111111111llllllll11111Ill11lllll llllllllllllll Ill1 LM097054 Oegartment of the Navy COYFI’ROLL?ZR GENCRAL OF TIcIT UN:TCD S’hATCS WAmiIN6TOH. DC 20840 B-146796 ho the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives This is our report on ways for the Department of the Navy to improve its management of automated data processing resources. We made our review pursuant to the Budget and Account- ing Act, 1921 !31 U.S.C. 53), and the Accounting and Audit- ing Act of 1950 (31 G.S.C. 67). We are sending copies of this report to Off ice of Management and Budget; the and the Secretary of the Navy. Comptroller General of the onited States -. contents *. Page DIGEST i CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION - 1 Department of the Navy's automatic data processing prograim 1 Cbjectivcs and principles of the Navy program 1. 2 ADVERSE EFFECTS OF PROLONGEDSYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 3 Has the program been successful? 3 How has prolonged systems development affected automated data processing resources and benefits? 6 3 OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE NAVY'S MANAGEMENT OF AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING RESOURCES 9 Why hasn't standardization been successful? 9 How can the program be improved? 10 Need for studies before acquiring computer equipment 10 Need to imprcve and extend stand- ard systems 12 Need to enforce redesign policy 18 Need to improve process af justi- fying system projects 20 4 CONCLUSIONS, AGENCY COMMENTSAND OUR EVALUATION, AND RECOY%%ENDATIONS 23 Conclusions 23 Agency co.mments and our evaluation 24 Recommendations to the Secretary ot the Navy 30 5 SCOPE OF REVIEW 32 Page APPENDIX I Letter dated October 16, 1974, from the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Finan- cial Management) to GAO 35 II Principal officials responsible for the administration of activities discussed in this report 44 I -- - \ * COK’TROLLFR CEt/EFJL ‘S tJAYS TC IHPROVE REPORT TO THE COIKRESS MANAGEMENTOF AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING RESOURCES Department of the Navy I _-----DIGEST : WHY THE REVIEW WAS MADE --design, develop, and maintain interim and nonstandard systems i ; GAO wanted to know how effectively operating on that equipment, and ': ' the Navy was managing its auto- ,# mated data processing resources --supplement saturated computers with '; which cost about $300 million a commercial computer time (See p. 6.) I year. ’ FIttDIIIGS AIJD CCUJCLUSIO.3 why hasn't standardization been succesfifit1 F The rjavy's Automatic Data Proces- sing Program is having difficulty Standardization has been unsuccessful achieving its major objectives, primariiy because Navy management particularly in its efforts to allows local commanders to influencr! develop standard information and unduly the design of standard sys- data systems--which are the key tems. Ccmmanders have modified to the program's objectives--with standard systems or developed sys- standard equipment on a con-mand tems to suit local needs without and functional basis. regard to the Navy‘s overall program objectives and management needs. Instead of producing timely, stan- The problem of command influence on dardized, and cost-effective sys- the Navy's program will continue tems, many of these efforts have into a neH generation of computer generated a series of costly and equipment. (See p. 9.) prolonged systems developments. (See p. 3.) A family of systems which are "standard" in name only and many of Thus the Government is paying mil- which are still under development, lions of dollars each year to now forms much of the foundation for data processing and for further --sustain systems efforts beyond systems improvements within the their scheduled completion dates, Navy. (See p. 9.) --operate and maintain standard equip- ment acquired for those systems without achieving expected benefits The Navy has installed or is instal- and to retain older computer equip- : ling late-model computer equipment merit because of system delays, for many of those systems in an aSheet. Uoon removal. thp *..~I’-I : cover date should be noted htleo:, i LCD-74-110 ; eficrt tc, IdpgrLlde them, desp ite the lish a program for upgrading and fdct thdt those systems standardizing each system. --at-e not fully standardized I --Issue the commands more definite guidance for making economic anal- --are not adequate, and I yses and establish a program for educating the field organizations --are not designed to exploit the in the economic analysis technique. .-- ___ latest computer technology. (See Further, the guidance should require P. 9.1 that the economic analysis be per- formed before systems are submitted i!&Lt xc tks progrm be improved? for review and approval by higher management. Provision should also Implementation of the Navy's program, be made for obtaining appropriate which generally provides the neces- assistance from the Naval Audit sary policies, procedures, princi- Service in evaluating the analysis ples, and instructions to guide sys- before it is submitted for approval. tems development, can be substantial- ly improved if the Navy resolves the --Amend his instructions for redesign problem of command influence. to require that the alternative of redesign be considered as part of This can be accomplished by requiring any economic analysis made to sup- the commands to adhere to the pro- port system projects. gram's fundamental requirements for systems development and management --Require the Director, Department throug!l more stringent control by of the Navy, Automatic Data Pro- the Department's top data processing cessing Management, to establish managers. The specific areas where monitoring procedures to insure improvements are needed, in both compliance with the redesign development and management, are sys- policy. (See p. 30.) tem studies, redesign of systems, justification of system projects, and standardization. (See pp. 10, AC&KY ACTIOfJS A:iD Vh’f?RWL WD ISSUES 12, 18, and 20.) The Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management) acknowledged that improvements could and should 'he Secretary of the Navy should: be made in the Automatic Data Pro- cessing Program and essentially --Require that system studies be agreed with GAO's proposals. documented and that the documenta- tion be part of the equipment However, he was concerned that GAO fir: .---I justification. ings could lead to damaging miscon- ceptions regarding the effectiveness --Review the Eiavy’s information and of the Department’s program and said data processing systems to identify, that the findings should be vienerf on a system-by-system basas, those in the light of changing conditions. actions that are needed to estab- He stated also that the Navy's cur- ii rent position was not unique when --To improve the use of the economic compared with that of other computer- analysis technique, the Navy has dependent organizations. (See pp. (1) formally trained many opera- 24 and 35.) tional analysts in its graduate studies program, (2) promulgated The Assistant Secretary disagreed some very detailed instructions with GAO's contention that the De- in May 1972, (3) aided in the de- partment's management philosophy of velopment of Department of Defense "centralized policy direction and Instruction 7041.3 of October 18, decentralized execution" unduly in- 1972, and (4) begun training, open fluenced the development and opera- to all person@;, in economic anal- tion of standard information and ysis at the Navy Logistics Manage- data processing systems. He acknowl- ment School in Washington, D.C. edged that the philosophy strongly influenced the approach to developing --The Navy is studying ways to insti- effective information systems but tute a self-teaching course to believed it to be valid. (See pp. exploit its economic analysis 26 and 36.) training capability. The Assistant Secretary said that --The Navy will insure that it fully the Navy's Automatic Data Processing documents its redesign consia!era- Program was currently being directed tions in the future. (See pp. 29, along GAO's recommendations and that 35, and 38.) GAO's report confirmed that this approach was reasonable. tie informed These actions, particularly the ones GAO that the following act'ons related related to system studies and economic to GAO's proposals are being taken. analysis, should improve ',he Depart- ment's management of its data proces- sing resources. --The Navy is updating its management instruction for system development The Assistant Secretary's assurance to amplify documentation require- that the havy will fully document ments to insure that all potential- future redesign considerations, ly significant facts are documented however, is not an adequate response and that all documentation, which to GAO's proposal concerning the forms the basis for acquisition de- redesign policy of the Department of cisions, is kept available for Defense. review. It will require mission function sponsors to formally re- GAO believes that the commands will view projects to con?irm the va- not implement that policy effectively lidity and priority of their unless the Secretary of the Navy specifications arct to authorize amends his instructions to require their funding. It will also re- the commands to consider redesign as quire system proponents to use the part of any economic analysis made iJava Audit Service to evaluate to support system projects and estab- costly economic analyses. lish monitoring procedures to insure Jeaf Shgef iii that thz redesign policy is '%oll&ed. (See p. 30.) Findfngs and recommendations in this report should be of specfal interest The Assistant Secretary listed numer- to (1) the House Committee on Appro- ous actions the Navy was taking Lo priations, which has been concerned improve its data processing opera- with the cost, efficiency, and effect- z-- tions. -While these actions are iveness of data processing management beneficial, they are generally not in the Federal Government and (2) directed toward the imdiate im- other committees &d members concer:leo :--L provement or upgradfng of 'he kinds with increasing productjvitp in the of systems addressed in GAD's report.