In the GAO Schedule Assessment Guide,four characteristics of a reliable schedule. Well Constructed– Minimally Met

In both of the schedules, the Bureau logically linked many of the activities  in a sequence. Yet in both  schedules, the Bureau did not identify the preceding and following activity  for a number of activities (20 percent for the GSS-I schedule and 9  percent for the 2020 Research and Testing schedule). Without this  logic, the effect of a change in one activity on future activities cannot be  seen in the schedule. For those activities that lack  predecessors in the schedule, the real effects of changes or delays in  preceding activities would not be visible in the schedule, potentially  resulting in unforeseen delays in the recommendation report. More importantly, though, the Bureau is not in a position to carry out  systematic quantitative risk analysis on its schedule. Geography Division managers also stressed to us their  commitment to schedule management. By conducting a workforce  planning process that includes an analysis of skills and training needed,  such as what the Bureau describes for its scheduling staff in the future,  and the identification of gaps to be addressed, the Bureau can better  ensure that staff who manage the schedules understand the leading  practices and the importance of adhering to them. The Bureau Generally Documented Leading Practices for Collaboration in Its Master Address File Plans

Several divisions are involved in efforts to build the 2020 MAF, making  collaboration critical to ensuring that participating divisions work together  to achieve the Bureau’s goals. For example, the MAF error  model research team has representation from the Geography Division,  the Decennial Statistical Studies Division, and the Field Division, among  others. These agreements are not limited to MAF  building efforts, but they provide the broad framework for working  together and defining coordination. Continued management attention to follow leading  practices for collaboration will help to ensure that collaboration across  units is occurring as the Bureau strives to achieve its goal of a more cost- effective 2020 MAF and Census. With its planning documents, memorandums of understanding, and  various charters, the Bureau has put in place a framework to support  collaborative efforts following leading practices, particularly in recent  months, which will aid the efforts. Recommendations for Executive Action

To help maintain a more thorough and insightful 2020 Census  development schedule in order to better manage risks to a successful  2020 Census, the Secretary of Commerce and Undersecretary of  Economic Affairs should direct the U.S. Census Bureau to improve its  scheduling practices in three areas:  the comprehensiveness of schedules, including ensuring that all  relevant activities are included in the schedule;  the construction of schedules, including ensuring complete logic is in  place to identify the preceding and subsequent activities as well as a  critical path that can be used to make decisions; and  the credibility of schedules, including conducting a quantitative risk  assessment. In addition, we recommend that the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau  initiate a robust workforce planning process for those working on  schedules related to the Master Address File, including actions such as  an analysis of skills needed, to identify and address gaps in scheduling  skills. The Department of Commerce  concurred with our findings and recommendations and provided several  clarifications, which are reflected in this report as appropriate. The GAO staff that made major contributions to this report  are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report (1) assesses the reliability of the schedules for two key Master  Address File (MAF) development programs, and (2) examines the extent  to which the Census Bureau (Bureau) is following leading practices for  collaboration for its MAF development work. We  scored each scheduling best practice on a five-point scale ranging from  “not met” to “fully met.” To determine the extent to which the Bureau’s key  efforts to build a cost-effective MAF/Topologically Integrated Geographic  Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) incorporate leading practices for  collaboration, we identified leading practices to apply to intra-agency  collaborative efforts based on our past work on leading collaboration   We identified organizational units and activities relevant to  practices.building a cost-effective MAF in consultation with the Bureau.
Why GAO Did This Study

According to the Bureau, it is committed to limiting its per household cost for the 2020 Census to that of the 2010 Census, and believes that reducing the cost of updating the MAF can be of significant help. Because of tight deadlines and the involvement of several different Bureau units in this effort, effective scheduling and collaboration practices are important for the entire process to stay on track.
GAO was asked to examine scheduling and collaboration in the Bureau's efforts to develop a more cost-effective MAF. GAO (1) assessed the reliability of the schedules for two key MAF development programs, and (2) examined the extent to which the Bureau is following leading practices for collaboration for its MAF development work. GAO analyzed the schedules for the two programs most relevant to developing the address list, and reviewed strategic plans and other documents establishing coordination mechanisms and compared them to leading practices for intra-agency collaborative efforts.

What GAO Found

The Census Bureau (Bureau) is not producing reliable schedules for the two programs most relevant to building the Master Address File (MAF)--the 2020 Research and Testing program and the Geographic Support System Initiative.
The Bureau did not include all activities in either schedule. The schedules appeared to have reasonable durations for most activities, but they did not include information about required resources.
For both schedules, the Bureau logically linked many activities in a sequence. Yet in both schedules the Bureau did not identify the preceding and following activity for a significant number of activities. Without this logic, the effect of a change in one activity on future activities cannot be seen in the schedule, potentially resulting in unforeseen delays.
The Bureau is not in a position to carry out a quantitative risk analysis on the schedules.
As a result of these issues, the schedules are producing inaccurate dates, which could mislead Bureau managers to falsely conclude that all of the work is on schedule when it may not be. Without reliable schedule information, such as valid forecasted dates and the amount of flexibility remaining in the schedule, management faces challenges in assessing the progress of MAF development efforts and determining what activities most need attention. Staff managing the schedules said that they had not received thorough training or certification on scheduling best practices, and, according to schedule managers, staff turnover contributed to the issues GAO identified. Workforce planning and training can help the Bureau have the skills in place to ensure that characteristics of a reliable schedule are met to support key management decisions.
The Bureau has documented collaboration activities that follow many leading practices for collaboration. Because several divisions are involved in efforts to develop the MAF, collaboration across these divisions is critical. In recent months, the Bureau has put in place a variety of mechanisms to aid coordination, such as crosscutting task teams. For example, research projects relevant to developing the MAF have representation from multiple divisions. The Bureau has also established memorandums of understanding across divisions to provide a broad framework for working together. Continued management attention to collaboration practices will help to ensure that collaboration across units is occurring as MAF development continues.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Census Director take a number of actions to improve the reliability of its schedules, including steps to ensure that all relevant activities are included in the schedules, complete scheduling logic is in place, and a quantitative risk assessment is conducted. In addition, GAO recommends a robust workforce planning effort to identify and address gaps in scheduling skills for staff that work on schedules. The Department of Commerce concurred and suggested several clarifications, which GAO included in the report as appropriate.