According to OMB, these data are  intended to provide a near-real-time perspective on the performance of  these investments, as well as a historical perspective. Further, we recommended that OMB improve how it  rates investments related to current performance and schedule  variance. Most Dashboard Ratings Were Accurate, but Did Not Emphasize Recent Performance

Most of the cost and schedule ratings on the Dashboard were accurate,  but did not provide sufficient emphasis on recent performance to inform  oversight and decision making. However, we generally found fewer such discrepancies than in previous  reviews, and in all cases the selected agencies found and corrected these  inaccuracies in subsequent submissions. In the case of GSA, officials did  not disclose that performance data on the Dashboard were unreliable for  one investment because of an ongoing baseline change. If fully  implemented, OMB’s recent and ongoing changes to the Dashboard,  including new cost and schedule rating calculations and updated  investment baseline reporting, should address this issue. As shown above, the Dashboard’s cost ratings for four of the eight  selected investments were accurate, and four did not match the results of  our analyses during the period from October 2010 through March 2011. In all of these cases, the Dashboard’s cost ratings showed poorer  performance than our assessments. Without proper disclosure of pending  baseline changes and resulting data reliability weaknesses, OMB and  other external oversight groups will not have the appropriate  information to make informed decisions about these investments. Such continued diligence by agencies to report accurate and timely data  will help ensure that the Dashboard’s performance ratings are accurate. Furthermore,  our work has shown cost and schedule performance information from the  most recent 6 months to be a reliable benchmark for providing this  perspective on investment status. Moreover, combining more  recent and historical performance can mask the current status of the  investment. Further analysis of the Financial and Business Management System’s  schedule performance ratings on the Dashboard showed that  because of the amount of historical performance data factored into its  ratings as of July 2011, it would take a minimum schedule variance of  9 years on the activities currently under way in order to change its  rating from “green” to “yellow,” and a variance of more than 30 years  before turning “red.”
We have previously recommended to OMB that it develop cost and  schedule Dashboard ratings that better reflect current investment  performance. We plan to evaluate the new version of the Dashboard once  it is publicly available in 2012. Conclusions

Since our first review in July 2010, the accuracy of investment ratings on  the Dashboard has improved because of OMB’s refinement of its cost  and schedule calculations, and the number of discrepancies found in our  reviews has decreased. Reasons for  inaccurate Dashboard ratings included missing or incomplete agency  data submissions, erroneous data submissions, and inconsistent  investment baseline information. Additionally, the Dashboard’s ratings calculations reflect cumulative  investment performance—a view that is important but does not meet  OMB’s goal of reporting near-real-time performance. OMB’s  Dashboard changes could be important steps toward improving insight  into current performance and the utility of the Dashboard for effective  executive oversight. Recommendation for Executive Action

To better ensure that the Dashboard provides accurate cost and schedule  performance ratings, we are recommending that the Administrator of GSA  direct its CIO to comply with OMB’s guidance related to Dashboard data  submissions by updating the CIO rating for a given GSA investment as  soon as new information becomes available that affects the assessment,  including when an investment is in the process of a rebaseline. As a result, we  selected the Departments of Commerce, Education, the Interior, and  State, as well as the General Services Administration (GSA). To assess the accuracy and currency of the cost and schedule  performance ratings on the Dashboard, we evaluated, where available,  agency or contractor documentation related to cost and schedule  performance for 8 of the selected investments to determine their  cumulative and current cost and schedule performance and compared  our ratings with the performance ratings on the Dashboard.
Why GAO Did This Study

Each year the federal government spends billions of dollars on information technology (IT) investments. Given the importance of program oversight, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) established a public website, referred to as the IT Dashboard, that provides detailed information on about 800 federal IT investments, including assessments of actual performance against cost and schedule targets (referred to as ratings). According to OMB, these data are intended to provide both a near-real-time and historical perspective of performance. In the third of a series of Dashboard reviews, GAO was asked to examine the accuracy of the Dashboard's cost and schedule performance ratings. To do so, GAO compared the performance of eight major investments undergoing development from four agencies with large IT budgets (the Departments of Commerce, the Interior, and State, as well as the General Services Administration) against the corresponding ratings on the Dashboard, and interviewed OMB and agency officials.

What GAO Found

Since GAO's first report in July 2010, the accuracy of investment ratings has improved because of OMB's refinement of the Dashboard's cost and schedule calculations. Most of the Dashboard's cost and schedule ratings for the eight selected investments were accurate; however, they did not sufficiently emphasize recent performance for informed oversight and decision making. (1) Cost ratings were accurate for four of the investments that GAO reviewed, and schedule ratings were accurate for seven. In general, the number of discrepancies found in GAO's reviews has decreased. In each case where GAO found rating discrepancies, the Dashboard's ratings showed poorer performance than GAO's assessment. Reasons for inaccurate Dashboard ratings included missing or incomplete agency data submissions, erroneous data submissions, and inconsistent investment baseline information. In all cases, the selected agencies found and corrected these inaccuracies in subsequent Dashboard data submissions. Such continued diligence by agencies to report complete and timely data will help ensure that the Dashboard's performance ratings are accurate. In the case of the General Services Administration, officials did not disclose that performance data on the Dashboard were unreliable for one investment because of an ongoing baseline change. Without proper disclosure of pending baseline changes, OMB and other external oversight bodies may not have the appropriate information needed to make informed decisions. (2) While the Dashboard's cost and schedule ratings provide a cumulative view of performance, they did not emphasize current performance--which is needed to meet OMB's goal of reporting near-real-time performance. GAO's past work has shown cost and schedule performance information from the most recent 6 months to be a reliable benchmark for providing a near-real-time perspective on investment status. By combining recent and historical performance, the Dashboard's ratings may mask the current status of the investment, especially for lengthy acquisitions. GAO found that this discrepancy between cumulative and current performance ratings was reflected in two of the selected investments. For example, a Department of the Interior investment's Dashboard cost rating indicated normal performance from December 2010 through March 2011, whereas GAO's analysis of current performance showed that cost performance needed attention for those months. If fully implemented, OMB's recent and ongoing changes to the Dashboard, including new cost and schedule rating calculations and updated investment baseline reporting, should address this issue. These Dashboard changes could be important steps toward improving insight into current performance and the utility of the Dashboard for effective executive oversight. GAO plans to evaluate the new version of the Dashboard once it is publicly available in 2012.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending that the General Services Administration disclose on the Dashboard when one of its investments is in the process of a rebaseline. Since GAO previously recommended that OMB improve how it rates investments relative to current performance, it is not making further recommendations. The General Services Administration agreed with the recommendation. OMB provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.