Software development is a critical component of this major modernization initiative. We requested that VA identify for our evaluation those projects using the best software development processes implemented within VBA and AAC. Organizations that have a repeatable software development process have been able to significantly improve their productivity and return on investment. As shown in table 2, these processes include (1) requirements management, (2) software project planning, (3) software project tracking and oversight, (4) software subcontract management, (5) software quality assurance, and (6) software configuration management. Initiatives cited by the VBA include: development and distribution of interim configuration management procedures; identification of a library structure to hold all of the work products from the development process; and initiation of several meetings with SEI to discuss the Software CMM. Austin Automation Center Software Practices

Similar to VBA, we compared the CMM criteria in appendix II to the software development practices at AAC. Unless both VBA and AAC initiate improvement activities within the various KPAs and accelerate those already underway, they are unlikely to produce and maintain high-quality software on time and within budget. Conclusions and Recommendations

Because VBA and AAC do not satisfy any of the KPAs required for a level 2 (i.e., repeatable) capability, there is no assurance that (1) investments made in new software development will achieve their operational improvement objectives or (2) software will be delivered consistent with cost and schedule estimates. Comments From the Veterans Benefits Administration

Comments From the Department of Veterans Affairs

The following is GAO’s comment on the Department of Veterans Affairs’ May 24, 1996, letter.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed software development processes and practices at the Department of Veterans Affairs' Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and Austin Automation Center (AAC).

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) neither VBA nor AAC satisfy any of the criteria for a repeatable software development capability; (2) VBA and AAC do not adequately define systems requirements, train personnel, plan software development projects, estimate costs or schedules, track software project schedules or changes, manage software subcontractors, or maintain quality assurance and software configuration procedures; (3) VBA initiatives to improve its software development processes include developing and distributing interim configuration management procedures, identifying a library structure for all work products, and meeting with the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) to discuss software development; (4) VBA and AAC cannot reliably develop and maintain high-quality software on any major project within existing cost and schedule constraints; and (5) VBA and AAC can use their strengths in software quality assurance and their improvement activities in software configuration management as a foundation for improving their software development processes.