{"id":18587,"date":"2017-10-20T14:26:41","date_gmt":"2017-10-20T14:26:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/federaltimes\/uncategorized\/2017\/10\/20\/nasa-ig-doubts-cios-ability-to-manage-it\/"},"modified":"2026-08-08T04:45:22","modified_gmt":"2026-08-08T04:45:22","slug":"nasa-ig-doubts-cios-ability-to-manage-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/federaltimes\/federal-oversight\/watchdogs\/2017\/10\/20\/nasa-ig-doubts-cios-ability-to-manage-it\/","title":{"rendered":"NASA IG doubts CIO\u2019s ability to manage IT"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Despite attempts to establish reviews over IT investments, NASA\u2019s IT governance is falling behind, according to a recent agency inspector general report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIn the four years since issuance of our IT governance report and the three years since completion of its own internal review, the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) has made insufficient progress to improve NASA\u2019s IT governance, casting doubt on the office\u2019s ability to effectively oversee the agency\u2019s IT assets,\u201d the report said. \u201cSpecifically, the NASA chief information officer continues to have limited visibility into IT investments across the agency and the process NASA developed to correct this shortcoming is flawed.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NASA has long struggled<\/a> with evaluations of its IT management, receiving an \u201cF\u201d on its October 2015 and May 2016 Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act scorecard. The agency managed to bring their grade up to a \u201cC-plus\u201d in subsequent years, but still received an F on \u201cagency CIO authority enhancements\u201d on the most recent scorecard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2016, NASA established the Annual Capital Investment Review (ACIR) as a response to FITARA requirements that agency CIOs have direct oversight over their agency\u2019s IT investments. The ACIR would collect data about IT investments for review and approval by a senior IT governance board.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDespite these efforts, the OCIO\u2019s insight into and control over the bulk of the agency\u2019s nearly $1.4 billion in annual IT funding remains limited, with the Mission Directorates and Centers controlling $739 million (53 percent) and $311 million (22 percent), respectively, in fiscal year 2017,\u201d the report said. \u201cThis lack of authority and visibility over the majority of the IT budget limits the agency\u2019s ability to consolidate IT expenditures, realize cost savings, and drive improvements in the delivery of IT services.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The report also found that the lack of clearly defined roles and responsibilities for IT governance boards and an incomplete reporting structure for security hindered the agency from making any significant improvements to their IT structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The agency also suffers from a high turnover of senior IT managers, according to the report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To improve the OCIO\u2019s oversight of agency IT investments, the report made five recommendations:<\/p>\n\n\n\n