Governmentwide Travel Management: Federal Agencies Have Opportunities for
Streamlining and Improving Their Travel Practices (Testimony, 03/08/96,
GAO/T-AIMD-96-60).
GAO discussed efforts for improving governmentwide travel management,
focusing on a comparison of civilian federal agencies' and
private-sector travel management practices. GAO noted that: (1)
private-sector organizations have cut travel processing costs and time
by consolidating travel management and processing centers, eliminating
unnecessary review layers, simplifying travel processing, and
streamlining and automating the expense reporting process; (2) many
federal agencies have not identified their administrative travel costs
and processes; (3) many federal agencies use numerous processing
centers, require multiple travel documents, and lack automated systems
that interface with their financial systems; (4) private-sector
organizations approach travel cost reduction by assessing travel
management as part of the larger financial management system,
benchmarking themselves against other organizations, and instituting a
common set of best practices; (5) legislative and regulatory changes may
be needed for federal agencies to implement some travel management
improvements; and (6) some agencies have implemented changes or
initiated pilots to improve travel management.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: T-AIMD-96-60
TITLE: Governmentwide Travel Management: Federal Agencies Have
Opportunities for Streamlining and Improving Their
Travel Practices
DATE: 03/08/96
SUBJECT: Travel costs
Claims processing
Federal employees
Federal agency reorganization
Financial management systems
Computerized information systems
Reengineering (management)
Claims processing costs
Cost control
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** 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. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management and the
District of Columbia, Committee on Governmental Affairs, United
States Senate
For Release on Delivery
Expected at
9:30 a.m.
Friday,
March 8, 1996
GOVERNMENTWIDE TRAVEL MANAGEMENT -
FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR STREAMLINING AND
IMPROVING THEIR TRAVEL PRACTICES
Statement of Christopher W. Hoenig
Director, Information Resources Management/
Policies and Issues
Accounting and Information Management Division
GAO/T-AIMD-96-60
GAO/AIMD-96-60T
(510982)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
AIMD -
CFO -
DOD -
FTR -
GSA -
TDY -
JFMIP -
IRS -
GGD -
JMD -
NIST -
============================================================ Chapter 0
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I know that you and other members of this Subcommittee are deeply
concerned about finding ways for federal agencies to cut costs and
streamline operations. That is why I am very pleased to be here
today to discuss governmentwide travel management, ways in which it
can be improved, and the efforts underway to do so.
Federal executives, operating in the current environment of reduction
and change, face a difficult challenge. They must cut costs while
still maintaining, if not improving, operations. Most efforts that
have attempted to address this challenge have had to come to grips
with the difficulties of change--change is easy to talk about, but it
is much harder to accomplish. It is usually much easier to cut, than
it is to improve. Indeed, there has been a growing acknowledgement
within government that what is needed is a revamping of how the
government does what it does. Real change, concrete improvements,
and substantive cost savings will not occur until underlying
processes are systematically reassessed and reengineered.
One area with great potential for reengineering is travel management,
and with good reason. In fiscal year 1994, the federal government
reported travel obligations for individuals of about $7.6
billion--about $5 billion for the Department of Defense (DOD) and
about $2.6 billion for the civilian agencies. This amount was for
direct costs (i.e., costs directly related to travel, such as
transportation, lodging, rental cars, etc.) related primarily to two
types of travel--temporary duty (TDY) and permanent relocation. The
General Services Administration (GSA) currently negotiates some of
these direct rates with travel vendors, at significant savings to
federal agencies.
However, another component that often gets hidden is the
administrative cost of arranging and processing travel. This cost
includes arranging travel, getting it approved, and reporting travel
expenses, as well as the organization's cost for processing,
auditing, and reimbursing the travel. These administrative costs can
be significant, into the hundreds of millions of dollars, especially
when considering the number of travel authorizations and vouchers
that are processed each year.
There are a number of private-sector companies who have set
themselves apart from other organizations, both public and private,
by streamlining and automating their travel processes and adopting a
common set of best practices. In doing so, millions in
administrative costs have been saved. A handful of federal agencies
have also begun to implement best practices and reduce costs. There
is no reason, however, why all federal agencies cannot achieve
comparable results. With some variation, the essential elements of
travel are similar for almost any organization, private or public.
And the costs for improvement are low, especially given the potential
return--hundreds of millions of dollars could be saved.
Mr. Chairman, because of the interest you and other members of this
Subcommittee have shown in the demonstrated improvements of these
leading organizations, we set out to discover how they manage travel,
what practices and strategies they followed to get there, and how
federal agencies compare. Last March, we reported to this
Subcommittee on our work assessing and comparing DOD's travel
practices to those of two leading organizations.\1 Now, at your
request, we have analyzed the travel practices of civilian federal
agencies and compared them to leading organizations. To do this, we
obtained cost and process information from three leading
organizations, and additional process information from a fourth. We
then conducted a survey at 70 executive-branch civilian agencies (who
represented 92 percent of total travel obligations for
executive-branch agencies for fiscal year 1994). We received
responses from 64 agencies (a 91-percent response rate). Finally, we
conducted case studies in specific locations at three agencies to
gain additional information on how travel is arranged and processed.
As the information is presented, it is important to keep a couple of
points in mind. First, we only looked at TDY travel that is
conducted by regular federal employees as part of normal business
operations. Second, while we developed standard cost and process
elements to help provide assurance that the cost numbers are
comparable, because organizations used different methods to identify
these numbers, some may not be exact comparisons. Third, all of the
cost estimates are sensitive to the time and salary estimates that
the agencies and organizations provided. Fourth, most of the cost
and processing information was self-reported. While we assessed the
reasonableness of various cost and process elements that were
provided, we did not independently verify all of this information.
Finally, in addition to cost, there are other factors and trade-offs,
such as quality, levels of risk, and the size of the investment of
modernization, that must be considered when assessing and redesigning
processes. For instance, an organization may be able to reduce
administrative costs by eliminating process steps; however, without
also ensuring that appropriate internal controls remain in place, the
increased risk of fraud and abuse may outweigh any savings that are
achieved. We did not address these other factors.
--------------------
\1 Business Process Reengineering: DOD Has a Significant Opportunity
to Reduce Travel Costs by Using Industry Practices
(GAO/T-AIMD-95-101, Mar. 28, 1995) and Travel Processing
Reengineering: DOD Faces Challenges in Using Industry Practices to
Reduce Costs (GAO/AIMD/NSIAD-95-90, Mar. 2, 1995).
WHAT ARE LEADING ORGANIZATIONS
DOING AND HOW DOES THE
GOVERNMENT COMPARE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1
What we found was that leading organizations have cut administrative
costs--some cut expense report processing costs by more than 80
percent--and time--what once took 3 weeks can now be done within 48
hours--as a direct result of reengineering how they arrange and
process travel. Their total administrative costs per trip now range
from about $10 to $20. They achieved these improvements by
consolidating travel management and processing centers, eliminating
unnecessary review layers, simplifying the travel process, and
streamlining and automating the expense reporting process and
integrating it with the financial system.
Most federal agencies' administrative travel costs and processes, on
the other hand, lag behind those of leading organizations, although
some agencies have begun to close the gap. Many agencies have not
determined what their administrative travel costs and processes are,
and for those agencies for whom costs were determined, their
administrative costs per trip ranged from about $37 to $123--1 and a
half to 12 times more expensive than the leading organizations. Many
federal agencies use numerous processing centers, require multiple
travel documents, and fill out these travel documents manually or
maintain travel systems that do not have an agencywide automated
interface with the financial system. Part of the problem has been
that a primary focus of many federal agencies' travel management has
historically been on maintaining and monitoring compliance, rather
than on managing costs and efficiencies.
This is not to say that all federal agencies' processes are poor or
that administrative costs are high. Indeed, most agencies' travel
costs and processes lie along a continuum of performance. Some
agencies, in fact, have reduced their administrative costs to levels
that begin to match those of leading organizations. The Internal
Revenue Service (IRS), for instance, has reported total
administrative costs of about $39 per trip, while the Forest Service
(region 5) has reported administrative costs of about $37. And there
are also several agencies, including GSA and the Departments of
State, Transportation, Defense, and Energy, who have initiated pilots
that could go a long way to improving operations and reducing
administrative travel costs.
Figure 1 provides a listing of estimated total administrative costs
for the leading organizations and four civilian agencies. The figure
also shows administrative cost estimates developed by six DOD
agencies, although these estimates may not be fully comparable. In
addition, the chart highlights two estimates--current federal agency
costs per trip and improved costs per trip--that were developed by a
travel improvement task force from the Joint Financial Management
Improvement Program (JFMIP).\2
Figure 1: Administrative Cost
Estimates for Leading
Organizations and Federal
Agencies
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: DOD's cost estimates may not be comparable because they may
not include all of the same cost elements
Figure 2 shows where agencies stand in their identification of
administrative costs. The chart breaks the agencies into three
groups--those that could identify all administrative costs, those
that identified some of their administrative costs, and those who
could not identify any of their administrative costs.
Figure 2: Number of Civilian
Agencies Who Have Estimated
Their Total Indirect Costs Per
Trip
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Finally, the following table lists the travel practices of the
leading organizations and compares them to the practices of federal
agencies, as found in our survey.
Table 1
Travel Practices of Leading
Organizations Versus Federal Agencies
Leading organizations Federal agencies
---------------------------------- ----------------------------------
Mandate use of corporate charge Encourage use of corporate charge
card for most expenses card, but do not always require
(transportation, lodging, cash --45% (29) require use for
advances, etc.) transportation costs
--34% (22) require use for lodging
costs
--55% (35) use it as primary means
of issuing cash advances
Eliminate front-end travel Federal travel regulations (FTR)
approval require approval before travel
Reduce number of travel agencies Use numerous travel agents (as
used required by GSA)
--number used ranges from 1 to 3 --number used ranges from 1 to
175
--median response was 16
--12 use 1 agency
Consolidate processing locations Process travel at numerous
--three use 1, the other uses 2 locations
--number ranges from 1 to 1,494
--median response was 9
--17 use 1 processing center
Use one form to record expenses FTR require multiple forms for
advance, travel authorization, and
travel voucher
--Four agencies have one form for
both authorization and voucher
Use one integrated travel system Use several systems consisting of
both manual and automated
processes
--18 reported that they had one
integrated system
Total indirect costs per trip Most agencies cannot determine
range from about $10 to $20 administrative cost
--17 identified at least some
portion of their total
administrative costs
--Total administrative costs per
trip for those for whom all costs
were determined range from about
$37 to $123
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
\2 JFMIP is a joint cooperative undertaking of the Office of
Management and Budget, the General Accounting Office, the Department
of the Treasury, and the Office of Personnel Management, working in
cooperation with each other and with operating agencies to improve
financial management practices throughout the government. The JFMIP
travel improvement project team was established in 1994 to address
travel reengineering. Its focus was to reinvent policies and remove
impediments that affect TDY and relocation travel within the federal
government. The task force identified 9 recommendations for
improving TDY travel and 16 for improving relocation.
HOW DID THE LEADING
ORGANIZATIONS GET HERE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2
When looking at the leading organizations and what they have
accomplished, it is important to remember that all of them found
themselves, at one point or another, in a situation very similar to
where many federal agencies now stand--they had to reduce costs,
while at the same time dramatically improving service to the
customer. These leading organizations set out to rethink and
redesign how their financial management processes, including travel
processing, were conducted. In doing so, the leading organizations
shared many of the same characteristics:
-- they generally assessed travel management as part of a larger,
financial management reengineering effort,
-- they benchmarked themselves against other recognized
organizations, and
-- they instituted a common set of best practices.
The strategies used by these leading organizations in reengineering
and adapting their practices can be grouped into three common areas:
consolidation, simplification, and automation and integration. By
addressing all three of these areas, the organizations were able to
achieve dramatic cost and process improvements.
CONSOLIDATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.1
A travel manager from one of the leading organizations told us that
after assessing current practices and processes, the first thing he
would do when embarking on an improvement effort would be to
consolidate operations. Before they started reengineering, leading
organizations had business units that operated independently. Each
unit was responsible for making travel arrangements and for
processing their own travel. For instance, one organization was
processing expense reports at over 300 separate locations. These
decentralized operations can (1) lead to duplication of effort
because each unit has to be responsible for similar processes, such
as reimbursement and expense processing, (2) reduce opportunities to
achieve economies of scale, (3) make organizationwide travel policy
enforcement more difficult and inconsistent, and (4) hinder the
organization from gathering and maintaining organizationwide travel
data.
Leading organizations realized that they could cut costs and improve
service by having central, organizationwide sources for making travel
arrangements and for processing expense reports. They also
established a central travel management group to oversee
organizationwide travel and to establish, monitor, and enforce travel
policies.
As processing locations were consolidated, the organizations found
that they were able to reduce costs and cycle time. They also began
to maintain travel data on the organization as a whole. These
corporate travel data can be particularly helpful in negotiating
rates with vendors.
The leading organizations also reduced the number of travel agencies
that they were using. There are several benefits that can be gained
from this. For instance, this can (1) assist in uniform monitoring
and enforcing of the organization's travel policies, (2) ensure
consistency in how services are provided, and (3) provide management
reports on the travel patterns of both individual travelers and the
organization as a whole. This travel information is particularly
helpful in monitoring policy compliance, tracking travel trends for
negotiating rates with travel vendors, and for comparing actual to
reported expenses.
SIMPLIFICATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.2
The second strategy used by leading organizations was to simplify
operations, for both the traveler and the organization. Such
simplification includes eliminating the need for front-end travel
approval and consolidating all expense reporting on one form. Two of
the organizations even automated the expense reporting process once
they had decided on a streamlined reporting structure. A travel
manager from one of the leading organizations noted that prior to
reengineering, up to seven signatures were required to approve one
expense report; now the expense report is automated and the only
approval step occurs at the back end of the process after the voucher
has been processed. Consolidating information also cuts cycle time,
makes it easier to track costs, and provides easier access to data
because all information is maintained in one central location.
Leading organizations also simplified and streamlined operations by
mandating the use of charge cards for all transportation and lodging
expenses, as well as for cash advances, cost areas that can account
for 80 to 90 percent of all travel expenses. One organization, in
fact, requires an explanation for any instance in which the corporate
charge card is not used for at least 90 percent of all business
travel expenses.
A key benefit of using a corporate charge card is eliminating advance
processing costs and cycle time. Under the old system, a traveler
would have to spend time filling out an advance request form and
getting it approved by a supervisor. The organization would also
have to keep an amount of petty cash on hand at various cash windows.
And the organization had to track and reconcile each cash
disbursement that occurred. By mandating charge card usage for cash
advances, an organization can eliminate the processing time and costs
for getting the advance, no longer has to maintain petty cash at cash
windows, and can conduct one reconciliation for all travel expenses.
Other benefits of using a corporate charge card are that it provides
greater cash management and establishes better information
management.
AUTOMATION AND INTEGRATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.3
Finally, once leading organizations had assessed and consolidated
their current processes, they looked to use automation to further
simplify and streamline operations. They integrated expense
reporting with travel expense processing, built policy conformance
checks into the travel system, reimbursed travelers electronically,
and developed a management information system to maintain the travel
data that were being gathered. Maintaining this information gives an
organization the specific information it needs when negotiating rates
with travel vendors and setting predetermined travel costs.\3 It also
helps to track and enforce policy compliance and provides greater
assurance of data integrity.
As mentioned previously, two of the leading organizations we talked
to developed an automated expense reporting system as part of their
consolidation and simplification efforts. The expense reporting
systems they developed are user friendly and provide various aids to
the traveler, including calculating expense totals and maintaining
current per diem rates.
One organization's system builds policy compliance into the
traveler's expense reporting by using a series of prompts and
questions to highlight exceptions to policy. The system prompts the
traveler to provide reasons whenever a response deviates from policy,
such as using a noncontracted vendor or exceeding per diem rates.
The system highlights the exceptions to the approving supervisor, who
must approve all of them before reimbursement can occur. The system
also produces a report that highlights to senior management all
approved exceptions.
Another benefit of automation is the reduced cycle time provided by
electronic reimbursement. For instance, prior to implementing their
automated systems, it took two leading organizations over 3 weeks to
reimburse travel expenses. Now a traveler can travel one day, submit
an expense report the next day, and be reimbursed the following day.
A final benefit of automation is that all travel information can be
maintained in a central repository. As one travel manager from a
leading organization noted, "travel management is really about
information management." The information that is gathered can come
from a variety of sources, including the charge card company, booking
information from the travel agency, and expense information from the
expense reporting system. This information is useful to analyze and
compare what was booked, what was charged, and what is claimed.
--------------------
\3 A predetermined travel cost (PTC) is an estimate of expenses,
including transportation, lodging, and other definable expenses
(rental cars, etc.), that will be incurred during a trip. This
estimate is derived by constructing foreseeable travel costs before a
trip begins and expenses are incurred.
ISSUES FACING THE GOVERNMENT AS
IT LOOKS TO IMPROVE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3
Mr. Chairman, a question you or others may be asking now is whether
federal agencies can match what these leading organizations have
done. The answer is yes, but there are many factors and issues,
ranging from governmentwide policy, technical, and regulatory issues
to agency-specific union and culture issues, that have to be taken
into account. I would like to highlight a couple of the key issues.
The first issue facing agencies is the lack of accurate, up-to-date
information related to travel costs and processes. Such baseline
information is essential to measure progress and to ensure that the
organization is focusing its improvement efforts on the most critical
areas. Without accurate baseline information, organizations can
waste valuable time and effort investigating technological solutions
without truly knowing what process problems they are trying to solve.
In addition, if the organization does not know where it is starting
from, it is very difficult to measure what progress has been made.
One travel manager from a leading organization summed it up by noting
that you can't travel cheaper until you know exactly how you travel.
It appears that many federal agencies may be going ahead with
improvement projects, including the acquisition of automation,
without first assessing what their current situation is. For
example, in response to our survey, 25 agencies said that they
recently revised their travel processes, but only 11 of these
agencies reported that they had assessed their current processes. As
we have highlighted in previous reports,\4 the risk of automating
without analyzing current processes is that hardware and software may
be acquired to automate the inefficient processes that are already in
place.
The Justice Management Division (JMD) within the Department of
Justice, for instance, recently acquired a travel system to
streamline operations by producing travel authorizations and vouchers
and providing for electronic approval of these documents. JMD plans
for this system to be fully integrated with the financial system.
However, this does not occur now. As a result, the travel system
produces a hard-copy version of the voucher and information from the
voucher must then be manually reentered into the financial system.
Such duplication is inefficient and introduces a risk of data error
during reentry.
As agencies look to automate their travel systems they will also have
to ensure that they incorporate adequate controls, as noted in Title
2 and Title 7 of GAO's Policy and Procedures Manual for Guidance of
Federal Agencies, to ensure the integrity of the data. We have
issued several reports emphasizing that improvements to streamline
employee travel payment processes should be made only within a
framework of adequate, cost-effective controls that reasonably ensure
that payment transactions are properly authorized and sufficient
records of these transactions are maintained.\5
One area where this has drawn particular attention is in the approval
of authorizations and vouchers through the use of electronic
signature.\6 We have previously reported that to provide adequate
safeguards, an electronic signature should be (1) unique to the
signer, (2) under the signer's sole control, (3) capable of being
verified, and (4) linked to the data in such a way that if the data
are changed, the signature is invalidated. The National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) has established procedures for the
evaluation and approval of certain electronic signature techniques to
ensure the integrity of the data and compliance with the previously
mentioned criteria. Several federal pilots, including the Corps of
Engineers, the Department of Energy, and DOD, are currently working
with us and NIST to address these concerns and develop standardized
systems that can be used by other agencies.
Another factor that will have to be addressed as agencies look to
reengineer travel is the federal travel regulations (FTR), which
govern how federal travel is to be conducted. For instance, the FTR
say that a traveler must obtain both a travel authorization
(pre-trip) and travel voucher (post-trip) and that travel approval
for both must be given by an authorized official. In its report on
improving governmentwide travel management,\7 the JFMIP travel
improvement task force made nine recommendations for improving how
TDY travel was processed. Of these nine recommendations, the task
force estimated that eight would require some regulatory change, and
the final recommendation will require both legislative and regulatory
changes.
--------------------
\4 USDA Restructuring: Refocus Info Share Program on Business
Processes Rather Than Technology (GAO/AIMD-94-156, Aug. 5, 1994) and
Veterans Benefits: Acquisition of Information Resources for
Modernization Is Premature (GAO/IMTEC-93-6, Nov. 4, 1992).
\5 See Employees' Travel Claims (DOD) (GAO/AIMD-95-171R, June 26,
1995); Employees' Travel Claims (USIA) (GAO/AIMD-95-138R, May 19,
1995); Air Force Automated Travel System (GAO/AIMD-95-74R, Feb. 14,
1995); and Employees' Travel Claims (State) (GAO/AIMD-95-71R, Feb.
6, 1995).
\6 An electronic signature is a symbol, representing an individual or
entity, that can be used to validate the sender's identity and the
integrity of the critical information received from the sender.
\7 Improving Travel Management Governmentwide, Joint Financial
Management Improvement Program, December 1995.
FEDERAL EFFORTS SHOW PROMISE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4
All of this is not to say that improvements have not been made, or
that little is being done in the federal government. On the
contrary, there is a great deal of momentum for changing how travel
is arranged and processed. For instance, 50 agencies in our study
said that they planned to implement a revised travel process or that
they were planning to revise in the near future.
Some federal agencies have already begun to implement many of the
best practices and reduce administrative costs. IRS, for instance,
processed 83 percent of its fiscal year 1995 travel vouchers using an
automated travel system. Travelers enter information in to the
travel system and this information is transmitted to a supervisor who
approves it electronically. The travel system is integrated with
IRS' financial system, where the travel information is processed once
approval has been given. The information is then uploaded into
Treasury's system for reimbursement.
There are also several federal agencies who have initiated pilots,
some that are quite aggressive, that demonstrate the improvements
that are possible. These efforts include the following:
-- A Forest Service improvement team assessed its processes and
found that almost half of its processing steps added no value to
the processing of a travel voucher. It has now made several
recommendations about how travel processing can be improved.
-- The State Department studied its travel process and found that
it could reduce its indirect costs by $18 to $72 per trip.
State also received waivers from the FTR and developed one form
to be used for both travel authorizations and vouchers.
-- An internal GSA improvement team has proposed, and is beginning
to move towards, an even more streamlined approach for GSA in
which all paper travel documents would be eliminated.
Other agencies that have ongoing pilots include the Departments of
Transportation, Defense, and Energy.
In addition to these agency-specific efforts, the JFMIP travel
improvement task force, made up of representatives from several
agencies across government, has assessed both TDY and permanent
relocation travel and estimated that hundreds of millions could be
saved by implementing a number of key recommendations. These
recommendations mirror many of the best practices of leading
organizations, including requiring the use of a corporate charge card
and consolidating and automating travel data.
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5
In summary, Mr. Chairman, there are many things that can be done to
move the government closer to the performance of leading
organizations. First and foremost, agencies need to assess their
costs and processes and establish a baseline of current performance.
As I mentioned earlier, tremendous gains are possible by rethinking
and redesigning travel management. However, it will be difficult for
agencies to decide where to start and to measure progress until they
assess where they are now. Some of the necessary information will be
gathered as part of the requirements of the Chief Financial Officers
(CFO) Act, which requires that agencies provide complete, reliable,
and timely information regarding the management activities of the
agency. However, agencies will still need to work to develop and
assess other travel-related information. As agencies develop this
baseline, they should also look for areas where operations can be
streamlined and consolidated.
We also strongly urge agencies to study and implement the practices
and approaches identified by the JFMIP travel improvement team.
Everyone should eventually be at or near the savings levels offered
by JFMIP; IRS and the Forest Service have already shown that
achieving these levels is possible. However, reaching this goal is
only a start. As the travel improvement team noted, the improvements
they recommend are just the beginning. Continual assessment and
improvement will help agencies move even closer to the results
achieved by leading organizations.
Finally, agencies should always be looking for new ways to build and
learn. Such learning can occur on two levels. First, agencies can
learn from the successes and failures of other organizations, both
private and public. Second, they can pilot projects of their own,
build on the lessons that they learn, and then look to share this
information with others.
In conjunction with agency efforts, GSA, as the government's primary
manager of travel policy, should take the lead to oversee the various
travel improvement efforts that are planned or underway. Such
oversight may include the establishment of travel data standards, a
cross-services directory, and an applications directory. GSA should
also form a users group to facilitate the sharing of knowledge and
information. Such a group, in coordination with other interested
parties, including JFMIP and the CFO Council, will go a long way to
speeding the successful application of the practices and guarding
against redundant actions. Finally, GSA needs to assess and revise
the FTR based on the suggestions of JFMIP and lessons that are
learned.
In addition, we encourage the ongoing interest, support, and
oversight in this area by congressional committees. The progress of
agencies and GSA should be monitored to ensure that all are moving
towards the improvements listed here and in the JFMIP report--helping
to get higher, better value for the public's dollar by operating more
efficiently.
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5.1
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may
have at this time.
*** End of document. ***