The Results Act: Observations on GSA's Strategic Plan (Testimony,
10/08/97, GAO/T-GGD-98-14).

GAO discussed its observations on the General Services Administration's
(GSA) September 30, 1997, strategic plan.

GAO noted that: (1) GSA's April 1997 draft strategic plan contained all
six components required by the Government Performance and Results Act;
(2) however, the draft plan generally lacked clarity, context,
descriptive information, and linkages among the components; (3) GSA has
since made a number of improvements, and the six components now better
achieve the purposes of the act; (4) however, additional improvements
would strengthen the September 30 plan as it evolves over time; (5) the
September 30 plan continues to have general goals and objectives that
seem to be expressed in terms that may be challenging to translate into
quantitative analysis; (6) the strategies component is an improvement
over the prior version but would benefit from a more detailed discussion
of how each goal will actually be accomplished; (7) although the
external factors in the September 30 plan are clearer and provide more
context, the factors are not clearly linked to the general goals and
objectives; (8) the program evaluations component provides a listing of
the various program evaluations that GSA used, but it does not include a
required schedule of future evaluations; (9) although the plan does a
much better job of setting forth GSA's statutory authorities, this
addition could be further improved by linking the different authorities
to either the general goals and objectives or the performance goals;
(10) the plan also refers to three related areas--crosscutting issues,
major management problems, and data reliability--but the discussion is
limited and not as useful as it could be in articulating how these
issues might affect successful accomplishment of goals and objectives;
and (11) this is especially true for major management and data
reliability problems, which can have a negative impact on measuring
progress and achieving the goals.

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

 REPORTNUM:  T-GGD-98-14
     TITLE:  The Results Act: Observations on GSA's Strategic Plan
      DATE:  10/08/97
   SUBJECT:  Strategic planning
             Agency missions
             Congressional/executive relations
             Program evaluation
             Public administration
             Data integrity
             Interagency relations
IDENTIFIER:  GPRA
             Government Performance and Results Act
             
******************************************************************
** 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 Government Management, Information, and
Technology, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House of
Representatives

For Release on Delivery
Expected at
10:00 a.m., EDT
Wednesday
October 8, 1997

THE RESULTS ACT - OBSERVATIONS ON
GSA'S STRATEGIC PLAN

Statement of
Bernard L.  Ungar, Director
Government Business Operations Issues
General Government Division

GAO/T-GGD-98-14

GAO/GGD-98-14T


(240276)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV


RESULTS ACT:  OBSERVATIONS ON
GSA'S STRATEGIC PLAN
====================================================== Chapter SUMMARY

Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, executive
agencies are to develop strategic plans in which they define their
missions, establish results-oriented goals, and identify strategies
they will use to achieve those goals.  The Act specifies that
strategic plans should contain six elements:  (1) a mission
statement; (2) agencywide long-term goals and objectives; (3)
approaches (or strategies) and the various resources needed to
achieve the goals and objectives; (4) a description of the
relationship between the long-term goals/objectives and the annual
performance plans; (5) an identification of key external factors; and
(6) a description of how program evaluations were used to establish
and revise strategic goals.  GAO's July 1997 report--The Results Act: 
Observations on GSA's April 1997 Draft Strategic Plan
(GAO/GGD-97-153R, July 11, 1997)--conveyed GAO's analysis of the
April 1997 version of GSA's draft plan.  Since that time, GSA
prepared the plan for submission to OMB and Congress on September 30,
1997, as required by the Results Act. 

GSA's April 1997 draft strategic plan contained all the six
components required by the Results Act.  However, the draft plan
generally lacked clarity, context, descriptive information, and
linkages among the components.  GSA has since made a number of
improvements, and the six components now better achieve the purposes
of the Act.  However, additional improvements would strengthen the
September 30 plan as it evolves over time.  The September 30 plan
continues to have general goals and objectives that seem to be
expressed in terms that may be challenging to translate into
quantitative analysis.  The strategies component is an improvement
over the prior version but would benefit from a more detailed
discussion of how each goal will actually be accomplished. 

Although the external factors in the September 30 plan are clearer
and provide more context, the factors are not clearly linked to the
general goals and objectives.  The program evaluations component
provides a listing of the various program evaluations that GSA used,
but it does not include a required schedule of future evaluations. 
Although the plan does a much better job of setting forth GSA's
statutory authorities, this addition could be further improved by
linking the different authorities to either the general goals and
objectives or the performance goals.  The plan also refers to three
related areas--crosscutting issues, major management problems, and
data reliability--but the discussion is limited and not as useful as
it could be in articulating how these issues might affect successful
accomplishment of goals and objectives.  This is especially true for
major management and data reliability problems, which can have a
negative impact on measuring progress and achieving the goals. 


THE RESULTS ACT:  OBSERVATIONS ON
GSA'S STRATEGIC PLAN
==================================================== Chapter STATEMENT

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our observations on the
General Services Administration's (GSA) strategic plan.  This plan
was prepared for submission to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and Congress on September 30, 1997, as required by the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act).\1

Building on our July 1997 report on GSA's April draft plan,\2 I will
discuss the improvements GSA has made and areas where GSA's strategic
plan can be improved as it evolves over time. 

GSA's April 28 draft strategic plan contained all the six components
required by the Results Act.  However, the draft plan generally
lacked clarity, context, descriptive information, and linkages among
the components.  GSA has since made a number of improvements, and the
six components better achieve the purposes of the Act.  However,
additional improvements would strengthen the September 30 plan as it
evolves over time.  The September 30 plan continues to have general
goals and objectives that seem to be expressed in terms that may be
challenging to translate into quantitative analysis.  The strategies
component is an improvement over the prior version but would benefit
from a more detailed discussion of how each goal will actually be
accomplished. 

Although the key external factors component in the September 30 plan
is clearer and provides more context, the factors are not clearly
linked to the general goals and objectives.  The program evaluations
component provides a listing of the various program evaluations that
GSA used, but it does not include the required schedule of future
evaluations.  Although the plan does a much better job of setting
forth GSA's statutory authorities, this addition could be further
improved by linking the different authorities to either the general
goals and objectives or the performance goals.  The plan also refers
to three related areas--crosscutting issues, major management
problems, and data reliability--but the discussion is limited and not
as useful as it could be in trying to assess the impact of these
factors on meeting and measuring the goals.  This is especially true
for major management and data reliability problems, which can have a
negative impact on measuring progress and achieving the goals. 


--------------------
\1 P.L.  103-62. 

\2 The Results Act:  Observations on GSA's April 1997 Draft Strategic
Plan (GAO/GGD-97-147R, July 7, 1997)


   BACKGROUND
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter STATEMENT:1

In the 1990s, Congress put in place a statutory framework to address
long-standing weaknesses in federal government operations, improve
federal management practices, and provide greater accountability for
achieving results.  This framework included as its essential elements
financial management reform legislation, information technology
reform legislation, and the Results Act. 

In enacting this framework, Congress sought to create a more focused,
results-oriented management and decisionmaking process within both
Congress and the executive branch.  These laws\3 seek to improve
federal management by responding to a need for accurate, reliable
information for congressional and executive branch decisionmaking. 
This information has been badly lacking in the past, as much of our
work has demonstrated.  Implemented together, these laws provided a
powerful framework for developing fully integrated information about
agencies' missions and strategic priorities, data to show whether or
not the goals are achieved, the relationship of information
technology investment to the achievement of those goals, and accurate
and audited financial information about the costs of achieving
mission results. 

The Results Act focuses on clarifying missions, setting goals, and
measuring performance toward achieving those goals.  It emphasizes
managing for results and pinpointing opportunities for improved
performance and increased accountability.  Congress intended for the
Act to improve the effectiveness of federal programs by fundamentally
shifting the focus of management and decisionmaking away from a
preoccupation with tasks and services to a broader focus on results
of federal programs. 


--------------------
\3 The primary financial management reform legislation Congress
enacted is the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, as expanded by
the Government Management Reform Act of 1994.  These laws provide the
basis for identifying and correcting financial management weaknesses
that have cost the federal government billions of dollars and leave
it vulnerable to waste, fraud, and mismanagement.  They also set
expectations for agencies to deploy modern systems to replace
existing antiquated, often manual processes; develop better
performance and cost measures; and design results-oriented reports on
the government's financial condition and operating performance by
integrating budget, accounting, and program information.  Information
technology reform legislation, including the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, was based on the best
practices used by leading public and private organizations to more
effectively manage information technology. 


      REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE
      RESULTS ACT
------------------------------------------------ Chapter STATEMENT:1.1

Under the Results Act, executive agencies are to develop strategic
plans in which they define their missions, establish results-oriented
goals, and identify strategies they will use to achieve those goals. 
The Act specifies that all agencies' strategic plans should have six
critical components:  (1) a comprehensive agency mission statement;
(2) agencywide long-term goals and objectives for all major functions
and operations; (3) approaches (or strategies) to achieve the goals
and objectives and the various resources needed; (4) a description of
the relationship between the long-term goals/objectives and the
annual performance plans required by the Act; (5) an identification
of key factors, external to the agency and beyond its control, that
could significantly affect achievement of the strategic goals; and
(6) a description of how program evaluations were used to establish
and revise strategic goals and a schedule for future program
evaluations. 


   SUMMARY OF KEY OBSERVATIONS
   FROM OUR JULY REPORT
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter STATEMENT:2

We reported in July that the April 28 draft plan included the six
components required by the Results Act and the general goals and
objectives in the plan reflected GSA's major statutory
responsibilities.  However, our analysis showed that the plan could
have better met the purposes of the Act and related OMB guidance. 
Two of the required components--how goals and objectives were to be
achieved and program evaluations--needed more descriptive information
on how goals and objectives were to be achieved, how program
evaluations were used in setting goals, and what the schedule would
be for future evaluations to better achieve the purposes of the Act. 
The four other required components--mission statement, general goals
and objectives, key external factors, and relating performance goals
to general goals and objectives--were more responsive to the Act but
needed greater clarity and context.  We also noted that the general
goals and objectives and the mission statement in the draft plan did
not emphasize economy and efficiency, as a reflection of taxpayers'
interests.  Also, the general goals and objectives seem to have been
expressed in terms that may be challenging to translate into
quantitative or measurable analysis, and there could have been better
linkages between the various components of the plan. 

We also reported that the plan could have been made more useful to
GSA, Congress, and other stakeholders by providing a fuller
description of statutory authorities and an explicit discussion of
crosscutting functions, major management problems, and the adequacy
of data and systems.  Although the plan reflected the major pieces of
legislation that establish GSA's mission and explained how GSA's
mission is linked to key statutes, we reported that GSA could provide
other useful information, such as listing laws that broaden its
responsibilities as a central management agency and which are
reflected in the goals and objectives. 

Relatedly, the draft plan did not discuss the potential for
crosscutting issues to arise or how these issues might affect
successful accomplishment of goals and objectives.  It also made no
mention of whether GSA coordinated the plan with its stakeholders. 
The plan was also silent on the formidable management problems we
have identified over the years--issues that are important because
they could have a serious impact on whether GSA can achieve its
strategic goals.  Finally, the plan made no mention of how data
limitations would affect its ability to measure performance and
ultimately manage its programs.  We reported that consideration of
these areas would give GSA a better framework for developing and
achieving its goals and help stakeholders better understand GSA's
operating constraints and environment. 


   IMPROVEMENTS MADE IN THE
   STRATEGIC PLAN
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter STATEMENT:3

The September 30 plan reflects a number of the improvements that we
suggested in our July 1997 report.  The clarity of the September 30
plan is improved and it provides more context, descriptive
information, and linkages within and among the six components that
are required by the Act.  Compared to the April 28 draft, the
September 30 plan generally should provide stakeholders with a better
understanding of GSA's overall mission and strategic outlook.  Our
analysis of the final plan also showed that, in line with our
suggestion, GSA placed more emphasis on economy and efficiency in the
comprehensive mission statement and general goals and objectives
components.  The September 30 plan also generally described the
operational processes, staff skills, and technology required, as well
as the human, information, and other resources needed, to meet the
goals and objectives.  The strategic plan now contains a listing of
program evaluations that GSA used to prepare the plan and a more
comprehensive discussion of the major pieces of legislation that
serve as a basis for its mission, reflecting additional suggestions
we made in our July 1997 report. 

Furthermore, the September 30 plan's overall improvement in clarity
and context should help decisionmakers and other stakeholders better
understand the crosscutting, governmentwide nature of GSA's
operations as a central management agency.  The September 30 plan
makes some reference to major management problems in the program
evaluations component and also addresses the importance of data
reliability in the general goals and objectives component.  The
improvements that GSA has made are a step in the right direction, and
the six components better achieve the purposes of the Act.  However,
we believe that additional improvements, which are described in the
following section, would strengthen the strategic plan as it evolves
over time. 


   STRATEGIC PLAN CAN BE FURTHER
   IMPROVED
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter STATEMENT:4

As we discussed in our July 7, 1997, report on the draft plan, the
September 30 plan continues to have general goals and objectives that
seem to be expressed in terms that may be challenging to translate
into quantitative or measurable analysis.  This could make it
difficult to determine whether they are actually being achieved.  For
example, the goal to "compete effectively for the federal market" has
such objectives as "provide quality products and services at
competitive prices and achieve significant savings" and "open GSA to
marketplace competition where appropriate to reduce costs to the
government and improve customer service." However, this goal, its
related objectives, and the related narrative do not state
specifically how progress will be measured, such as the amount of
savings GSA intends to achieve or the timetable for opening the GSA
marketplace for competition.  OMB Circular A-11 specifies that
general goals and objectives should be stated in a manner that allows
a future assessment to be made of whether the goals are being met. 
The OMB guidance states that general goals that are quantitative
facilitate this determination, but it also recognizes that the goals
need not be quantitative and that related performance goals can be
used as a basis for future assessments.  However, we observed that
many of the performance goals that GSA included in the plan also were
not expressed in terms that could easily enable quantitative
analysis, which could make gauging progress difficult in future
assessments. 

The strategies component--how the goals and objectives will be
achieved--described the operational processes, human resources and
skills, and information and technology needed to meet the general
goals and objectives.  This component is an improvement over the
prior version we reviewed, and applicable performance goals are
listed with each of these factors.  Although GSA chose to discuss
generally the factors that will affect its ability to achieve its
performance goals, we believe that a more detailed discussion of how
each goal will actually be accomplished would be more useful to
decisionmakers.  To illustrate with a specific example, the plan
could discuss the approaches that GSA will use to meet the
performance goals related to its general goal of promoting
responsible asset management using operational processes, human
resources and skills, information and technology, and capital/other
resources. 

The plan does discuss, in the general goals and objectives component,
an operational/human resource change involving the appointment of a
new Chief Measurement Officer in the Public Buildings Service.  More
discussion of this type of change in the strategies component would
help stakeholders better understand GSA's specific strategies to
ensure that it is achieving its goals and objectives.  We also noted
that the strategies component does not discuss priorities among the
goals and objectives.  Such a discussion would be helpful to
decisionmakers in determining where to focus priorities in the event
of a sudden change in funding or staffing.  Finally, GSA deferred to
the President's budget its discussion about capital and other
resources.  We believe it seems reasonable to include in this
component at least some general discussion of how capital and other
resources will be used to meet each general goal. 

Although the external factors component in the September 30 plan is
much clearer and provides more context than the draft version we
reviewed, the factors are not clearly linked to the general goals and
objectives.  OMB Circular A-11 states that the plan should include
this link, as well as describe how achieving the goals could be
affected by the factors.  This improvement would allow decisionmakers
to better understand how the factors potentially will affect
achievement of each general goal and objective.  The program
evaluations component in the September 30 plan provides a listing of
the various program evaluations that GSA indicates were used in
developing the plan.  However, it still does not include a schedule
of future evaluations.  Instead, the plan states that the schedule
for future program evaluations is under development and that GSA
intends to use the remainder of the consultation process to obtain
input from Congress and stakeholders concerning the issues that
should be studied on a priority basis.  However, OMB Circular A-11
indicates that the schedule should have been completed and included
in the September 30 plan, together with an outline of the general
methodology to be used and a discussion of the particular issues to
be addressed. 

Although the plan does a much better job of setting forth GSA's
statutory authorities in the attachment, this description could be
further improved if the different statutory authorities discussed
therein were linked with either the general goals and objectives or
the performance goals included in the plan.  Further, the plan only
makes limited reference to the other important areas we identified in
our July 1997 report--crosscutting issues, major management problems,
and data reliability.  The plan's improved clarity and context should
help decisionmakers understand the crosscutting issues that affect
GSA as a central management agency.  However, explicit discussion of
these issues is limited, and the September 30 plan makes no reference
to the extent to which GSA coordinated with stakeholders. 

The September 30 plan references major management problems in the
program evaluations component, but it does not explicitly discuss
these problems or identify which problems could have an adverse
impact on meeting the general goals and objectives.  Our work has
shown over the years that these types of problems have significantly
hampered GSA's and its stakeholder agencies' abilities to accomplish
their missions.  For example, the plan could address how GSA will
attempt to ensure that its information systems meet computer security
requirements or how GSA plans to address the year 2000 problem in its
computer hardware and software systems.  The plan does reference data
reliability in the general goals and objectives component.  However,
the discussion of data reliability, which is so critical for
measuring progress and results, is limited and not as useful as it
could be in attempting to assess the impact that data problems could
have on meeting the general goals and objectives.  We continue to
believe that greater emphasis on how GSA plans to resolve management
problems and on the importance of data reliability could improve the
plan. 


------------------------------------------------ Chapter STATEMENT:4.1

Mr.  Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement.  I would be
pleased to answer any questions. 

*** End of document. ***