on the bottom 
line."

                  -- a Chief Information Officer

Direct Change: Establish an outcome-oriented, integrated
               strategic information management process
Once an organization has made a serious commitment to change its 
management of information and technology, it is paramount that an 
outcome-oriented, integrated strategic information management process 
be institutionalized.  Our case study analyses indicate that 
organizations that achieve substantially higher levels of performance 
(1) make external customer needs and mission goals a central driver of 
all organizational improvement efforts, (2) make serious efforts to 
objectively measure performance, (3) focus on process improvement, (4) 
tightly control information technology investments, and (5) integrate 
the planning, budgeting, and performance assessment processes.

Conversely, for most federal agencies, strategic management is a 
well-orchestrated paper chase responding to personal agendas and 
short-term crises, rather than an integrated, institutionalized 
process that focuses on producing results for the public.  Most 
agencies also live with loose, undisciplined, and opaque processes for 
selecting and controlling investments, and these investment results 
are rarely evaluated against projected benefits.  More often than not, 
information management decisions are made in response to crises, 
without first examining how to simplify and redesign embedded, complex 
mission processes.  In short, the emphasis lies on conforming to 
existing processes--which are rarely reevaluated--rather than focusing 
on results.



   Decide to Change

1   Recognize and communicate the urgency to change information 
    management practices

2   Get line management involved and create ownership

3   Take action and maintain momentum

                           Direct Change
                      
                      4   Anchor strategic planning in customer needs 
                          and mission goals
                      
                      5   Measure the performance of key mission 
                          delivery processes
                      
                      6   Focus on process improvement in the context 
                          of an architecture
                      
                      7   Manage information systems projects as 
                          investments
                      
                      8   Integrate the planning,  budgeting, and 
                          evaluation processes Support Change
                                            
                                            9   Establish 
                                                customer/supplier 
                                                relationships between 
                                                line and information 
                                                management 
                                                professionals
                                            
                                            10  Position a Chief 
                                                Information Officer as 
                                                a senior management 
                                                partner
                                            
                                            11  Upgrade skills and 
                                                knowledge of line and 
                                                information management 
                                                professionalsPractice 
                                                4Anchor strategic 
              planning in customer needs and mission goals

"Today, 69 percent of our transactions are handled by computer.  By 
doing this, we freed up the routine workload on our staff to the point 
where they have been able to provide innovative services, which have 
improved our product offerings to the customer." -- a Chief 
Information Officer


Specific Attributes

x  Match external and internal customer group needs with specific 
   products and services

x  Link customer group needs to specific mission problems and assess 
   corresponding opportunities

x  Focus strategic planning on highest priority customer needs and 
   mission goals

x  Set explicit mission goals tailoring products and services to the 
   needs of key customer groups
At the leading organizations we examined, strategic business and 
information system plans are almost always tightly linked and 
predicated on satisfying explicit, high-priority customer needs.  This 
emphasis on customer needs helps an organization understand the 
source, nature, and priority of demands on its resources.  Successful 
information systems are not only defined as the ones delivered on time 
and within budget, but as ones that also produce meaningful 
improvements in cost, quality, or timeliness of service.

Without a customer focus, an organization risks missing its real needs 
and ignoring what matters to key stakeholders.  With it, corresponding 
mission goals can be more easily developed to satisfy each demand, and 
the needs of customer groups can be prioritized and matched with 
specific products or services.  For example, all veterans' health 
benefits may not be managed the same way; elderly veterans with 
special, often high-cost, health care needs might form a specific 
customer group.  This avoids treating all customers the same way when 
they have unique subsets of needs and corresponding services.

Following a customer-driven approach, in turn, provides accurate, 
detailed descriptions of requirements and specifications, which are 
needed to drive the design and development of supporting information 
systems.  This allows the organization to set mission performance 
goals for improving service delivery or product responsiveness, costs, 
or quality--based on customer needs.  Reengineering and information 
systems projects can also be targeted and designed to improve specific 
performance areas.  In successful organizations we examined, 
management made it clear that major systems proposals that were not 
based on business plans would not be approved.





Case Study: Using Key Customer Needs to Guide Business Plans That 
            Match Up
            With Information Systems Support    

Faced with acute complaints about poor service quality and complex 
procedures, a state revenue collection agency decided to use their 
external customer--the taxpayer--as the focus for rethinking and 
redesigning its services.  This required new ways of managing 
information in which a taxpayer profile, not the tax account itself, 
became the focus of data management.  As a result, taxpayer concerns, 
questions, and special problems could be handled with a new level of 
attention and timeliness.

Taxpayer evaluations of a state revenue collection agency indicated 
dissatisfaction with the complex forms and  procedures and poor 
service offered by agency personnel.  The agency developed a prototype 
business plan revolving around two questions:  "What are we trying to 
achieve?" and "What do our customers expect of us?"  Customer focus 
groups--including individual taxpayers, small businesses, and large 
corporations--were then used to supplement the plan and reengineer the 
state's revenue collection process.  As part of this reengineering, 
information systems were redesigned to produce and maintain customer 
profiles to assist agency officials in handling questions, problems, 
and special situations for each taxpayer.

The payoff from this change in business practices and information 
system improvements became apparent during serious flooding that 
ravaged the state in 1993.  Many individuals and businesses were 
unable to pay state taxes because records had been lost or destroyed.  
Rather than aggravating the situation by penalizing individuals and 
companies for late tax fees, the agency used profile information in 
its systems to develop personalized solutions.  As a result, time and 
resources were diverted from pointless enforcement actions and 
taxpayer response was positive.  In addition, these data had a 
multiplier effect for business activities conducted by other state 
agencies.  State relief agencies could more efficiently handle relief 
functions required by flood legislation, and budget forecasters could 
better predict state revenue shortfalls for the coming year. 


How to Get Started

To begin linking information systems more closely to customer needs 
and mission goals, senior executives should

  - choose at least one major mission area to specifically define 
    customer groups and needs
    (i.e., those identified through mandated customer surveys) and 
    integrate with strategic business and information plans, and

  - choose at least one major information system initiative and 
    determine if its key requirements will meet both external and 
    internal customer needs.

Practice 5      Measure the performance of key mission delivery 
                processes

"Performance measures define the management information you need to 
make decisions and to determine what is success and failure." -- a 
Chief Information Officer


Specific Attributes

x  Focus performance measures on gauging service to key external 
   customers within individual customer groups

x  Embed performance measures in key management processes--including 
   planning, budgeting, investment selection, and performance 
   evaluation--to influence decision-making and support continuous 
   improvement

x  Use internal and external benchmarks to help assess relative 
   performance

x  Tailor performance measures to gauge the mission value of 
   information management (e.g., clearly show whether information 
   systems projects make a difference)

Successful organizations rely heavily upon performance measures to 
operationalize mission goals and objectives, quantify problems, 
evaluate alternatives, allocate resources, track progress, and learn 
from mistakes.  Performance measures also measure whether information 
systems projects are really making a difference.  Good measures define 
the information needed to perform a mission well and allow 
organizations to learn objectively and consistently over time.  As 
noted in the passage of the Government Performance and Results Act, 
without performance measures, managers often have great difficulty 
getting results from information systems because they cannot define 
their needs precisely. 

The standard measurement practices we were shown focus on benefits, 
costs, and risks.  In most cases, this includes program outcomes, 
resource consumption, and the elapsed time
(i.e., cycle time) of specific work processes, activities, or 
transactions.  Once the right measures are chosen, they act as a 
common focus for management to target problem areas, highlight 
successes, and generally increase the rate of performance improvement 
through enhanced learning.  Business plans identify measurable 
outcomes and outputs expected from major information systems projects.  
By focusing on the effects these investments have on operations, 
performance measures help identify and track their true effect.  While 
the measures have value as stand-alone indicators, they are typically 
used together to present a more complete picture of the impact on 
quality, resource usage, and cycle time. 



Case Study: Instituting a Performance Measurement Program
            Improves Information Systems' Contribution to Mission 
            Outcomes

Faced with a budget crisis imposed by their legislature, one senior 
management team used performance measures to rethink information 
systems priorities, better direct investments to achieve mission 
goals, and address legislative concerns.  Their comprehensive program 
focused on (1) specific agency-level and information management goals 
and processes, (2) workshops to develop quantifiable performance 
indicators, (3) benchmarking, and (4) integrating performance measures 
into the planning, budgeting, and evaluation processes.  Its primary 
value has been to enhance organizational learning.

This large agency had especially high production costs, sloppy 
management decision-making on resource allocation, and bureaucratic 
"stovepipes" that made setting organizationwide priorities next to 
impossible.  Consequently, improvement efforts--especially those 
involving information systems--had little effect.  The cost of 
comparable private sector service offerings continued to drop while 
this agency's rose.  Finally, the state legislature simply refused to 
fund further spending increases.

Few performance measures even existed.  Those that did were disputed, 
had little accurate data to back them up, usually failed to focus on 
customer needs, were not used consistently by senior managers to make 
decisions, and did not measure the contribution of information 
systems.  Over a 3-year period, starting in 1990, senior management 
instituted a comprehensive performance measurement program to drive 
organizational change.  Quantifiable performance indicators were first 
developed to match agency objectives with statewide goals and to gauge 
service to key external customer groups.  Then, the information 
management department developed its own performance indicators to 
align with each of the agency-level goals.  Workshops were conducted 
with teams throughout the organization.  Performance measures, once 
developed, were integrated into management reporting, strategic and 
information planning, and budgeting and resource allocation efforts, 
as well as in criteria for selecting, controlling, and evaluating 
information systems investments.  The organization also used both 
internal and external benchmarks to help assess relative performance.  

The effort has enhanced the quality of decision-making and 
priority-setting, improved service quality, and better directed 
information systems investments.  A greater than 150 percent return is 
expected on  information systems projects.  As of January 1994, they 
were already reaping some of these savings.  Low-value projects had 
been eliminated or refocused, existing ones were more sharply targeted 
on improving mission performance, and new ideas had been generated 
about how to use information systems more productively.
How to Get Started

To assess the mission value of information management, senior 
executives should

  - identify outcome-based measures of accomplishment for a major 
    mission area and benchmark performance against a comparable 
    organization, public or private; and 

  - charter senior management teams to develop measures that 
    specifically assess (1) the contribution of information systems 
    investments to mission performance and (2) the performance of the 
    internal information management organization.
    
Practice 6    Focus on process improvement in the context of an 
              architecture

"If it [a work process] runs like a mess, then using information 
technology just gives you an automated mess." -- Senior line manager



Specific Attributes

x     Establish and manage a comprehensive architecture that (1) 
      ensures the appropriate integration of mission-critical 
      information systems through common standards and (2) emphasizes 
      local control and flexibility in adapting to new processes and 
      technologies

x     Distinguish large-scale improvement efforts from others by 
      concentrating on order-of-magnitude improvements in cost, 
      quality, or timeliness

x     Focus strategic resources, at the right time, on a limited 
      number of large-scale process improvement efforts

x     Target efforts at core mission delivery processes--defined as 
      those that, because of their cost and/or importance to 
      customers, have a unique potential for return on investment

x     Use a combination of controlled development and rapid 
      prototyping to minimize risk and maximize benefits 


Accomplishing order-of-magnitude improvements in performance nearly 
always requires streamlining or redesigning critical work processes.  
Consequently, information systems initiatives must be focused on 
process improvement and guided by an organizational architecture.[3]  
Information systems projects that do not consider business process 
redesign typically fail or reach only a fraction of their potential.  
Those that ignore technology usually leave significant opportunities 
on the table.  Using business process reengineering to drive 
information systems initiatives can lead to order-of-magnitude 
customer satisfaction and/or cost savings, rather than the marginal 
efficiency gains normally associated with initiatives that use 
technology to do the same work, the same way, only faster.

On the other hand, if several process improvement efforts using 
information systems are pursued in an uncoordinated fashion, chaos, 
incompatibility, and fragmentation can result.  Similarly, rapidly 
evolving new technologies (e.g., networks or imaging) that have 
organizationwide impact need to be integrated into redesigned work 
processes systematically (i.e., architectural management). To maximize 
the benefits of process improvements across an entire enterprise and 
reduce risks, certain shared standards and rules for processes, data, 
and machines (i.e., organizational architectures) are vital.




Case Study:Reengineering Work Processes to Improve Customer Service 
          and Reduce Costs

One organization tried reengineering as a fresh approach to meet its 
market share goals and alleviate persistent complaints about 
complexity and sluggishness of customer service.  They focused on 
three organizationwide "stretch" goals:  (1) reducing customer cycle 
time by 80 percent, (2) cutting overhead in half, and (3) tripling 
real sales per employee.  Redesign of information systems and data 
integration reduced the cost and complexity of a core customer service 
process by eliminating redundancy and making information access 
easier.

Prior to the reengineering effort, the company's approach to customer 
service involved experts from its line operations dealing directly 
with customers to provide a personal level of assistance in resolving 
a problem.  As the company's products grew more varied and 
specialized, customers often had to talk with several experts--as many 
as 16--before getting to the right one.  Over 70 different computer 
systems supported the customer service process.  While the quality of 
solutions to customer problems was very high, they took too long to 
deliver.  By 1990 this problem threatened the company's ability to 
retain its established customer base and caused delays in the receipt 
of payments for products sold.

The organization used a reengineering project in an attempt to 
radically improve productivity.  The object was to simplify business 
processes, not make them more elegant.  Information management and 
technology played a large role in the reengineering effort.  For 
example, a highly integrated systems environment enabled various 
project teams to simplify the number of tasks they needed to perform 
to achieve a mission goal or serve the customer.

As a result, the division has seen both quick benefits and longer-term 
performance improvements.  In one example, the division consolidated 
its dealer price catalogue to the point where it was able to produce 
the catalogue in less than half the time at 10 percent of its former 
cost, while reducing the number of organizations and documents 
involved by 60 percent.  In addition, the division reduced the number 
of information systems supporting customer service activities from 
over 70 to 1.  Furthermore, in less than one year,  customer service 
representatives were handling inquiries without any referral at 
all--single point problem resolution.  The new process reduced the 
number of customer billing disputes as well, which in turn reduced the 
amount of accounts receivable over 30 days old by 90 percent. 
How to Get Started

To begin focusing strategic resources on process innovation in the 
context of an architecture, senior executives should

  - task a senior management team to lead a high-level process 
    analysis of the organization and identify and sponsor a major 
    process improvement opportunity; and

  - appoint both a business and an information architect--reporting to 
    the information management steering committee--to facilitate the 
    design and maintenance of an organizational architecture (e.g., 
    work processes, information flows, and technology).
Practice 7      Manage information systems projects as investments

"Without these [investment] controls, we would probably not be able to 
bring in any project at all." 
-- a Chief Information Officer



Specific Attributes

x     Link information systems decisions tightly to program budget 
      decisions and focus them on mission improvement

x     Establish a high-level investment review board that fully 
      involves senior program and information managers to help in key 
      decisions through a project's life cycle

x     Use a disciplined process--based on explicit decision criteria 
      and quantifiable measures assessing mission benefits, risk, and 
      cost--to select, control, and evaluate information systems 
      projects using post-implementation reviews

x     Make information systems projects as narrow in scope and brief 
      in duration as possible to reduce risk and increase probability 
      of success

x     Balance the proportion of maintenance expenditure versus 
      strategic investment

Successful organizations manage information systems projects primarily 
as investments, rather than expenses.  As information management 
capability increases, projects are viewed more as mission improvement 
projects and less as information technology efforts.  Senior 
management teams become personally involved in project selection, 
control, and evaluation. The basis of decision-making is an explicit 
set of criteria assessing the mission benefits, risks, and cost of 
each project.  Quantitative and qualitative cost, benefit, and risk 
analyses--typically modeling sensitivities of project outcomes to 
various risk factors--underpin the criteria.   

The investment focus systematically reduces inherent risks while 
maximizing benefits of complex projects. It does so by concentrating 
top management's attention on assessing and managing risk and 
regulating the tradeoffs between continued funding of existing 
operations and developing new performance capabilities. These 
tradeoffs, as well as conflicts between competing programs, surface 
during annual budget decision-making.  With a disciplined process, 
organizations can identify early, and avoid, investments in projects 
with low potential to provide mission benefits.  They can help make 
explicit links between project outcomes and program needs in complex 
and often ambiguous budget debates.  Line accountability for improved 
performance is also reinforced.  This typically means larger 
successes, fewer failures, and more significant information systems 
contributions to organizational goals.

Conversely, without a centralized process to select, control, and 
evaluate information systems projects as investments, organizations 
confront a number of difficult problems--significant unmanaged risk, 
unexamined low-value or redundant projects that consume scarce 
resources, mismatches between systems maintenance and strategic 
priorities for improving mission performance, design flaws that can 
unexpectedly increase complexity, and outsourcing decisions that put 
the organization at risk.



Case Study:Using a Disciplined Investment Process Helps Capture 
          Benefits

After experiencing unacceptable information systems project failure 
rates, slow progress, and disappointing results, one organization 
designed a disciplined decision-making process to focus management on 
increasing the quality and impact of investments.  Project proposals 
and selections became more careful; cost, benefit and risk analyses 
and projections were more realistic; and managers worked harder to 
ensure that initiatives delivered on their promise.

The organization was developing systems that were not aligned with 
line management direction.  An outside consultant, hired to analyze 
this situation, reported that the organization was spending far too 
much money on information systems that were not helping the company.  
Not only were scarce budgetary resources being wasted or 
underutilized, but low-value projects were actually causing harm by 
automating isolated functions or decision-making processes that were 
either unnecessary or highly inefficient.  More important, but less 
tangible, was the opportunity cost of spending too much on old systems 
and investing too little in the future.  The organization found these 
problems were due, in large part, to the development of information 
systems that had little or no measurable economic justification.

To solve this problem, senior line managers' responsibility and 
accountability for information management was structured within an 
organized decision-making and tracking process for information systems 
investments.  The organization used a "portfolio investment 
process"--based on explicit decision criteria assessing costs, 
benefits, and risks--to select, control, and evaluate information 
systems projects.  Having this structure helped ensure that a true 
mission benefit was identified for each project and that it was 
retained as a project focus until completion.  One goal of the process 
was to balance the proportion of maintenance expenditures versus 
strategic investment.    

Over time, the company has consciously reduced the proportion of 
funding spent on supporting systems that are near the end of their 
useful life cycle.  A portion of the money saved from maintaining 
these legacy systems is then added to the strategic systems budget.  
In 3 years, the organization has seen a nearly 14-fold increase in the 
return on investment from information systems projects.  Such a 
turnaround was possible because line managers and information 
professionals were more visibly accountable for project delivery, 
rigorous results reporting, and post-implementation reviews.  
Consequently, they are more careful in what they promise for a 
proposed information system and in measuring what a system actually 
achieves.    
How to Get Started

To hold line managers more accountable for project selection, 
delivery, and rigorous reports reporting, senior executives should

  - task a team to develop decision criteria for selecting and 
    evaluating major information systems projects; and

  - institutionalize a process to propose, select, develop, and 
    evaluate the results of all information systems investments.
Practice 8    Integrate the planning, budgeting, and evaluation 
              processes

"We've made a lot of mistakes along the way.  Our success has only 
come from an organized process of learning over time." -- a Chief 
Information Officer



Specific Attributes

x     Put all five elements of the strategic planning cycle in place: 
      long-term strategic and information planning, systems life cycle 
      and project level planning, budget review, performance 
      assessment, and architecture management

x     Require executives and senior management to fully participate in 
      and take responsibility for all major information management 
      project decisions throughout their life cycle

x     Integrate key elements of the strategic planning process by 
      ensuring that outputs of one are used as inputs for the next

x     Use the strategic planning process to manage operations and make 
      key decisions and assessments by top management--especially 
      those involving program budgets and information systems 
      investments

Successful organizations pay close attention to integrating the 
planning, budgeting, performance measurement, and architectural 
management processes, so that they never lose sight of critical 
information systems projects and treat them consistently throughout 
sometimes disparate management processes.[4]  This helps force the 
linkage of information systems efforts to the mission, provides tight 
controls during implementation, and allows regular assessment to 
ensure that benefits accrue.

Our case studies suggest this integration of once-separate processes 
is the real test of whether an organization's information management 
approach is truly strategic and thus will be able to improve 
consistently over time.  Without links to planning, budgeting becomes 
a reactive exercise to priorities of the moment that are not weighed 
adequately against those of the future.  Without links to performance 
measurement, mistakes are not discovered or are repeated in planning.  
And without links to budgeting, plans can be mere paper exercises in 
rationalization.  Credible plans and budgets need to identify the 
long-term benefits of information technology projects, how they will 
be funded over the years, and how the savings and benefits will be 
realized over time. 
 


Case Study:Forcing Organizational Change and Continuous Learning 
          Through an Integrated Management Process

In one organization, the lack of a business vision--a definition of  
how the organization would work in the future--and an integrated and 
institutionalized strategic information management process meant a 
majority of resources went towards maintaining existing, aging 
information systems.  Fierce short-term budget crises dominated 
long-term planning, and mistakes were frequently repeated.  By 
focusing on these weaknesses, the organization developed a fact-based 
approach to funding, a forum for decision-making, and a consistent 
process that the senior management team used to move from crisis 
management to strategic management.

In 1991 senior management meetings focused on how the lack of 
mission-critical improvements was leaving the organization with costs 
that were too high and customer interactions that were too slow and 
low in quality.  Abnormally high maintenance costs indicated the 
organization was, in the words of the Chief Information Officer, 
"building on a swamp."   After conducting a self-analysis, the cause 
of the problem was boiled down to the lack of a business vision and 
the absence of an integrated and institutionalized strategic 
information management process that would help manage operations and 
make key decisions involved in implementing the vision.

To address these issues, the organization formally integrated 
planning, budgeting, and evaluation by putting five elements in place:  
long-term strategic and information planning, systems life cycle and 
project planning, architectural management, budget review, and 
performance assessment.  The five elements were integrated so that 
outputs from one were used as inputs for the next.  For example, 
outputs of strategic planning (a budget constraint), project planning 
(strategic project proposals), and architectural management 
(architectural screening criteria) were all explicit inputs into 
prioritization and budgeting.  Similarly, the outputs of 
prioritization and budgeting (individual project objectives, 
performance targets, and implementation plans) were direct inputs into 
the performance assessment process.   This level of integration not 
only provided continual improvement and balanced and optimized 
resource allocation each year, but also maximized the rate of 
learning.  

Over a 4-year period, the organization was able to shift approximately 
a third of information systems  personnel to reengineering projects.  
These new improvements in turn affected mission performance in ways 
ranging from increased productivity to new levels of customer service.

How to Get Started

To begin integrating all the elements of an integrated strategic 
planning cycle, senior executives should

  - choose one critical mission area, if possible limited in scope, to 
    fully integrate business and information planning, systems 
    planning, budgeting, and performance evaluation; and

  - task a senior management team to design and implement an annual 
    information management performance report as an input to strategic 
    planning.








"Information management executives need credibility to participate.  
We begged to be part of senior management and got it.  That was good 
and bad news.  Once you're a part, you have to behave like a senior 
manager--have the breadth, scope, and risk profile.  By pursuing 
strategic information management, we've defined the skills and career 
path to get that done."

                  --  a Chief Information Officer

Support Change: Build organizationwide information management 
                capabilities to address mission needs
Neither a commitment to change or directed activities can succeed 
without defining and providing the necessary skills and resources.  
Hence, the goal of the third group of practices is to build a new 
level of sustainable organizationwide information management 
capabilities that address mission needs.  

For most federal agencies--even those with serious improvement 
programs in place--pervasive skill gaps and confused roles and 
responsibilities severely inhibit significant increases in 
performance.  Common problems include (1) a failure to define the 
roles of program managers in relation to information professionals, 
(2) the lack of an effective CIO to raise and help resolve information 
management issues with top management, and (3) an outdated or poorly 
defined set of skill requirements.  These problems weaken an 
organization's ability to define how new systems support its mission, 
meet customer needs, or respond more quickly to environmental change.  

In contrast, leading organizations facing similar problems defined 
clear responsibilities for line managers and information management 
professionals, established a CIO as a senior management partner, and 
worked to anticipate and define key skills that would be needed.  
Consequently, their management processes worked fluidly, rates of 
innovation increased, and conflict was minimized.



   Decide to Change

1   Recognize and communicate the urgency to change information 
    management practices

2   Get line management involved and create ownership

3   Take action and maintain momentum

                           Direct Change
                      
                      4 Anchor strategic planning in customer needs 
                        and mission goals
                      
                      5 Measure the performance of key mission 
                        delivery processes
                      
                      6 Focus on process improvement in the context of 
                        an architecture
                      
                      7 Manage information systems projects as 
                        investments
                      
                      8 Integrate the planning,  budgeting, and 
                        evaluation processes   Support Change
                                            
                                            9   Establish 
                                                customer/supplier 
                                                relationships between 
                                                line and information 
                                                management 
                                                professionals
                                            
                                            10  Position a Chief 
                                                Information Officer as 
                                                a senior management 
                                                partner
                                            
                                            11  Upgrade skills and 
                                                knowledge of line and 
                                                information management 
                                                professionals
                                            
  
Practice 9    Establish customer/supplier relationships between line 
              and information management professionals

"Our overall success depends on meeting user requirements with 
cost-effective, quality solutions." 
-- a Chief Information Officer



Specific Attributes

x     Make line managers responsible for identifying critical 
      information and performance needs, work requirements, and 
      economic benefits of mission improvement projects 

x     Make information management professionals responsible for 
      supporting line managers as investment counselors and 
      product/service providers

x     Clarify roles and responsibilities at the corporate, mission, 
      and project levels--focusing corporate management on reinforcing 
      accountability and facilitating mission success

x     Manage the organizational architecture with a bias towards local 
      control and ownership, but also a strong central counterbalance 
      to maximize cross-cutting systems integration needs

x     Rigorously understand the economics of information management 
      functions as well as product/service needs of line management 
      customers

The best-designed management processes in the world cannot work 
without defining roles and relationships (i.e., knowing who is going 
to do what).  Establishing customer/supplier relationships internally 
between line managers and information management support professionals 
enables the organization to maximize the benefits of new management 
processes.  We found that line management in successful organizations 
typically behaves as a customer of support professionals or 
organizational units by asserting control over information system 
project funding and direction.  Key line responsibilities include 
identifying specific mission goals, the core processes required to 
accomplish them, key decisions that guide work processes, and the 
critical information needed to support decision-making.

Information management professionals, then, act as suppliers, working 
to support efforts to meet a management objective, make a critical 
decision, or solve a business problem.  Supplier functions can include 
traditional responsibilities for producing and servicing information 
systems.  But they increasingly emphasize investment advisory services 
and strategic architectural design and management.  The new focus is 
on achieving specific mission goals and objectives, rather than 
satisfying sometimes unrelated user requirements. 

Establishing formal customer/supplier relationships places 
information-related assets on a par with the other physical and 
intellectual resources.  It also places the information management 
organization alongside other suppliers as a competitor for the line 
unit's business.  These two effects contribute to organizational 
learning by creating a constructive tension and interdependency 
between line and information management organizations. 



Case Study:Establishing Clear, Accountable Customer/Supplier Roles 
          Enhances Effectiveness

To combat endemic miscommunication and conflict between the 
information management and line organizations, clear roles and 
responsibilities were identified at the project and organizationwide 
levels.  This division of labor focused line managers and information 
professionals on working together as they grappled with complex 
strategy and design issues.

Like many federal agencies, one large private sector organization 
experienced regular difficulties getting projects in on time and on 
budget.  Many systems development efforts required considerable 
rework.  Often, they did not meet real mission needs.  This situation 
not only wasted resources, but also frustrated line managers' efforts 
to reduce costs and increase quality.  Senior management identified 
the likely cause of this situation as twofold--the lack of a 
structured systems development process and an unclear division of 
labor between line managers and information management professionals.  
To remedy this, clear functions, roles, and responsibilities were 
identified for both line managers and information management 
professionals at the project and organizationwide levels.

At the organizationwide level, one of the primary functions was the 
agreement on general rules for how to develop systems.  This was 
usually accomplished through architectural management, handled by a 
business architect (data and processes) and a technology architect 
(software and hardware).  Together, their job was to design the 
organization architecture and assist systems developers in making the 
right technology choices.  They also worked closely with vendors to 
choose standard technologies for the entire company.  In short, they 
provided the infrastructure (PCs, software, data definitions, etc.) to 
"separate and integrate" the different layers of the architecture 
across the organization.  The result, over a period of several years, 
was a finely tuned set of information systems with high levels of 
interoperability and interconnectivity, low levels of redundancy, and 
lower maintenance costs.

At the project level, line and information management units shared 
responsibility throughout a project's life.  As it moved from one 
phase of development to the next, leadership responsibility shifted to 
the unit with the greatest interest in the successful completion of 
that phase.  For example, in phase one--requirements--the business 
unit was responsible for articulating the business case justifying the 
financial investment and risk, while in phase two--construction--the 
technology group led the development.  Rotating leadership established 
the roles and responsibilities of each team member at the start of 
every project phase.  This discouraged members from making premature 
decisions just to keep the project on-schedule and encouraged them to 
stay actively engaged  from beginning to end.  The targeted roles also 
focused members on a critical area where their knowledge and 
experience could make the greatest contribution.  Since the adoption 
of this project management technique, the organization has found that 
completed projects more closely match mission needs, require less 
rework, can be deployed faster across the organization, and cost less 
to maintain.
How to Get Started

To get line and information managers working together, senior 
executives should

  - institute a regular survey of line management's satisfaction with 
    the information management organization's quality, cost, and 
    responsiveness; and

  - require every information systems project team to define line and 
    information management roles throughout the entire project life 
    cycle.
Practice 10     Position a Chief Information Officer as a senior 
                management partner

"The most important factor for a successful CIO is to be able to work 
as a peer with line management." -- a Chief Information Officer



Specific Attributes

x     Understand the mission and work closely as a peer with top 
      management to help increase awareness, understanding, and skill 
      in identifying and resolving information management issues

x     Catalyze, design, and facilitate implementation of new 
      organizational capabilities by clearly articulating the role of 
      information systems in mission improvement

x     Bridge gaps between top management, line users, and the 
      information management unit by acting as an adviser and 
      architect

Positioning a Chief Information Officer (CIO) as a senior management 
partner is critical to building an organizationwide information 
management capability.[5]  By creating a customer/supplier 
relationship at the highest levels, it helps line executives change 
how information is managed organizationwide.  CIO positions have, in 
some cases, become untenable or controversial largely because they are 
overemphasized, inappropriately staffed, lack adequate authority, 
and/or are unable to focus solely on strategic information management 
issues.  A CIO is not a substitute for institutionalized information 
management processes.  Neither is it a panacea for resolving thorny 
problems that stem from top management disengagement, as is clearly 
illustrated by federal agency's experiences with Designated Senior 
Officials for Information Resources Management under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act.  Selection of an effective CIO is critical and 
difficult.  Qualified professionals need a combination of leadership 
ability, technical skills, business process understanding, and 
communication skills.

A CIO serves as a bridge between top management, line management and 
information management support professionals. This includes focusing 
and advising senior management  on high-value issues, decisions, and 
investments.  Equally vital is taking a strong role in working with 
the line to (1) design and manage an organizationwide architecture and 
(2) clearly articulate how information management will play a pivotal 
role in mission improvement.  Finally, the CIO is usually accountable 
for serving line management with low-cost, high-quality information 
technology products and services.  Over time, a successful CIO evolves 
from serving only as head of the information management unit to 
becoming a strategic adviser and architect--a vital member of the top 
management team.



Case Study:A Chief Information Officer Keeps Information Management 
          Issues on the Agenda

Given the difficult task of organizing and motivating senior 
executives to attack information management issues, a new Chief 
Information Officer was brought in to help.  The position was staffed 
with an experienced professional with demonstrated prior success who 
could work as a peer with senior executives.  Major goals were to (1) 
focus day-to-day efforts on improving information management and (2) 
bridge the gaps between top management, line users, and the 
information management unit.

Prior to establishing the CIO, the cost of maintaining and enhancing 
existing systems consumed nearly all of the organization's information 
technology budget.  Consequently, funds were not available for new, 
mission-critical information applications.  Line executives could not 
see the risk associated with maintaining old systems versus building 
new ones.  They only knew cost was increasing without a corresponding 
increase in value.  Line managers also had trouble managing the 
tradeoffs between risks and returns.  There was no one to focus senior 
management attention on crucial information management issues on a 
day-to-day basis and provide them with advice, concepts, services, and 
tools to resolve them.

A new, experienced CIO drove information management changes by 
pinpointing and responding to mission needs.  She participated as a 
peer in all senior management decision-making committees, keeping 
tough, painful issues on the agenda and continuously facilitating 
their solution.  In almost no other position would this person have 
had the scope of authority necessary to create the wide-scale change 
in the relationship between line managers and information 
professionals.  Specifically, establishing the CIO led to the creation 
of customer/supplier relationships in which line executives were 
accountable for (1) the business case underlying technology 
investments and (2) ensuring that information systems investments 
reflected the organization's priorities and were linked closely to its 
current or emerging mission needs.  In contrast, the CIO was 
accountable for improving the speed, productivity, and quality of the 
information management organization.

Since line management began working with the CIO, systems maintenance 
costs have dropped making more funding available for strategic 
projects.  More importantly, the organization has been able to invest 
in new technologies more closely bound to current and future mission 
priorities.  Another effect has been the transformation of the 
information management unit from a "back office" data processing 
organization to a forward-looking developer of mission-critical 
systems.  
How to Get Started

To articulate information management's role in mission improvement, 
senior executives should

  - recruit or promote a qualified professional with a track record of 
    results to serve as a Chief Information Officer, reporting 
    directly to the Secretary; and

  - task the Chief Information Officer to participate in a line 
    management effort that identifies major opportunities to use 
    information systems to enhance performance.
Practice 11   Upgrade skills and knowledge of line and information 
              management professionals

"No matter how good our processes are, it's hard to make them work 
without good people."
 -- a Chief Information Officer



Specific Attributes

x     Teach line executives and managers how to identify important 
      information management issues, opportunities, and decisions

x     Ensure that information management professionals acquire line 
      management and leadership skills

x     Identify existing skills, explicitly target future skills, and 
      move systematically to new levels of capability

x     Find the right mix of technology dependent and independent 
      skills

Strengthening the skills and capabilities of line and information 
management units is the final part of the formula for building 
strategic information management capabilities.  Lasting improvements 
in information management are impossible without upgrading the 
knowledge and skills of executives and managers.

First, it ensures that line executives gain a better understanding of 
information management, while helping information managers to acquire 
greater knowledge of the line unit's mission, goals, and problems.  
Second, it brings skills and knowledge up-to-date.  In the rapidly 
evolving world of information technology, remaining current is 
critical.  Organizations that fail to improve themselves continuously 
become literally trapped in antiquated skill bases, which then become 
an anchor inhibiting the organization's ability to change.  For 
instance, every year information systems get easier to use and 
interact with.  However, this ease of use is only possible with ever 
more complex decision logic and data flows.  Operating and maintaining 
these progressively sophisticated systems requires continuously higher 
skill levels.  Similarly, increased levels of complexity also demand 
more systematic, controlled planning, design, and development.

This fundamental is especially important in the federal government 
where so much technology acquisition is contracted out.  The chance of 
a breakdown between the agency and contractors is great when the 
agency does not have competent information management professionals to 
assist line management in evaluating and supervising contractor 
performance.








Case Study:Building Capabilities Around a Backbone of World Class 
          Project Management

To address inconsistent and languishing systems development efforts, 
one organization emphasized project management and system development 
skills.  Systematically building this capability allowed them to 
consistently increase the complexity of projects they were able to 
handle, improve timeliness and cost, and increase the range of 
technologies and scope of potential innovation they could apply to 
improve business performance. 

Initially, this organization's training and professional development 
programs were, as in many organizations, largely ad hoc.  There was a 
wide range of skills in information systems project management, 
design, and construction.  As a result, the corporation suffered 
through many typical system development problems, including limited 
capabilities or a poor match with user needs.  Projects got done, but 
with little assurance as to their quality.  Many were late and over 
budget.  Senior management in the organization recognized that 
business managers and information management professionals needed to 
improve their capabilities.

A comprehensive training and professional development program was 
instituted, based on project management--the skills, processes, tools, 
deliverables, and decisions required to take a project from the idea 
stage to successful installation and operation.  Training and 
professional development took place both on-the-job and in seminars 
and classes.  It included both line managers and information 
management professionals.  In addition, line managers and information 
management professionals were often placed on interdisciplinary teams 
and cross-trained.  This allowed them to understand the other's 
perspective and thus improve coordination in complex systems 
development efforts.  

For example, line managers were trained to understand the risks of a 
system development effort and to   judge how to align systems 
specifications with user needs and mission objectives.  They were also 
taught how to manage information and make information technology based 
business decisions.  Conversely, information management professionals 
were taught line management and leadership skills to support the 
translation of line user requirements into system design 
specifications.  The information management professionals were also 
trained to understand the mission benefits to be derived from the 
system being developed.

Through a combination of skill development in project management, as 
well as investment selection, control, and evaluation, the 
organization now completes 85 percent of its information system 
projects on time and on budget.  Even more important, says their CIO, 
systematically building project management and systems construction 
capability has allowed them to consistently increase the complexity of 
projects they can handle.  This increases the range of technologies 
and scope of potential innovation that can be applied to improving 
mission performance. 
How to Get Started

To upgrade information management capability, senior executives should

  - systematically identify information management skill targets and 
    gaps for both line managers and information management 
    professionals, and

  - fully integrate skill and knowledge requirements in performance 
    evaluations and promotion criteria.
Results That Can Occur by Implementing
the Fundamental Practices

While meaningful short-term benefits can accrue within a year or two, 
these fundamentals are not quick fixes.  They take significant effort 
and commitment to implement.  In the case study organizations, new 
performance levels were achieved by consistently applying the 
fundamental practices over time, usually a period of 2 to 5 years.  In 
addition, the practices were usually pursued in the context of other 
mutually reinforcing management improvement initiatives (e.g., total 
quality management).

Implementing these practices in the federal environment is not only 
possible, but is already beginning in several agencies.  Though 
barriers exist--perceived and real--each practice is consistent with 
existing elements of federal regulations.  Moreover, although few 
federal agencies are applying all 11 practices, we found evidence that 
each one exists at various degrees of maturity in at least one of our 
federal case study organizations.
 
The best examples of the benefits that were achieved by leading 
private sector organizations are presented below.  The private sector 
firms clearly had the best data on which to base measurable outcomes.  
Leading states and selected federal agencies tended to have more 
highly qualitative evidence of impact.  We believe similar results are 
possible throughout the federal government.

Increased Productivity:  Productivity benefits allow an organization 
to cope with rising workloads in an environment of shrinking 
resources.  For example, one organization now handles 158 percent 
above its 1986 workload, with roughly the same number of staff, while 
at the same time increasing both quality and customer satisfaction.  
During this period, the organization's productivity grew at a 5.9 
percent annual rate. 

Improved Customer Service:  Fewer mistakes and faster, easier, and 
more valuable services   narrow the gap between public expectations 
and federal service delivery.  For example, one organization developed 
a new customer service process, reducing the number of people involved 
in responding to customer inquiries from as high as 16 to 1 and the 
number of systems supporting the process from over 70 to 1.

Higher Returns on Information Systems Investments:  Investments are 
made today based on the promise of achieving net benefits in mission 
performance tomorrow.  For example, one organization achieved a 
14-fold increase in the benefits returned from information systems 
initiatives.  In 1989 this organization realized just 9 percent of the 
benefits promised in project funding justifications.  In 1992 all of 
the promised benefits were attained, plus another 33 percent that were 
unanticipated.

Lower Risks of Failure, Delay, and Overspending:  With established, 
systematic processes, information systems projects can be more 
predictable, timely, carefully managed, and affordable on a consistent 
basis.  For example, one organization suffered from many projects that 
were late, over budget, or had little real impact.  Now, it completes 
85 percent of its information systems projects on time, within budget, 
and at acceptable risk levels and has seen examples of improvements in 
its investment returns.

In the near term, low-value projects can be eliminated or stopped, 
unnecessary risks can be uncovered and mitigated, existing projects 
can be given an increased likelihood of success, and productivity 
improvements in information management operations can be stimulated.

In the long term, the combination of process improvement and 
technology has the potential to reduce the burden on the public from 
collecting information for government use, increase access to valuable 
government information, and reduce the costs while increasing the 
quality and responsiveness of government services.  Selected examples 
from the National Performance Review include:

- Reduced costs and increased quality of government services

    ï¿½ quicker, easier application for and receipt of government 
      benefits--ranging from social security to veterans' benefits
    ï¿½ more effective national law enforcement activities
    ï¿½ more effective and economical health care service delivery

- Reduced burden on the public

    ï¿½ easier, quicker tax filing
    ï¿½ fewer, simpler forms and requirements for small businesses

- Increased access to more valuable government information

    ï¿½ wide variety of business information on competitiveness and 
      international trade issues 
    ï¿½ quicker and more accurate information on environmental safety 
      risks



Getting Started:  Recommended Actions
for Senior Executives

To take comprehensive, quick, and practical steps toward improving 
strategic information management, federal executives should consider 
doing the following:

- Take a personal leadership role in establishing strategic 
  information management and designate a champion to lead day-to-day 
  improvement efforts

- Make senior managers responsible for effectively implementing a 
  strategic information management improvement program

- Make this new strategic information management program a critical 
  success factor or a goal in the department/agency strategic planning 
  process

- Initiate a strategic information management improvement program 
  within the next 90 days.

Additionally, both congressional leadership and top agency executives 
should ask and answer the following questions:

  ï¿½   Are the right strategic information systems and reengineering 
      projects being worked on?

  ï¿½   Are external and internal customer requirements being satisfied, 
      and is overall productivity and quality improving?

  ï¿½   What is the risk-adjusted return on information systems 
      investments?

  ï¿½   Are there performance measures that truly define success for the 
      organization in terms of expected outcomes for customers?

  ï¿½   Does management information support critical decision-making and 
      reinforce accountability for results?

  ï¿½   Is management information accurate, timely, secure, usable, and 
      targeted at the right decisionmakers and decision processes?

To assist with these efforts, GAO is developing and testing a toolkit 
for agencies to use in benchmarking themselves against these 11 
practices.  The toolkit is expected to provide senior executives with 
an efficient, fact-based evaluation of how their organizational 
processes and practices compare to those of leading organizations.  
For additional information on the toolkit or this report, call Jack 
Brock at (202) 512-6406 or Christopher Hoenig at (202) 512-6208.
Research Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of our research were to (1) identify information 
management practices used by leading private and public sector 
organizations with demonstrated success in consistently applying 
information management and technology solutions to improve mission 
performance and program delivery outcomes, and (2) share our results 
with federal executives to help improve overall mission performance.    

  Scope

Our research focused on information management practices used by 
senior management teams in five private sector firms and five state 
government agencies.  Our unit of analysis was individual business or 
mission units (i.e., a business unit within a corporation or an agency 
within a state).  The sample organizations were chosen purposively, 
not at random or to ensure representation of a larger group.  We 
selected the private sector firms based on
(1) recognition by corporate executives and independent researchers 
for their progress in successfully managing information technology to 
improve business performance, and 
(2) discussions with three major business consulting firms doing 
similar research that also included these organizations.  We selected 
the five state government agencies based on 
(1) discussions with representatives from the National Association of 
State Information Resources Executives, and (2) recommendations made 
by a consultant we used on the project with recognized expertise and 
research in public sector IRM issues.  Because our work often involved 
data that these organizations regarded as proprietary or sensitive, we 
agreed not to identify individual organizations in examples cited in 
our reports or to disclose any data they wished to protect.

To supplement our findings from the private and state organizations, 
we selected nine federal departments or agencies to include in our 
research.  We chose these organizations judgementally, attempting to 
consider diversity in organizational size (budget, personnel), mission 
types (civilian, military, regulatory), and information dependency 
(collection, use, dissemination).  We did not choose these 
organizations to represent places in the federal government with the 
"best" information management practices, although many were actively 
involved in developing information management capabilities.  Rather, 
we used the sample to help confirm how federal organizations compare 
against some of the leading private firms and state agencies and to 
help assess whether the practices used by these successful 
organizations could work in the federal environment.  

  Methodology

Our research was conducted with an illustrative case study approach 
using open-ended and focused interviews and documentary analysis, not 
direct observations.  In conducting the case studies, we interviewed 
senior executives, line managers, and IRM professionals to learn how 
the organization managed information and technology to deliver quality 
services/products in an effective, timely, and cost-efficient manner.  
Interview information was supplemented with documentary analyses of 
each organization's existing practices, processes, and reported 
outcomes.   

For quality assurance, we consulted with representatives of an 
advisory committee comprised of information technology experts from 
the public and private sector on overall approach, sample selections, 
research findings, and applicability of the practices in both private 
and public settings.[6]  We also formed an advisory panel of senior 
federal IRM officials to assist in deciding the scope of our work and 
to critique our analyses and findings.  To ensure the quality of our 
case study methods, we hired a full-time consultant with expertise in 
researching public sector IRM issues and using case study methods.  
Moreover, we convened several focus groups comprised of senior program 
and IRM officials across the federal government to learn more about 
their strategic information management activities and approaches, help 
identify research gaps, and comment on the applicability of the 11 
practices to the federal environment.  As a final measure, we obtained 
comments on a draft of this report from each case study organization, 
members of the executive advisory committee, the advisory panel of 
senior IRM officials, the Office of Management and Budget, and the 
General Services Administration.  We have incorporated changes where 
appropriate.

  Caveats

It has been little more than two decades since information technology 
began seriously penetrating private and public workplaces.  As a 
result, the state of information resources management is still 
relatively immature.  It is influenced by wide-ranging 
factors--managerial, technical, cultural, and political.  Stable cause 
and effect relationships are difficult to define and expert points of 
view often differ significantly.  As an initial step, this report 
presents a framework that begins to document the state of the practice 
drawn from our analysis of a relatively small number of case studies.  
Admittedly, much more work in this area remains to be done.  This 
project is the first in a series of efforts needed to help bring 
strategic information management in the federal government up to the 
level of leading organizations.

The 11 fundamental practices should be viewed as a template relevant 
to any organization.  Although we attempted to be as thorough as 
possible within the scope of our study, we recognize that our results 
are neither comprehensive or definitive.  A number of areas remain 
that require further research before integrating them into our 
framework, including outsourcing, technology research and development, 
and the use of innovative technologies such as networking and imaging.  
We also recognize that this management template requires customized 
application to any organization depending on a wide variety of 
contextual factors (e.g., skill base or current improvement 
initiatives in place) as well as existing organizational strengths and 
weaknesses. 
Major Contributors to this Report


Accounting and Information Management Division
Information Resources Management Policy and Issues Group

Jack L. Brock, Director (202) 512-6406
Christopher W. Hoenig, Associate Director (202) 512-6208
David L. McClure, Assistant Director (202) 512-6257
Kevin G. McCarthy, Senior Evaluator
Kennard A. Thompson, Senior Evaluator
Edward G. Joseph, Senior Evaluator
Dr. Sharon Caudle, Consultant
Shane D. Hartzler, Reports Analyst


Project Advisers

We would like to acknowledge the advice of the following senior IRM 
executives from the federal government and private sector who we 
consulted throughout the course of this study.


Members of GAO's Advisory Council for
Information Management and Technology

Mr. J.C. Grant
President, C.G. James & Associates

General Donald R. Lasher (Ret.)
President, Information Systems
United Services Automobile Association (USAA)

Mr. Victor Millar
President, Worldwide Information Services
UNISYS Corporation

Admiral James B. Whittaker (Ret.)
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Applied Decisions, Inc.

Mr. Frederic G. Withington


Project Advisory Group

Mr. F. Kevin Boland
Assistant Comptroller General
Information Management and
Communications
U.S. General Accounting Office

Mr. Roger M. Cooper
Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
for Information Resources Management
Department of Justice

Mr. James P. Jadlos
Director, Office of Information Resources Management
Department of the Interior



Mr. Wallace O. Keene
Director, Office of Information Resources Management
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Dr. John L. Okay
Director, Office of Information Resources Management
Department of Agriculture

Mr. Reed Phillips
Director, Office of Information Resources Management
Department of Commerce

Mr. Alan Proctor
Deputy Executive Director for Planning and Information
Federal Trade Commission

Dr. Neil Stillman
Deputy Assistant Secretary for IRM
Department of Health and
Human Services

Mr. A. Joseph Williams
Review Officer, Information Resources Management
Department of State


Executive Office of the President
Office of Management and Budget

Ms. Sally Katzen
Administrator
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

Mr. Bruce McConnell
Chief, Information Technology Management Branch
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

Mr. Steve Holden
Senior Policy Analyst, Information Technology Management Branch 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

Mr. Schuyler Lesher
Chief, Federal Financial Systems Branch
Office of Federal Financial Management 


General Services Administration

Francis A. McDonough
Assistant Commissioner
Office of Federal Information Resources Management

Ms. Susan Robson Tobin
Director, Management Reviews Division
Federal Information Resources Procurement and
Management Reviews

1. Information systems are a discrete set of information resources and 
processes, automated or manual, organized for the collection, 
processing, maintenance, use, sharing, or dissemination of 
information.

2. Information Management and Technology Issues (GAO/OCG-93-5TR, 
December 1992), Information Technology Issues (GAO/OCG-89-6TR, 
November 1988).

3. Architectures explicitly define common standards and rules for both 
data and technology,  as well as mapping key processes and information 
flows.  For additional information refer to Strategic Information 
Planning: Framework for Designing and Developing System Architectures 
(GAO/IMTEC-92-51, June 1992). 

4. This concept of management process integration also directly 
underpins the threefold requirement of the Government Performance and 
Results Act for performance measures, strategic planning, and 
performance-based budgeting.

5. Determining the balance of decision-making authority between 
corporate and mission levels on information management issues is a 
complex issue--one that depends largely on the degree of similarity 
between missions.  Most organizations we studied operated on the 
presumption that, unless some significant shared corporate benefit was 
justified, decisions took place at the mission level.

6. This committee, GAO's Executive Council for Information Management 
and Technology, was created in 1989 to provide expert managerial and 
technical advice to GAO on potentially sensitive and controversial 
information management and technology issues.

*** End of document. ***