Digital Service Teams Are Intended to Improve the Federal Government’s IT Efforts

18F and USDS were formed in 2014 to help address the federal  government’s troubled IT efforts. Agency Digital Service Teams

In an effort to make improvements to critical IT services throughout the  federal government, the Presidents’ Budget for fiscal year 2016 proposed  funding for the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act agencies, as well as the  National Archives and Records Administration, to establish digital  services teams. 18F and USDS Provided a Variety of Development and Consulting Services Supporting Agency Technology Efforts and Agencies Were Generally Satisfied with the Programs

As part of our ongoing work, we determined that 18F and USDS have  provided a variety of development and consulting services to agencies to  support their technology efforts. Specifically, between March 2014 and  August 2015, 18F staff helped 18 agencies with 32 projects and  generally provided six types of services to the agencies, the majority of  which related to development work. USDS Provided Seven Types of Consulting Services Aimed at Helping Agencies Improve IT

From August 2014 through August 2015, USDS provided assistance on  13 projects across 11 agencies. Quality assurance. Problem identification and recommendations. Information security assessment. Software engineering. In addition to helping agencies improve IT services, USDS has developed  guidance for agencies. A Majority of Surveyed Agency Project Managers Were Satisfied with Services Provided by 18F and USDS

In response to a satisfaction survey we administered to agency managers  of selected 18F and USDS projects, a majority of managers were  satisfied with the services they received from the groups. Establish and implement procedures for prioritizing IT projects. 18F Has Goals and Procedures for Prioritizing Projects, but Needs to Fully Define Outcome- Oriented Goals and Measure Performance

In our draft report, we determined that 18F has developed several  outcome-orientated goals, performance measures, and procedures for  prioritizing projects, which it has largely implemented. However, not all of  its goals are outcome-oriented and it has not yet measured program  performance. 18F has largely implemented its procedures. Further, USDS has only measured actual results for one of its goals. Until USDS ensures that all of its goals are outcome- oriented and establishes performance measures and targets for each  goal, it will be difficult to hold the program accountable for results. Of the 25 agencies that requested funding to establish teams, OMB has  established charters with 6 agencies for their digital service teams—the  Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland  Security, the Treasury, State, and Veterans Affairs. In addition, according to the Deputy USDS Administrator, USDS plans to  establish charters with an additional 3 agencies by the end of the fiscal  year—the Department of Education, the Social Security Administration,  and Small Business Administration. For the remaining 16 agencies, as of  April 2016, 8 agencies reported that they plan to establish digital service  teams but have yet to establish charters with USDS—the Department of  Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency,  General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space  Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, National  Science Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Office of  Personnel Management. The other 8 agencies reported that they do not  plan to establish digital service teams by September 2016 because they  did not receive requested funding—the Departments of Agriculture,  Commerce, Energy, the Interior, Justice, Labor, and Transportation; and  the U.S. Agency for International Development. Table 7 summarizes  agency and OMB efforts to establish digital service teams. The lack of defined relationships is due, in large part, to the fact that  USDS policy on digital service teams does not describe the expected  relationship between agency CIOs and these teams. Until OMB updates the USDS policy to clearly define the responsibilities  and authorities governing the relationships between CIOs and digital  services teams and ensures that existing agency digital service team  charters or other documentation reflect this policy, agency CIOs may not  be effectively involved in the digital service teams. Additionally, they have not fully measured program  performance. Accordingly, our draft report contains two planned recommendations to  GSA and four to OMB. The draft report also includes recommendations for OMB to: ensure that all goals and associated performance measures are  outcome-oriented and that performance measures have targets; assess actual results for each performance measure; establish a time frame for developing the report identifying the highest  priority projects, develop the report within that established time frame  and on a quarterly basis thereafter, and consider the highest priority  IT projects as part of the established process for prioritizing projects;  and update USDS policy to clearly define the responsibilities and  authorities governing the relationships between CIOs and the digital  services teams and require existing agency digital service teams to  address this policy.
Why GAO Did This Study

In an effort to improve IT across the federal government, in March 2014 GSA established a team, known as 18F that provides IT services to agencies. In addition, in August 2014 the Administration established USDS, which aims to improve the federal IT services provided to citizens. OMB also required agencies to establish their own digital service teams.
GAO was asked to summarize its draft report that (1) describes 18F and USDS efforts to address problems with IT projects and agencies' views of services provided, (2) assesses these programs' efforts against practices for performance measurement and project prioritization, and (3) assesses agency plans to establish their own digital service teams. In preparing the draft report on which this testimony is based, GAO reviewed 32 18F projects and 13 USDS projects that were underway or completed as of August 2015 and surveyed agencies about these projects; reviewed 18F and USDS in key performance measurement and project prioritization practices; reviewed 25 agencies' efforts to establish digital service teams; and reviewed documentation from four agencies, which were chosen based on their progress made in establishing digital service teams.

What GAO Found

In a draft report, GAO determined that the General Service Administration's (GSA) 18F and Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) U.S. Digital Service (USDS) have provided a variety of services to agencies supporting their information technology (IT) efforts. Specifically, 18F staff helped 18 agencies with 32 projects and generally provided development and consulting services, including software development solutions and acquisition consulting. In addition, USDS provided assistance on 13 projects across 11 agencies and generally provided consulting services, including quality assurance, problem identification and recommendations, and software engineering. Further, according to GAO's survey, managers were generally satisfied with the services they received from 18F and USDS on these projects (see table).
Both 18F and USDS have partially implemented practices to identify and help agencies address problems with IT projects. Specifically, 18F has developed several outcome-oriented goals and related performance measures, as well as procedures for prioritizing projects; however, not all of its goals are outcome-oriented and it has not yet fully measured program performance. Similarly, USDS has developed goals, but they are not all outcome-oriented and it has established performance measures for only one of its goals. USDS has also measured progress for just one goal. Further, it has not fully implemented its procedures for prioritizing projects. Until 18F and USDS fully implement these practices, it will be difficult to hold the programs accountable for results.
Agencies are beginning to establish digital service teams. Of the 25 agencies that requested funding for these teams, OMB has established charters with 6 agencies for their digital service teams. In addition, according to the USDS Deputy Administrator, USDS plans to establish charters with an additional 3 agencies by the end of the fiscal year—the Department of Education, as well as the Social Security Administration and Small Business Administration. For the remaining 16 agencies, as of April 2016, 8 agencies reported that they plan to establish digital service teams but have yet to establish charters with USDS. The other 8 agencies reported that they do not plan to establish digital service teams by September 2016 because they did not receive requested funding. Further, of the four agencies GAO selected to review, only one has defined the relationship between its digital service team and the agency Chief Information Officer (CIO). This is due, in part, to the fact that USDS policy does not describe the expected relationship between CIOs and these teams. Until OMB updates its policy and ensures that the responsibilities between the CIOs and digital services teams are clearly defined, it is unclear whether CIOs will be able to fulfill their statutory responsibilities with respect to IT management of the projects undertaken by the digital service teams.

What GAO Recommends

GAO's draft report includes two recommendations to GSA and three recommendations to OMB to improve goals and performance measurement. In addition, GAO's draft report is recommending that OMB update USDS policy to define the relationships between CIOs and digital services teams.