Detailed Information on the
Integrated Enterprise Management Assessment

Upgrading the Agency's Financial Software System (SAP) to improve NASA's compliance with the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act.

Clarifying and prioritizing requirements for future business systems.

Supporting the Office of the Chief Financial Officer in obtaining a clean audit.

Measure: Minimum average rating of end user satisfaction in implemented IEMP modules and support provided. (i.e. Core Financial, Travel Manager, Business Warehouse)

Explanation:An annual survey is conducted of IEMP end users satisfaction with implemented modules. The 2005 survey was based on the following operational modules: Core Financial, Travel Manager and Business Warehouse. The rating methodology is based on a 1-5 scale (Very Satisfied/Strongly Agree = 5.0, Very Dissatisfied/Strongly Disagree = 1.0). Several questions were open-ended resulting in approximately 5,800 individual comments which were analyzed and dispositioned as required. All responses were weighted equally to determine the overall customer survey result. The purpose of the survey is to determine IEMP user satisfaction with the support provided by the Competency Center, as well as, the usefulness of the tools (products) IEMP supports. Satisfaction was also analyzed by product and Center. The percentages are an overall average from all recipients. The average rating was determined by tallying all end user responses and dividing by the number of responses.

Measure: Number of financial processing steps/time to perform year end closing.

Explanation:The update to our Core Financial system will provide efficiencies in the area of year end closing of NASA's accounting records. A reduction in the number of steps equates to a reduction in time to perform year end closing, which equates to dollars saved. Also, the Financial system will be available for new fiscal year processing, reducing backlog data entry and processing, resulting in cost savings and fewer errors. This will begin as a measurement with the implementation of Core Financial SVU which will be first used in fiscal year 2007.

Measure: NASA financial system compliance with the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act.

Explanation:NASA's current financial system is not in compliance with the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA). FFMIA ensures that Federal financial management systems provide accurate, reliable, and timely financial management information to the government's managers. Compliance with FFMIA is detailed in OMB Circular A-123. IEMP will provide an upgrade to the current agency financial system that will be compliant with the FFMIA. IEMP's goal is to be free from any financial system-related material weaknesses as a result of NASA's financial statement audit.

Measure: Cost savings to NASA, resulting from the integration of financial and asset management systems, a reduction in the number of redundant property, plant and equipment (PP&E) systems and process improvements that enable NASA to better manage PP&E assets.

Explanation:Processes and technology improvements will result in reduced overhead costs, a goal of IEMP. It can be demonstrated that an increase in assets transferred between Field Centers (rather than procuring new assets) and a decrease in assets lost will provide NASA direct quantitative savings. Further, savings can be realized by consolidating loosely coupled legacy systems and creating a seamless automated interface with Core Financial. The savings will be identified by the reduction in the number of systems and the related manual and automated interfaces and reconciliations needed for PP&E management, the reduction in lifecycle management effort and the consolidation of operational support. The 2005 baseline is based on the Integrated Asset Management May 2006 Business Case Analysis. The improvements are not measurable until 2009. Savings are expected to increase annually with a goal to achieve $19.3 million in savings in 2009.

Measure: Number of quarterly corrective adjustments to financial statements.

Explanation:Corrective adjustments can be required for a variety of reasons such as transaction corrections or due to system limitations. The Core Financial system update will provide improved processes for reducing errors and mispostings, thus reducing the need for corrective adjustments to the financial statements. The quarterly corrections are measured by the number of corrective documents in the Core Financial system that are processed per quarter. To report an Actual by year, all 4 quarters are added together. For the Actual in 2006, documents for one quarter were used to forecast the entire year. The targets were established by reducing the number of corrective adjustments by 25% each year.

Measure: Cumulative percentage cost overrun for projects under development.

Explanation:On average, the cumulative estimate to complete IEMP projects in development will not exceed 10% of their baseline cost. This measure is used to measure the efficiency of every development program at NASA. Historically, NASA programs overrun their budget by 30%, therefore a <10% overrun is an ambitious target. Since IEMP is comprised of multiple projects, this measure will be calculated by averaging all project overruns.

Measure: Implement modules at all NASA Centers

Explanation:Implementation of each new system at each of the 10 Field Centers means that everyone will be required to use that system. Historically, the 10 Centers have been operating with independent systems. For some modules, older and inefficient systems will be phased out while others will receive upgrades. New modules will improve management performance not only at individual Field Centers but between Centers and Headquarters. The following targets have been established. FY 2007; Successfully implement the SAP Version Update Project, the Contract Management Module and the eTravel Project. The Contract Management Module will allow shut down of two agency systems and replacement of two Center reporting tools while eTravel will replace the existing agency travel system. FY 2008; Successfully implement the Integrated Asset Management Project which will allow closing of two agency systems. FY 2009; Successfully implement the Aircraft Management Module which will improve the existing system at Centers with aircraft. Implementation of the module includes business process reengineering, system configuration, testing, training and ultimately using the systems to support transactions and business processes. As the program's scope changes, this performance measure may be updated to reflect the additional scope.

Measure: Percentage of total travel booking completed on-line.

Explanation:With the implementation of eTravel, NASA's travelers will have the opportunity to complete their travel booking and gain authorization to travel on-line. Transaction fees for booking on-line are significantly lower than contacting a travel agent in person or via phone. Therefore, NASA expects to save money by travelers making their reservations on-line rather than using a travel agent.

Measure: Number of hours required for NASA personnel to collect, combine and reconcile contract management type data for external Agency reporting purposes.

Explanation:Targets are the number of hours per week that procurement personnel spend on reconciling data for external data calls. Data calls in the area of contract management are frequently high. Without a common Agency contract management system, collecting, combining and reconciling data for data calls is a time consuming effort. With the implementation of the contract Management module, the reconciling of data for external data calls should be a quicker and more efficient process.

Measure: Cumulative percentage of schedule slip for projects under development.

Explanation:On average, the cumulative slip of key milestones of IEMP projects in development will not exceed 10% of the baseline schedule. This measure is used to measure the efficiency of every development program at NASA. Since IEMP is comprised of multiple projects, this measure will be calculated by averaging all project schedule slips.

Measure: Number of days from receipt of apportionment to distribution of funds to Centers. (New measure, added February 2008)

Explanation:With the implementation of the SAP Version Update (SVU), NASA has the opportunity to reduce the amount of time it takes to distribute funding through the mission directorates to the Centers. The goal is for the newly implemented system to improve the time it takes to distribute funding allowing programs and projects to complete their missions in a timely manner rather than waiting for funding.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Integrated Enterprise Management Program's (IEMP) is intended to enable program and project managers to make better decisions and provide accountability of resources by providing standard business processes and data through the implementation of agency-wide information technology. IEMP's purpose is to: ??Implement and sustain agency-wide integrated business systems and standard business processes ??Provide and promote information quality, timeliness, and efficiency through the use of single data sources and reporting solutions ??Institute and facilitate improved management, integration and oversight of agency business systems.

Evidence: NASA's Strategic Plan 2006 http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/142302main_2006_NASA_Strategic_Plan.pdf; IEMP Program Plan; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/ IEMP Program Commitment Agreement; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/ NASA's Performance and Accountability report FY 2005 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/138910main_FY_2005_PAR.pdf); IEMP website (http://www.iemp.nasa.gov/basics.htm)

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: IEMP addresses specific, identified needs in several functional areas including financial, procurement, human resources, and asset management. In the past, NASA Business Systems were: 1) comprised of decentralized, non-integrated systems governed by many organization specific policies and procedures (Field Centers, Mission support, Mission Directorate, etc.), 2) disparate and stand-alone tools with the same data. These issues resulted in inefficiencies such as: 1) manually intensive, repetitive data entry and increased workload, 2) difficulty accessing key agency-wide data for use in a timely manner, and 3) lack of data standardization, making it difficult to provide consistent and accurate information for internal and external agency-wide reporting.

Evidence: NASA's Strategic Plan; http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/142302main_2006_NASA_Strategic_Plan.pdf; GAO-04-151 (BUSINESS MODERNIZATION: NASA's Integrated Financial Management Program Does Not Fully Address Agency's External Reporting Issues; GAO report "Passenger Aircraft services annually costs taxpayers millions more than commercial airlines; http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04151.pdf

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: IEMP is not duplicative of other programs or efforts, and is ensuring that NASA is taking advantage of the President's Management Agenda and lines of business initiatives. When the Program was initiated in 2000, NASA used a modular approach where each initiative could be managed and implemented as a project and potential alternatives could be evaluated to select the most viable solution through the business case process. Extensive benchmarking was performed to ensure that the Program capitalized on best practices and lessons learned from other organizations that completed similar projects. This analysis showed that IEMP was not duplicative or redundant of any other Federal, state, local or private efforts but did adopt many best practices and lessons learned. Included in NASA's eGov Scorecard is a quarterly requirement to confirm the Agency is not planning any duplicative system implementations.

Evidence: Memorandums of Agreements/Understanding for ePayroll, eTravel & FM LoB; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/ Memorandum signed by CIO and assistant administrator for procurement confirming no duplicative efforts are planned. http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The program's commitment to a suite of software in 2001 represents a system design flaw that is currently being addressed through the Core Financial system upgrade. The current software is not compliant with the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) and has several shortcomings that have impacted NASA's ability to provide adequate financial management. The upgrade is intended to fix a number of those issues and make the system FFMIA compliant. Where possible, the program continues to implement other components of the integrated software suite, such as the Integrated Asset Management module. NASA does not own the software and therefore cannot exercise management authority over multiple stakeholders. Modules not part of the original suite must also be customized which adds risk.

Evidence: NASA Administrator's Letter; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/ NASA organization Chart (pg 22 of NASA Strategic Plan) http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/142302main_2006_NASA_Strategic_Plan.pdf NASA's 2005 Performance and Accountability Report was issued with a letter from NASA's Inspector General (IG) outlining "NASA's Most Serious Management and Performance Challenges", www.nasa.gov/about/budget/index.html

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: IEMP's direct beneficiaries are the NASA Program and Project management community and the NASA business communities, which include the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO); Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO); Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE); and the Offices of Human Capital Management, Procurement, and Infrastructure and Administration. At the Center level, the primary customers are the counterparts of the headquarters' office. These individuals are responsible for the administrative processes that will be re-engineered and automated as a result of IEMP. As such, these customers play a strong role in defining requirements and priorities, as well as evaluating the success of IEMP. Their organizations and staff will be impacted by the new processes and procedures and/or derive direct work-related benefits from the new system. IEMP stakeholders include program and project managers, scientists and engineers, institutional managers, senior executives, NASA Office of Inspector General (OIG), General Accountability Office (GAO), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Financial Systems Integration Office (FSIO), and Congress. They are the ultimate beneficiaries of improvements in the systems data and process efficiencies. Since IEMP involves the customer early in the project life-cycle to develop requirements and ensures the customer approves the project requirements (through project Steering Committees), and participates in all phases of project implementation, IEMP can be sure that it meets the needs of its customers. A key program tenet is to work closely with functional customer communities as partners so that they take ownership of key requirements, implementation activities and each project's outcome. By utilizing the described structure, IEMP ensures that resources are being used to support the intended beneficiaries. The outcome of this process ensures that IEMP is meeting the purpose to "Implement and sustain agency-wide integrated business systems and standard business processes". IEMP does not receive any subsidies, intended or unintended.

Evidence: Project Steering Committee charters; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: IEMP's long term outcome performance measures of compliance with federal standards and cost savings (from a baseline) resulting from adoption of new software modules and management systems are indicative of IEMP's goals. In previous years, IEMP did not contribute long-term or annual measures to NASA's Integrated Budget and Performance Document (IBPD) due to the organization of NASA. However, IEMP is now considered a NASA program and contributed to this year's report.

Evidence: Measures attachment to the PART; NASA's Integrated Budget and Performance Document; http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/142458main_FY07_budget_full.pdf

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Both of IEMP's long-term measures have baselines and ambitious targets. Due to the complexity of IEMP, including integration of 10 formerly independent financial systems (at each NASA Center) into one unified structure and difficulty to date in obtaining a clean audit, the targets and timeframes of IEMP program are considered ambitious.

Evidence: Measures attachment to the PART

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: IEMP has developed several annual output measures that are discrete, quantifiable and measurable and contribute to achieving the program's long term performance measures. Since the program focuses on implementing business systems and standard business processes over an extended period, it is difficult to measure annual outcomes from the program. Instead, IEMP uses annual output measures which demonstrate progress towards the long term outcomes. The program has set annual performance measures, such as the implementation of various business systems, that improve NASA's business environment and set the foundation to achieve the program's long term goals. Such measures indicate the program's success in satisfying customer needs, meeting go-live milestones for new projects, and adhering to baseline cost and schedule. For example, one of IEMP's annual output measures reduces the number of quarterly corrections to the financial statements which contributes to the long term goal of ensuring compliance with the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act. One of the goals of IEMP is to achieve cost efficiencies in NASA's business processes. The outcome measures reflect doing this for the NASA asset management system. In addition to this system, there are multiple other business systems that the combined output measures indicate progress towards the implementation of these systems.

Evidence: Measures attachment to the PART

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: IEMP has ambitious targets and timeframes for its annual measures that include baselines and specific annual targets. It is extremely difficult to implement new business systems on budget and schedule due to: the complexity of the business process it serves, the multiple legacy processes and systems they replace, the multitudes of independent partners that have to be integrated as well as assuring that the customers have their needs met. The annual output measures, targets and actuals, are designed to measure success.

Evidence: Measures attachment to the PART; NASA's Integrated Budget and Performance Document; http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/142458main_FY07_budget_full.pdf

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The program's major partners all are committed to achieving the program's long term and annual goals. Our key partners, the functional communities, participate in planning the program's goals and objectives and fully support implementation efforts that result in achieving these goals. The program's two major implementation and integration contractors are also committed to achieving the program's goals through reviews and financial incentives. They report cost and schedule variances and explanations monthly to the project managers and the IEM Business Manager. They also track the deliverables to ensure that all are completed on time and accepted by the government. Also, they are held accountable for their performance by the use of performance-based contracts which use semi-annual performance evaluations to determine the amount of award fee that the contractors will receive (up to 6% of the contract value). For our eTravel vendor, payments are tied to satisfactorily achieving key milestones.

Evidence: IEMP contract documents; Contact Amber Sutton 202-358-1339 or amber.sutton@nasa.gov IEMP Program Plan; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: NASA's Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and the General Accountability Office conduct reviews of IEMP on an as needed basis to evaluate areas they have identified as potential problems. Crucial to the success of IEMP is software development and implementation carried out by private contractors hired by NASA. The Inspector General (IG, created by Public Law 95-452 in 1978 as an independent audit and investigative unit for each Federal agency), completed an audit in 2006 entitled "Integrated Enterprise Management Program Contract Oversight Needs Improvement." The IG evaluated oversight policies at NASA Headquarters and two Field Centers and oversight practices of five IEMP support contracts awarded (34% of awards totaling $213 million). The IG found that oversight of three contracts were unsatisfactory and made three primary recommendations to improve procedures that resulted in the agency implementing several of the recommendations. The General Accountability Office (GAO) has conducted several reviews of IEMP, including GAO-04-151 "BUSINESS MODERNIZATION: NASA's Integrated Financial Management Program Does Not Fully Address Agency's External Reporting Issues". The report stated that NASA needs to address external reporting issues and correct other financial reporting issues. NASA developed a comprehensive corrective action plan that is being implemented to address 45 GAO recommendations and also initiated the SAP Version Update (SVU) project that will address several issues and areas for improvement identified by NASA and GAO. The update will contribute to improvements in NASA's financial tracking and reporting, support the goal of achieving financial management integrity, and expand core financial functionality to provide better project management information. The update will improve NASA's compliance with Federal Financial Management System Requirements (FFMSR), Federal Accounting Standards (FAS), and the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA). IEMP is compliant with NASA's program/project management requirements (defined in NPR 7120.5C) which requires a review every two years by NASA's Independent Program Assessment Office (IPAO). IEMP's most recent review was completed in 2005. The IPAO was established to provide objective, transparent, and multidisciplinary analysis of NASA programs to inform strategic decision-making and reports directly to the NASA Administrator and Senior Management with unbiased information and findings. The purpose of the review is to ensure the program is aligned with and contributing to the agency vision and strategic goals, to assess the adequacy/availability of resources, schedule and schedule management planning, technical approach, risk identification mitigation and management planning. All IEMP projects are required by NPR 7120.5C to undergo a Non-Advocate Review (NAR). The review provides management with an independent assessment of the readiness of the project to proceed into the next stage in the project's lifecycle. After the NAR, IEMP projects are required to seek approval from their Center's PMC to move into the next project lifecycle phase. Projects are also required to hold milestone reviews during their project lifecycle which are lead by a review board with independent members. In addition, projects are reviewed by an Independent Verification & Validation contractor who performs an Independent Assessment (IA) on specific requirements, design, testing, and review processes, and associated risk management.

Evidence: Program Implementation Review- March 2006; Project Non-Advocate Review Reports; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/ NPR 7120.5C; http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayAll.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_7120_005C_&page_name=all IV&V MOU; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/ NASA's Independent Program Assessment Office website; http://www.nasa.gov/offices/pae/organization/independent_program_division.html Sample GAO reports: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04118.pdf, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04151.pdf,http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0443.pdf OIG reports; http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY06/index.html

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: IEMP's budget request is the outcome of a rigorous, bottoms-up formulation process whereby the budget requirements are aligned with performance goals as shown in NASA's Integrated Budget and Performance Document. NASA's Procedural Requirement 7120.5C requires all programs to complete a Program Commitment Agreement to document the program's objectives, performance measures/goals, schedule, cost, internal and external agreements, and independent reviews. Since IEMP consists of a number of projects, a Program Commitment Agreement is completed with all projects completing a Program Commitment Agreement Addendum that includes project-specific details. IEMP's budget is in full cost and includes direct and indirect costs.

Evidence: Program Commitment Agreement and project specific addendums; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/ NASA's Integrated Budget and Performance Document http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/142458main_FY07_budget_full.pdf (Advanced Business Systems Theme) IEMP Budget guidance (budget request) http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: NASA has taken numerous steps to correct those deficiencies identified both through external review as well as those identified internally. The identified deficiencies and action plans are below: 1) High Level Program Requirements. The Agency Program Management Council issued an action to re-write the program's high level requirements to ensure they are concrete and measurable. Therefore, IEMP is working with individuals inside and outside of NASA to develop concrete and measurable high level requirements that map back to NASA's Strategic Plan. 2) Program Funding. Previously, IEMP received its funding through Corporate General and Administrative (G&A) channels. In June 2005, the NASA Administrator directed that IEMP's budgeting and funding be managed from a single program fund source. As a direct funded Program, IEMP has more control over all IEMP related activities and requests and monitors all IEMP funds. 3) Reporting Structure. The NASA Administrator recognized that as a cross-cutting program, IEMP was not well positioned in the Agency to be fully effective. Therefore he reassigned IEMP to be managed from the Office of the Administrator and directed that the IEMP Director report directly to the Associate Administrator. 4) GAO Corrective Action Plan. IEMP is working on a corrective action plan in response to a GAO report that involves many organizations at NASA. The NASA organizations have joined together satisfy GAO's recommendations. These strategic deficiencies were identified and are being corrected. Internal and external reviews will continue to monitor IEMP for strategic deficiencies.

Evidence: Administrator's letter;http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/ PMC actions 3/16/06;http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/ GAO Corrective Action Plan;http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/

Has the agency/program conducted a recent, meaningful, credible analysis of alternatives that includes trade-offs between cost, schedule, risk, and performance goals, and used the results to guide the resulting activity?

Explanation: The genesis of all IEMP projects is a module-specific Business Case Analysis (BCA). The primary focus of the BCA is to compare the costs, benefits, and risks associated with the existing Agency solution and other viable alternatives to support a sound Agency business decision whether to proceed with a specific project. Business case analysis also assists the project manager in planning and managing the project. Development of the BCA's ensures that the cost estimation and qualitative and quantitative benefits are clearly documented and logically sound. Active updating of the BCAs during the project life cycle ensures that the expected benefits are continually assessed. IEMP also develops an OMB Exhibit 300 each year. The Exhibit 300 is a high level summary of the investment's current justification and management plans including a project plan, benefit-cost analysis, alternatives analysis, acquisition plan, risk management plan, human resources management plan, enterprise architecture and IT Security plan. The Program is constantly reviewing its plans to ensure they include the most feasible and efficient alternatives.

Evidence: Example: IEMP has been modifying plans to ensure that we take full advantage of the capabilities and economies of scale offered by the Lines of Business. NASA has committed to implement the HR Line of Business and the Financial Line of Business and is working with each lead partner to develop specific implementation plans. Exhibit 300s; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/ Project Business Case Analyses;http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Performance data from projects and contractors is regularly collected and compared against established baselines and goals. Monthly and quarterly reviews are conducted to gather and analyze project status, schedule and cost status, documentation status, risks and issues. Each IEMP project develops a Performance Measurement Plan (PMP) based on guidance in the Program Performance Measurement Framework. The PMP is a tool used by the projects for gathering, analyzing, and applying performance information to manage and report results. PMPs enable timely and consistent collection of comparable performance data throughout the Project's lifecycle to Sustaining Operations. The IEMP Business Manager reviews planned versus actual cost data for projects and individual contracts, project reserves, and variances at the monthly Financial Status Review. Data collected during the monthly and quarterly reviews enable IEMP to assess progress toward meeting long-term goals, develop risk mitigation strategies, adjust priorities, make resource allocations, de-scope, restructure, or cancel projects and contracts. IEMP also reports regularly cost, schedule, technical and management performance as well as risks and issues to the Agency Program Management Council (PMC). Monthly snapshots of key performance indicators for Agency senior leadership is routinely updated in the Agency's Erasmus Program Performance Reporting System.

Evidence: Monthly Status Reviews; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/ Quarterly Risk Reviews; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/ Performance Measurement Plans; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The Program Director is held accountable for the overall program's success. He signs the Program Commitment Agreement (PCA), which commits him to achieving the Program's goals and objectives within cost and schedule. The Program Director periodically provides program status updates to the Agency Operations Management Council (OMC). Each project manager is also held accountable to cost and schedule commitments in the project plan. Each project manager briefs the Program Director monthly concerning project status in cost, schedule and risk. Contractors are also held accountable for performance through performance-based contracts, which use semi-annual performance evaluations to determine the amount of award fee that the contractor will receive. For our eTravel vendor, payments are tied to satisfactory completion of key milestones. The program also ensures that contractors understand that their continued participation on the program is contingent on satisfactory performance.

Evidence: IEMP Program Commitment Agreement; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/ Contract documents; Contact Amber Sutton at 202-358-1339 or amber.sutton@nasa.gov

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: IEMP tracks all funding in the Agency's Core Financial and Business Warehouse systems. Funds are available for obligation for two years and are obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purposes as described in NASA's Integrated Budget and Performance Document. The program maintains regular communication with all projects, and the IEMP Business Manager evaluates projects through a Monthly Financial Status Review to ensure funds are obligated and spent according to annual phasing plans. IEMP contractors are required to submit monthly and quarterly (533) reports which include monthly and forecasted quarterly accruals. Funding for FY 2005 has been fully obligated, however, Marshall Space Flight Center (the location of the IEMP Competency Center and many IEMP Projects) has not allocated the remaining $2.4M of their Center G&A obligations back to the program. IEMP plans to obligate over 95% of the FY 2006 funding by the end of September 2006. IEMP's contract awards are recorded promptly and accurately into the appropriate Federal procurement system(s). IEMP has no significant erroneous payments and has not been in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act.

Evidence: Phasing plans; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/ POP guidance; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/ NASA's Integrated Budget and Performance Document; http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/142458main_FY07_budget_full.pdf

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: IEMP has two efficiency measures which assess progress in achieving NASA efficiencies and cost effectiveness. A reduction in the number of financial processing steps to perform year-end closings equates to a reduction in the time needed to perform the closing. Reductions in the number of hours required for NASA personnel to collect, combine, and reconcile contract management data for reporting purposes increases the efficiency of the contract management process. In addition, IEMP has other procedures in place to assure efficiency and effectiveness in program execution. IEMP continually strives to ensure that NASA receives the "best value" for all contracted services. This includes the use of large Center support contracts that provide IT services on a more cost effective basis than contracting separately for these services. The program also includes incentives to contractors in the form of award fees for meeting clearly defined performance objectives and targets. All contracts are competitively awarded and each new task is evaluated in terms of cost, schedule, risk, and technical approach.

Evidence: IEMP Module-specific Business Case Analysis; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/ IEMP Module-specific Performance Measurement Plans; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/ IEMP Performance Measurement Framework; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: IEMP works with all internal NASA customers to develop effective governance structures for IEMP projects. IEMP has a direct interest in effective governance by functional owners of IEMP projects. Also, IEMP has collaborated with organizations inside and outside of NASA. Within NASA, IEMP has collaborated with the NASA Shared Services Center, which is a public/private partnership between NASA and Computer Sciences Corporation to establish a shared services center to provide common Agency services to each Center on a more cost effective basis. The NSSC has consolidated selected activities from all NASA Centers in the areas of: Financial Management, Human Resources, Information Technology, and Procurement. IEMP has and will continue to work closely with the NSSC to configure Agency systems and reengineer processes to ensure NSSC success. IEMP also participates in a number of Federal business related forums and organizations, such as the Americas SAP Users Group (ASUG), where NASA is looked upon as a leader in the public sector in terms of implementing advanced business systems to make better use of business information. The Program Director and other program staff are frequently asked to speak at these meetings and workshops to share lessons learned with other Federal agencies that are implementing similar business systems. IEMP has also collaborated with other Federal Agencies to contribute to shared initiative success. For example, NASA has provided full time equivalents to assist OPM (via detail) in creating the eGovernment (eGov) initiative Recruitment One Stop. IEMP is working in conjunction with the NASA's Office of the Chief Information Officer to create "Volume 5- NASA's Enterprise Business Systems" of the Agency's Enterprise Architecture document (currently in draft). The primary focus of Volume 5 is to define the scope of the Agency's Enterprise Business Systems, document IEMP's strategy for making investment decisions, and better clarify the interaction between the IEMP governance model and the Agency's Capital Planning and Investment Control Process.

Evidence: Project Steering Committee charters; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/ NASA Shared Services Center website: http://www.nssc.nasa.gov/customerservice/ NASA's Enterprise Architecture Volume 5 (draft):http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The most recent Independent Auditor report for NASA identified three material weaknesses, all of which are repeats, as well as noncompliance with the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act

Evidence: NASA's FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report (www.nasa.gov/about/budget/index.html) includes the communication from the NASA Inspector General and the report of the Independent Auditor. In addition, the GAO has published numerous reports identifying shortcoming in NASA's new financial management system as well as its financial management processes (example is GAO-04-754T released on May 19, 2004).

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The program has made significant strides in addressing its management deficiencies. The steps taken are the result of deficiencies identified by independent reviewers, consulting firms, such as the Gartner Group, and independent auditors. Once a deficiency is identified, the program establishes an action plan to develop a solution and tracks the progress of the action until completed. Examples of recent deficiencies that have resulted in program changes are: 1. the program now reports directly to the Deputy Administrator and is no longer a part of the OCFO organization; 2. the program is now funded directly, providing the program director more authority over the program's budget and allowing control over center implementation funding as well as project budgets; 3. the program has implemented a number of lessons learned from the 2003 Core Financial implementation, including adding representatives from Mission Directorates to its project teams; established a cross-functional integration working group to ensure any proposed system changes are adequately vetted to identify any potential impacts on other systems and areas; revamped the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) role in financial project governance to improve oversight, awareness, and senior management involvement to improve the timeliness of decision making. The OCFO is also making policy decisions that are based on white papers developed by the project team. This ensures the project work is aligned with OCFO policy decisions. NASA's 2005 Performance and Accountability Report was issued with a letter from NASA's Inspector General (IG) outlining "NASA's Most Serious Management and Performance Challenges". The letter states that the agency needs to ensure that the financial management system improves NASA's ability to accurately allocate costs to programs, efficiently provide reliable information to management, and support compliance with the Chief Financial Officer's Act. In addition, the General Accountability Office (GAO) has issues reports identifying IEMP deficiencies. IEMP has created corrective action plans to correct deficiencies and routinely briefs GAO on the status of the corrective action plan. The SAP Version Update (SVU) project will address several issues and needs for improvement identified by NASA and the GAO, as well as NASA's IG. The SVU project will contribute to improvements in NASA's financial tracking and reporting, support the goal of achieving financial management integrity, and expand core financial functionality to provide better project management information.

Evidence: GAO-04-118 Business Modernization- Disciplined Processes Needed to Better Manager NASA's IFMP, November 2003; http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04118.pdf Response to GAO-Corrective Action Plan January 30, 2006;http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/ Performance and Accountability Report;http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/138910main_FY_2005_PAR.pdf NASA's Inspector General letter,"NASA's Most Serious Management and Performance Challenges", contained NASA's 2005 Performance and Accountability Report www.nasa.gov/about/budget/index.html

Is the program managed by maintaining clearly defined deliverables, capability/performance characteristics, and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?

Explanation: IEMP clearly defines and documents cost and schedule commitments in addendums to the Program Commitment Agreement. Milestones are identified to demonstrate progress towards completion, as well as who is responsible and authorized to make management decisions. Deliverables are defined to ensure contractor contribution towards program and project goals. NASA's Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7120.5C defines deliverables, performance expectations and requirements for key management documentation as deliverables, cost, schedule and technical performance characteristics. IEMP uses an Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) contractor to asses and trace all requirement documentation. IEMP conducts monthly status reviews to track project deliverables, cost and schedule goals. Each project is reviewed monthly via a Financial Status Review. During this review, the IEMP Business Manager reviews cost versus planned, reserves, and variances. IEMP has de-scoped, restructured, or cancelled projects based on the evaluation of data collected during the monthly and quarterly reviews. This information is used to assess progress toward meeting long-term goals and is used to develop risk mitigation strategies, adjust priorities, and/or make resource allocations. IEMP projects complete a Performance Measurement Plan (PMP), a tool for gathering, analyzing, and applying performance information to manage for results, and to report these results with confidence. PMPs document the projects functional drivers, performance measures and success criteria/goals. The program's two major implementation and integration contractors are also committed to achieving the program's goals through reviews and financial incentives. They are held accountable for their performance by the use of performance-based contracts which use semi-annual performance evaluations to determine the amount of award fee that the contractors will receive (up to 6% of the contract value).

Evidence: IEMP Monthly Status Reviews; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/ NPR 7120.5C; http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayAll.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_7120_005C_&page_name=all IEMP Project Performance Measurement Plans; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: NASA needs to establish a plan with critical path activities that are realistic and will result in a clean audit opinion in order to achieve compliance with the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act. While IEMP is still a relatively new program, NASA has successfully implemented three modules to improve financial management and augment the existing Core Financial system: Project Management Information Improvement (2006), Agency Labor Distribution Project (2006) and ePayroll (2005). Another critical step is the implementation of the Property, Plant and Equipment (PP&E) component of the Integrated Asset Management (IAM) module, scheduled to begin in FY06. This will integrate the financial system with the PP&E system, enabling much better accountability of equipment and improving several areas that have been identified as weaknesses by NASA's auditors. Implementation of the PP&E component will also result in an estimated $19.3M in cost savings in FY09 through better use and accountability of existing assets and a decrease in the number of asset management systems throughout the Agency. Currently, NASA has fully implemented about 27 of the 45 recommendations identified by GAO that will improve the Program.

Evidence: Integrated Asset Management Business Case Analysis, May 2006: http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/ GAO Corrective Action Plan: http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/ SAP Version Update Project Plan; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: To date, IEMP has achieved its annual performance goals. IEMP has implemented several modules which were annual goals that contributed towards achieving its long term goals. IEMP has completed implementation of the following modules: Core Financial, Travel Manager, Resume Management, Position Description Management, Agency Labor Distribution System, Project Management Information Improvement, ePayroll, and Recruitment One Stop. However, this is the first year that IEMP directly contributed Outcomes & Annual Performance Goals (APG) in NASA's Integrated Budget and Performance Document (IBPD). The achievements of this year's goals are based on "internal" NASA goals. In the future, IEMP will report against the externally reported APGs, as defined in the Performance and Accountability Report and the IBPD.

Evidence: IEMP External Website (http://iemp.nasa.gov/what01.htm)

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: IEMP has achieved improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals. IEMP has completed implementation of the following modules: Core Financial (CF), Travel Manager (TM), Resume Management (RM), Position Description Management (PDM), Agency Labor Distribution System (ALDS), Project Management Information Improvement, ePayroll, and Recruitment One Stop. Each implemented project has demonstrates improved efficiency for NASA. For example; ALDS allowed the decommissioning of 10 legacy labor distribution systems and standardized the distribution process for the Agency. PDM automated the position description process and reduced the preparation of position descriptions from 4 hours to 2 hours. The implementation of the Core Financial module eliminated approximately 140 disparate Center legacy systems, reducing maintenance and support contractor costs. The implementation of the Core Financial module also enabled faster processing times to be achieved in several key business processes, including acquisition of goods and services, month-end closings, payment processing, and allowed quicker availability of month end financial data; from 7 days to 1 day. The implementation of Travel Manager automated the previous paper travel approval and vouchering processes, therefore expediting the processes while ensuring travel regulations are followed.

Evidence: Project Business Case Analysis; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: In 2005, IEMP requested Gartner Consulting to perform an unbiased assessment of its performance with the Core Financial Implementation of SAP R/3. Gartner performed the assessment by leveraging industry best practices and comparisons with other large organizations such as NASA, to determine how organizations of similar size and complexity compared to IEMP. Gartner's assessment included both a review of program documentation and direct interviews with key personnel. The key personnel represented the Centers, the Competency Center and Headquarters. For comparative analysis, Gartner used other Federal Government Agencies and private sector companies. Gartner found that based on the analysis of other comparable organizations that Gartner has worked with or researched, IEMP is operating in a manner consistent with an operational maturity of 2 years and has experienced with Core Financial issues similar to those found in other large financial system implementations. The Gartner analysis also found that the decentralized IT management structure of NASA limits the ability to deliver consistent results and customer satisfaction across all Field Centers and that the financial management program still had gaps that create program risk. NASA is addressing the findings of the Gartner assessment including increased training.

Evidence: Gartner Consulting: Core Financial Module Implementation Assessment- May 2005. http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The program has instituted process improvements resulting from independent evaluations that are now being recognized by independent review teams and auditors. Some examples follow. The most recent program independent review, conducted by a team of approximately 10 NASA employees, contractors and outside consultants lasted for approximately one year and produced a report that stated that IEMP is working closely with the OCFO to correct deficiencies in NASA's financial system and the team commended IEMP for its progress to date and for its effort to overcome problems encountered with the Core Financial system. The team also made a number of recommendations for improvement, which NASA and IEMP either have, or are implementing. Most recently, the eTravel project received an excellent report from the MSFC Non-Advocate Review (NAR) as a result of instituting lessons learned from other IEMP projects. For example, the project utilized the GAO recommend risk reserve methodology, which is now an IEMP requirement for all projects. Also, NASA's Inspector General is currently conducting an audit on IEMP's SAP Version Update Project. In order to ensure findings are timely and can be acted upon by the project team, the Inspector General agreed to provide findings as they are found rather than waiting to produce an "after the fact" report. The Inspector General has provided the project with a number of findings, (i.e. provide test plans for Independent Verification and Validation sooner) all of which the project has and will continue to address as applicable. Additionally, IEMP applies recommendations from auditors/reviewers to all projects.

Evidence: Program Implementation Review- March 2006; http://insidenasa.nasa.gov/nasa_nas/ops/SMC/IEMP_PIR_Report.pdf Non-Advocate Review reports; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/ NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 7120.5C: http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayAll.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_7120_005C_&page_name=all

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: IEMP's goals were achieved within budget and schedule. In previous years, IEMP did not contribute long-term or annual measures to NASA's Integrated Budget and Performance Document (IBPD) due to the organization of NASA. However, IEMP is now considered a NASA Program and contributed to this year's report. Regardless, IEMP has stated goals and long term objectives that have been achieved within budget and schedule. For example, the Core Financial Project planned implementation date of June 2003 was achieved; the Project Management Information Improvement Project and the Agency Labor Distribution Project planned implementation date of September 2005 were achieved.

Evidence: Program Commitment Agreement and addendums; http://iemp.nasa.gov/part/