  are not interoperable. The department generally agreed with our  recommendations. MIDAS Is Currently Being Defined; Cost and Schedule Estimates Are Uncertain

FSA plans to modernize all the systems that support its 37 farm programs  (listed in app. The implementation cost  estimate is approximately $305 million, with a life cycle cost of  approximately $473 million. However, the implementation cost is  uncertain because it has not been updated since 2007 and does not  include key cost elements. MIDAS is in its second of four phases—proof  of concept and system design. However, the schedule for the current  program phase, which was to be completed in October 2011, is uncertain,  and a key milestone, requirements review, is delayed. As a result, the  completion date for the second phase, and its impact on subsequent  phases, is unknown. FSA officials plan to revisit the cost and schedule  estimates after completing requirements definition. FSA  completed the program planning phase in October 2010. Proof of concept and system design. However, FSA  officials do not plan to conduct the system requirements review until  December 2011, and a new date for the high-level design review has not  yet been set because additional information and analysis are needed to  plan this milestone. MIDAS Plans Reflect Many Leading Management Practices, but Could Be Strengthened

Delivering large IT modernization programs such as MIDAS on time and  within budget presents challenges and risks. Prior to the proof of concept and system design phase, MIDAS  plans were in place and managers were assigned for these practices. Specifically, FSA has assigned a program  manager and a business sponsor, has planned and initiated  organizational change and communications management, and planned  for earned value management. This board  should review investments against criteria at key decision points, such as  investment selection. Oversight and governance of MIDAS is the responsibility of several  department and agency bodies.   A key role has not been assigned. On the other  hand, department officials reported that MIDAS has complied with  department requirements for business case and monthly status reviews. The lack of clarity and definition for the roles of MIDAS oversight and  governance bodies may result in duplication or voids in program oversight  and wasted resources. Moreover, because MIDAS is not being fully  governed according to department investment guidance, the department  may not be rigorously monitoring and managing the program and its risks,  and may not have the information it needs to make timely and appropriate  decisions to ensure the success of MIDAS. However, the roles and coordination among oversight bodies  are not clearly defined and USDA’s well-defined investment oversight  guidance is not being fully executed. Recommendations for Executive Action

To increase the likelihood that the United States Department of  Agriculture (USDA) will be able to successfully define, develop, and  deploy the Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems  (MIDAS) program, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct  the chief information officers of USDA and the Farm Service Agency  (FSA) to take the following three actions:    To ensure that the department can effectively oversee MIDAS cost,  schedule, and performance commitments, FSA should   develop timely cost estimates for MIDAS’s remaining phases, its  overall development and deployment, and its life cycle, to  incorporate the program changes previously omitted and any  others recently identified and   develop complete and detailed schedules for the program’s  current and remaining phases that take into account the milestone  delays from the program’s second phase and a requirements  baseline.   To ensure that FSA is employing leading practices for program  planning and monitoring, requirements management, contract  management, and risk management for MIDAS, the agency should  charter and operate an integrated project team that commits  stakeholders to the program from other USDA information  technology (IT) initiatives;   establish an integrated project schedule that identifies tasks,  dependencies, and resource commitments and contention  between MIDAS and other department IT initiatives; clearly track key milestones, and report their status in the  program’s business case and on the Office of Management and  Budget’s IT Dashboard; validate all of the 591 user pain points against the requirements  and document the results of this validation, including points that  will not be addressed by MIDAS;   update the program’s management plans to clearly delineate the  roles and responsibilities of contractors assigned to the same  tasks; and   document the status of resolved and unresolved risks initially  identified in November 2010, identify and maintain any unresolved  risks from that period in the current risk register, and regularly  track risks and update the risk register according to the program’s  risk management plan. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to determine (1) the scope and status of the  Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems (MIDAS)  program; (2) whether MIDAS has appropriate program management; and  (3) whether MIDAS has appropriate executive oversight and governance.
Why GAO Did This Study

The United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) is responsible for administering billions of dollars annually in program benefits to farmers and ranchers. Since 2004, FSA has been planning to modernize its information technology (IT) systems that process these benefits with the Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems (MIDAS) program. GAO was asked to determine (1) the scope and status of MIDAS, (2) whether MIDAS has appropriate program management, and (3) whether MIDAS has appropriate executive oversight and governance. To do so, GAO reviewed relevant department guidance and program documents and interviewed USDA officials.

What GAO Found

FSA plans to modernize the systems supporting its 37 farm programs with MIDAS. The implementation cost estimate is approximately $305 million, with a life cycle cost of approximately $473 million. However, the implementation cost estimate is uncertain because it has not been updated since 2007 and does not include cost elements that have since been identified, such as the selection of a commercial enterprise resource planning product. Following completion of its initial phase of program planning in October 2010, MIDAS entered its second of four phases--proof of concept and system design. However, the schedule for this phase, which was to be completed in October 2011, is now uncertain. While FSA officials report that the proof of concept activities are proceeding as scheduled, they have delayed a requirements review milestone until December 2011 and have not yet set a new date for the design review. As a result, the completion date for the second phase and its impact on subsequent phases is uncertain. FSA officials plan to revisit the cost and schedule estimates after completing requirements definition. FSA's program management approach includes many leading practices, but could be strengthened. For example, prior to the proof of concept and system design phase, plans were in place for organizational change and communication, requirements management, and risk. However, a few practices were either partially addressed or not addressed at all in program plans or in the implementation of those plans. For example, an integrated team has not yet been formed with representatives from IT programs that MIDAS depends on for its success. Moreover, the plans do not explicitly call for, and FSA has not produced, a schedule that reflects dependencies with those programs, and risks are not being regularly tracked as planned. FSA's uneven adoption of leading practices is likely to limit the agency's effectiveness in managing system development, and thus its ability to deliver system capabilities on time and within budget. Executive-level governance for MIDAS has not been clearly defined and does not fully follow department IT investment management guidance. Specifically, oversight and governance has been assigned to several department and agency bodies, but roles and escalation criteria are not clearly defined among them. Department officials reported that department guidance is being followed for monthly status reviews, but not for department-level reviews at key decision points. The lack of clarity and definition for the roles of the governance bodies could result in duplication or voids in program oversight, as well as wasted resources. Moreover, because MIDAS is not being governed according to the department's investment guidance, the department may not be rigorously monitoring and managing the program and its risks, and may not have the information it needs to make timely and appropriate decisions to ensure the success of MIDAS.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending that USDA update cost and schedule estimates, address management weaknesses in plans and program execution, and clarify the roles and coordination among governance bodies. USDA agreed with GAO's recommendations and described plans to address them.