	Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to assess (1) the status of Navy’s effort to identify and correct its Year 2000 problem and (2) the appropriateness of the Navy’s strategy and actions for remediating Year 2000 problems. Moreover, the problem could adversely impact critical maritime operations such as combat, communications, command and control, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, strategic sealift, and fleet mobilization and readiness. The Navy’s Year 2000 Efforts to Date

To increase awareness of Year 2000 and to foster coordination among its components, the Navy has taken the following actions. For example, although Defense required that all systems be assessed by June 1997, the Navy reported that it did not finish assessing its mission-critical systems until December 1997, and, as of February 1998, reported it was still assessing about 2 percent of its nonmission-critical systems . Our guide recommends that this be done early in the assessment phase. Further, it is still assessing whether corrective actions are needed for other equipment such as computer hardware, communications equipment, and security systems. Even though Navy CIO officials acknowledged that the department is behind schedule, the Navy has recently moved up its target completion dates for its mission-critical systems for the remaining three phases. In addition, Navy operations are at risk because the Navy has not developed contingency plans to ensure that mission functions can be performed if mission-critical systems are not corrected in time. The Navy Has Not Been Effectively Overseeing and Managing Year 2000 Remediation Efforts

In view of the magnitude of the Year 2000 problem, our Assessment Guide recommends that agencies plan and manage their Year 2000 programs as a single large information system development effort and promulgate and enforce good management practices at the program and project levels. The Navy is not developing contingency plans that focus on ensuring the continuity of all of its critical military operations and business processes. At this point, the Navy does not know whether it has identified all systems and interfaces; it lacks reliable data on the status and cost of remediation efforts; and it does not know if it has the capacity to handle the demanding task of testing systems, networks, operating platforms, and databases. In response to our recommendations, the Navy agreed to establish a complete and accurate inventory of its information systems, ensure that components have identified and corrected interfaces and developed memorandums of agreement with interface partners, develop a departmentwide test strategy, and ensure that contingency planning focuses on the continuity of critical military operations and business processes.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO reviewed the Navy's program for addressing its year 2000 computer systems problem, focusing on the: (1) status of the Navy's efforts to oversee its year 2000 program; and (2) appropriateness of the Navy's strategy and actions for ensuring that the problem will be successfully addressed.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) the Navy relies on computer systems for some aspect of virtually every operation, including strategic and tactical operations; sophisticated weaponry; intelligence, surveillance, and security efforts; strategic sealift and fleet mobilization and readiness; and routine business functions such as financial, personnel, logistics, and contract management; (2) failure to address the year 2000 problem in time could severely degrade or disrupt the Navy's day-to-day and, more importantly, mission-critical operations; (3) the Navy has taken many positive actions to increase awareness, promote sharing of information, and encourage its components to make year 2000 remediation efforts a high priority; (4) however, it is behind schedule in remediating systems; (5) for example, the Navy did not finish assessing its mission-critical systems until December 1997 even though it anticipated that this would be done in June 1997; (6) in addition, it is still in the initial stages of assessing whether year 2000 fixes are required for computer hardware, communications equipment, security and building systems, and other infrastructure equipment; (7) furthermore, the Navy lacks key management and oversight controls to enforce good management practices, direct resources, and establish a complete picture of its progress in remediating systems; (8) for example, the Navy: (a) currently lacks a comprehensive departmentwide inventory of systems requiring remediation; (b) has not been tracking component progress in developing written agreements with their interface partners; (c) has not developed a test strategy for the department; and (d) is not developing contingency plans that focus on ensuring the continuity of all of its critical military operations and business processes; (9) as a result, the Navy lacks complete and reliable information on its systems, and on the status and cost of its remediation efforts; and (10) it has also increased the risk that: (a) year 2000 errors will be propagated from one organization's systems to another's; (b) all systems, interfaces, and equipment important to Navy operations will not be thoroughly and carefully tested; and (c) the department will not be prepared if systems are not corrected or replaced by the year 2000 deadline.