TREASURY
INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION
The Account Management Services Project Is Meeting Its Development Goals
March 3, 2008
Reference Number: 2008-20-053
This report has cleared the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration disclosure review process and information determined to be restricted from public release has been redacted from this document.
Phone Number |
202-622-6500
Email Address | inquiries@tigta.treas.gov
Web Site |
http://www.tigta.gov
March 3, 2008
MEMORANDUM FOR CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER
FROM: Michael R. Phillips /s/ Michael R. Phillips
Deputy Inspector General for Audit
SUBJECT: Final Audit Report – The Account Management Services Project Is Meeting Its Development Goals (Audit # 200720004)
This report presents the results of our review of the
development of the Accounts Management Services (AMS) project. The overall objective of this review was to determine
whether AMS project management and development activities are effective in
providing a sound basis for the delivery and deployment of AMS releases.[1] This review was part of our Fiscal Year 2007
audit plan for reviews of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Business Systems
Modernization efforts.
Impact on the Taxpayer
The IRS is continuing to modernize its databases to provide immediate
access to account data, enable real-time transaction processing, and ensure daily
account settlement to improve customer service and business results. The AMS project was initiated in May 2006 and
has been chartered to address these needs.
The objective of the AMS project is to provide an integrated approach to
view, access, update, and manage taxpayer accounts by providing IRS employees with
the tools to access information quickly and accurately in response to complex
customer inquiries and to update taxpayer accounts on demand.
Synopsis
Reviews of the initial AMS releases showed the project team successfully implemented Enterprise Life Cycle[2] and Modernization and Information Technology Services organization project management processes and activities. These processes and activities included project justification, contract management, risk management, configuration management, performance management, and transition management.
The AMS Project Management Plan defines the project, the scope of work to be performed, and the planned methodology for managing project activities. The Plan also identifies the capabilities that Release 1 must implement for it to be considered complete. The AMS project team successfully planned work schedules, identified and addressed potential risks to project development, and coordinated with appropriate staff to implement initial release capabilities. Although the AMS project team is on schedule to make the proposed processing capabilities available, its implementation is dependent on the Modernization and Information Technology Services organization’s abilities to integrate these project capabilities into taxpayer account processing.
Response
The Chief Information Officer appreciated the comments and observations acknowledging the successful implementation of the Enterprise Life Cycle and the Modernization and Information Technology Services organization project management processes for AMS Release 1. Management’s complete response to the draft report is included as Appendix VI.
Copies of this report are also being sent to the IRS managers affected by the report findings. Please contact me at (202) 622-6510 if you have questions or Margaret E. Begg, Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Information Systems Programs), at (202) 622-8510.
Appendices
Appendix
I – Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology
Appendix
II – Major Contributors to This Report
Appendix
III – Report Distribution List
Appendix
IV – Enterprise Life Cycle Overview
Appendix V
– Glossary of Terms
Appendix
VI – Management’s Response to the Draft Report
|
AMS |
Account Management Services |
|
CADE |
Customer Account Data Engine |
|
IRS |
Internal Revenue Service |
IRS
employees must execute a series of applications to research issues and send
transactions to update taxpayer accounts on the Master File.
In the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) present environment, taxpayers
and practitioners do not always receive timely and accurate responses to
requests and inquiries. IRS employees
assigned to resolve taxpayer and practitioner requests and inquiries work with dated
technologies and business processes that impede productivity and access to comprehensive,
timely information. IRS employees rely
on data residing on the Master File,[3] which is updated weekly. The Integrated Data Retrieval System provides
IRS employees data entry and retrieval access to taxpayer accounts on the
Master File. These actions are
accomplished by using computer codes rather than commonly-used English
terms. The absence of familiarity with
the various computer codes often results in employee errors. Because of this complex and extended data
retrieval and update process, IRS employees’ workloads increase due to repeat
callers, duplicate correspondence, and erroneous notices sent to customers.
In Calendar Year 2006, the IRS Information Technology Modernization
Vision and Strategy effort revalidated the need for modernized tax
administration capabilities. The IRS is continuing
to modernize its databases to provide immediate access to account data, enable
real-time transaction processing, and ensure daily account settlement to
improve customer service and business results.
Realization of these capabilities requires the implementation of tools
that allow for the retention of taxpayer accounts in the modernized Customer
Account Data Engine (CADE) database through online access, monitoring, and
adjustment.
The Account Management Services (AMS) project was initiated in May 2006
and has been chartered to address these needs.
The objective of the AMS project is to provide an integrated approach to
view, access, update, and manage taxpayer accounts by providing IRS employees with
the tools to access information quickly and accurately in response to complex
customer inquiries and to update taxpayer accounts on demand.
The AMS release management plan proposes a sequence of four releases that use a biannual release approach paralleling the CADE delivery schedule.
The
Corporate Notices project plans to enable the CADE to support and manage
taxpayer accounts that require generation of notices.
On May 16, 2007, funding for Release 1.2B of the AMS (currently scheduled for delivery in January 2008) was transferred to the control of the Corporate Notices project. The commercial off-the-shelf product, xPression, will manage the business rules for notice composition and compose the notices. Release 1.2B will provide data processing from xPression enabling the CADE to retain accounts when a tax return requires one of eight selected notices, including four math error notices and four information notices.
This review was performed
at the Modernization and Information Technology Services organization’s
facilities in New Carrollton, Maryland, and in the Treasury Inspector General
for Tax Administration office in
The Initial Releases of the Account Management Services Project Have Adequately Incorporated Prescribed Project Management Processes
The Enterprise Life Cycle[5] is the IRS’ standard approach to implement business change and information systems projects. It provides robust and diverse techniques for managing projects that equip project teams to deliver a quality product. This guidance enhances requirement gathering, design, and development procedures. The Enterprise Life Cycle also provides directives and processes to define project management work products and activities. Reviews of AMS Releases 1.1, 1.2A, and 1.2B showed the project team successfully implemented Enterprise Life Cycle and Modernization and Information Technology Services organization project management processes and activities. These processes and activities included project justification, contract management, risk management, configuration management, performance management, and transition management.
The
AMS project team adequately justified the need for the project, managed
contracts, and reported contract costs
The AMS project team adequately developed and managed plans to design, develop, and execute the project. These plans included adequate descriptions of project goals and processes, as well as budgetary justification. This support was presented in the September 10, 2007, submission of the Exhibit 300 - Capital Asset Plan and Business Case Summary, which is in compliance with Office of Management and Budget requirements outlined in Circular Number A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget.
The AMS project team and project stakeholders adequately managed contracts, task orders, work requests, and memorandums of agreements to execute the project’s design and development. The assignment of responsibilities and deliverables associated with AMS project activities was properly documented. Contract management and the reporting of contracting costs were adequate. AMS project costs reported in management reviews were consistent with budgeted figures provided to the Office of Management and Budget in the Exhibit 300.
In Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007, the AMS project obtained funds for development activities from both the Business Systems Modernization Management Reserve and the Information Systems’ Operations and Support budget as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Account Management Services Project Funding
|
|
Fiscal Year 2006 |
Fiscal Year 2007 |
(in
millions) |
|
Business Systems Modernization Management Reserve |
$7.5 |
$19.45 |
$26.95 |
|
Information Systems’ Operations and Support |
$4.3 |
$1.57 |
$5.87 |
|
Totals |
$11.8 |
$21.02 |
$32.82 |
Source: AMS Exhibit 300 - Capital Asset Plan and
Business Case Summary submitted
September 10, 2007, and AMS Project Management Plan dated September 11, 2006.
The AMS project team generally meets weekly to identify, discuss, and resolve risks and issues affecting project management and development
Modernization program management, stakeholders, and executive-level decision makers have a systematic and repeatable process for identifying, managing, and regularly communicating the status of risks, issues, and action items. The application of a common process by all organizations ensures risks, issues, and action items are identified early; collateral impacts are recognized across projects; appropriate management strategies are developed; and that risks, issues, and action items are escalated to the management levels necessary to resolve them on time.
As part of their weekly meetings, the AMS project team adequately identifies risks, issues, and action items and documents them on the Item Tracking Reporting and Control system. The documentation identifies the risk or issue, as well as the party responsible for developing the resolution. For example, the AMS project team identified the ability to appropriately and sufficiently staff project design and development efforts as a risk to the project’s success. Subsequently, the project team took appropriate actions to staff the project. The AMS Release 1.1 and Release 1.2A integrated project schedule showed all tasks were assigned to project members.
The AMS project team took appropriate actions to
manage its requirements
Requirements management is the process that controls and documents all
project requirements for the duration of a project. It involves establishing the requirements,
controlling all subsequent requirements changes, and establishing and
maintaining agreement among the customers and those who provide the requested products
or services. Requirements management
ensures requirements are clear, traceable, verifiable, documented, and
controlled.
The requirements
management process requires the development of a business systems requirements
report that documents a set of requirements that define the system being
developed or enhanced by the project. These
requirements form the basis for the business solution design, development,
integration, testing, and deployment.
The AMS
project team followed prescribed requirements management processes. The processes include development of the
business systems requirements report and requirements traceability matrices.
In addition, the
requirements management process requires the development of a requirements
traceability matrix, which is a report that documents traceability
relationships between requirements, rules, and associated work products and
assists in identifying areas of suspect traceability. The requirements traceability matrix is
needed to conduct impact assessments of requirements changes and supports
requirements verification.
The Release 1.1,
Release 1.2A, and Release 1.2B[6] business
systems requirements reports adequately document requirements as prescribed by
the Enterprise Life Cycle guidance.
Further, the Release 1.1 and Release 1.2A requirements traceability
matrix provide bi-directional traceability of the requirements. The Release 1.2B requirements traceability
matrix is currently being developed.
The
AMS project team took appropriate actions to plan configuration management
activities
Configuration management is the process used to identify and control items such as project requirements and deliverables. Setup and maintenance of various repositories are necessary to effectively support the AMS project. The AMS project configuration management plan assigns responsibility for setup and maintenance of repositories for project deliverables and also establishes a process to initiate and approve project change requests.
The AMS project team took appropriate actions to
monitor project schedule, cost, and quality performance
The AMS project uses the Management Information Center Schedule Analysis Workbook to monitor and report schedule performance against baselines. For cost performance, the project team tracks planned and actual expenses by release and milestone. The project team also tracks requests and obligations weekly using the web-based Request Tracking System and Integrated Financial System. These processes allow the project team to adequately monitor, track, and report project schedule and cost performance.
A Quality Management Plan, issued on September 17, 2007, established the goals, resources, and activities to assure the quality of AMS project work products and processes. The Program and Project Operations office performed work product reviews as prescribed by the Quality Management Plan. The Applications Development Quality Assurance organization is in the process of scheduling a compliance audit for the AMS project.
The AMS project team took appropriate actions to plan for managing transition risks and issues
Transition management is defined as the management of activities associated with the smooth transfer of modernized business capabilities, including business processes and systems, from the developer to the receiving organization. Transition management activities prepare the receiving organization to use, operate, and maintain modernized systems. This includes helping the receiving organization understand the new system and the implications on the receiving organization’s work and helping it address those implications. The AMS transition management plan was issued on June 29, 2007, and provides appropriate steps for project implementation, operation, and maintenance.
Because the AMS
project team adequately followed project management guidance established by the
Enterprise Life Cycle, work products and deliverables have met or are on
schedule to meet project goals. This has
been exemplified by the timely delivery of AMS Release 1.1.
The Account Management Services Project Is on Schedule to Deliver Essential Release Components and Support the Customer Account Data Engine Capabilities
The AMS Project Management Plan defines the project, the scope of work to be performed, and the planned methodology for managing project activities. The Plan also identifies the capabilities that Release 1 must implement for it to be considered complete. The AMS project team successfully planned work schedules, identified and addressed potential risks to project development, and coordinated with appropriate staff to implement the required Release 1.1 capabilities. Using these same controls and tools, Release 1.2A is on schedule for timely delivery of planned capabilities. Although the AMS project team is on schedule to make the proposed processing capabilities available, its implementation depends on the Modernization and Information Technology Services organization’s abilities to integrate these project capabilities into taxpayer account processing.
The AMS project team participated in and benefited
from several coordinated efforts to help ensure successful project development
In August 2006, the IRS created guidelines for the establishment and operation of the AMS/CADE Integration Review Team. The Team generally meets monthly to provide multiple programs with the support needed to resolve issues in a timely manner relating to business requirements and application design and development. The Team consists of executives, managers, and specialists from the AMS, CADE, and Corporate Notices projects; the Wage and Investment Division; the Enterprise Architecture and Systems Architecture and Engineering organizations; and the Business Rules and Requirements Management Office. A review of the AMS/CADE Integration Review Team meeting minutes shows the Team has effectively performed its duties to provide integrated program-level support to resolve technical and business integration issues. The support includes the following:
· Risks and issues identified by the AMS/CADE Integration Review Team are controlled on the Item Tracking Reporting and Control system. The Team initiates action items to address each risk or issue until closure and develops worksheets, including an Issue Statement and Issue Impact, for concerns affecting the AMS and CADE projects.
· Members from the AMS/CADE Integration Review Team participated in a series of AMS/CADE technical workshops initiated on July 10, 2007, under the direction of the IRS Enterprise Architecture organization. The primary goal of these workshops was to obtain a common understanding of the current and emerging capabilities and interactions of the AMS, the CADE, and the legacy systems. The workshops identified and framed issues, developed an approach that provides a 5-year view of the future capabilities and interactions, and supported incremental steps planned for the 5-year time period (e.g., AMS Release 2.1/CADE Release 5.1). The workshops also drew on the broad cross section of experience and perspective of the participants to accomplish stated goals and objectives.
The AMS and CADE project teams coordinated testing efforts to ensure planned integrated application capabilities were accomplished and to achieve efficiency in testing processes. The Testing, Assessment, and Documentation group properly scheduled, prioritized, and performed Systems Acceptability Testing for AMS Release 1.1 and CADE Release 3.1. The items tested and the test results were communicated in a timely manner to both the AMS and CADE project teams.
In addition, the AMS and CADE project teams considered the feasibility of their scheduled release deployment plans. Subsequently, Business Systems Modernization program members and IRS business owners successfully collaborated and delivered a coordinated AMS/CADE release strategy. In June 2007, the Customer Service Executive Steering Committee approved a revised AMS/CADE Release Content Master Plan linking AMS and CADE deliverables through Calendar Year 2012.
The AMS project team delivered capabilities for the CADE to electronically update taxpayer accounts
The AMS project team completed Release 1.1 deliverables and work products as described in the Enterprise Life Cycle (including the logical and physical designs). The project team received a timely Milestone 4A exit approval from the Customer Service Executive Steering Committee on May 3, 2007, and subsequently performed system development work.
The
AMS Release 1.1, which began
operating on October 1, 2007, uses the Enterprise Application Integration
Broker infrastructure to provide a foundation for future AMS releases. The Enterprise Application Integration Broker sends address change
transactions to the CADE.
On October 1, 2007,
the AMS pilot successfully processed the first transactions updating taxpayer
accounts through the CADE and the Integrated Data Retrieval System using the Enterprise Application Integration Broker. With the addition of this capability, the
number of accounts retained in the CADE will increase over time while the
number of accounts returned to the current processing environment will
decrease.
The AMS project team also completed the Release 1.2A deliverables and work products as required by the Enterprise Life Cycle (including the logical and physical designs), and received a timely Milestone 4A exit approval from the Customer Service Executive Steering Committee on July 24, 2007. The project team is currently performing system development work.
AMS Release 1.2A,
scheduled for delivery in January 2008, will provide IRS employees the
opportunity to electronically access transcripts of taxpayer account activity. Currently, paper transcripts are printed
onsite and manually distributed to IRS employees for action. Once the IRS employees are assigned the
electronic transcripts, they will be able to view and manage their workload
inventory, request assistance, and resolve certain taxpayer issues through Desktop
Integration.
The benefits expected
from this release include:
·
Reduced
paper and printing costs realized by converting paper transcripts to electronic
transcripts.
·
Reduced
transcript handling time realized by eliminating paper handling, manual work
assignment, and tracking.
·
Enhanced
workflow with the implementation of an inventory management and tracking system.
·
Implementation
of an inventory management framework that supports workflow management for
future AMS inventories.
As of October 25, 2007, the AMS Project Director stated Release 1.2A was on schedule for a timely delivery in January 2008. The Modernization and Information Technology Services organization governance bodies (Customer Service Executive Steering Committee and the Information Technology Project Control Review board) supported this assessment through their regular review processes.
By effectively coordinating development efforts with all appropriate stakeholders, following Enterprise Life Cycle guidelines, and executing the project management plan, the AMS project team delivered planned capabilities and provided support for the CADE to electronically update taxpayer accounts.
Overall, the AMS project’s success to date can be attributed to the efforts of the AMS project team following Enterprise Life Cycle guidelines, developing required deliverables and work products, and completing the detailed project release designs on time. Another factor is the project team’s formulation of a manageable scope and realistic completion dates for each release. The ability to secure sufficient funding for each release ensured the availability of adequate staffing. Finally, the project team actively used the Item Tracking Reporting and Control system to document and resolve risks and issues identified as having the potential to negatively affect the project’s schedule.
Appendix I
Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology
The overall objective of this review was to determine whether AMS project management and development activities are effective in providing a sound basis for the delivery and deployment of AMS releases.[7] This review was part of our Fiscal Year 2007 audit plan for reviews of the IRS Business Systems Modernization efforts.
To accomplish our objective, we identified the internal control systems used as guidance for the AMS project’s development in the Enterprise Life Cycle.[8] We assessed the adequacy of the project team’s development activities in relation to this guidance. We also assessed the adequacy of the AMS project’s development and program plans by reviewing Business Systems Modernization Program project documentation and data provided by the IRS. Further, we conducted interviews of personnel in the Applications Development and Enterprise Services organizations. To accomplish the objective, we:
I. Assessed the AMS project team’s efforts to implement and use foundational project management processes and activities.
A. Determined the adequacy of the project team’s contracting activities.
B. Assessed efforts to adequately staff the project to accomplish required AMS activities.
C. Determined the adequacy of requirements management activities for the AMS project.
D. Determined the adequacy of configuration management activities for the AMS project.
E. Determined the adequacy of the project team’s efforts to manage project quality, track performance, and report activities.
F. Determined the adequacy of the project team’s efforts to manage risks.
II. Assessed the AMS project team’s efforts to ensure the timely delivery of essential AMS release components to support the CADE address change and notice issuance capabilities.
III. Assessed the AMS project team’s efforts to deliver capabilities for the CADE to electronically update taxpayer accounts.
A. Determined the ability of the Enterprise Architecture Integration Broker infrastructure to provide effective data processing between the AMS, the CADE, and the current processing environment systems.
B. Determined the ability of the Enterprise Architecture Integration Broker service to effectively update taxpayer addresses between the CADE and the current processing environment.
C. Determined whether the initial Documentum framework for document management (an inventory component) will be in place to support future release image storage and image retrieval.
D. Determined whether the AMS, using the commercial off-the-shelf product xPression, will enable the CADE to support and manage taxpayer accounts requiring generation of notices.
Appendix II
Major Contributors to This Report
Margaret E. Begg, Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Information Systems Programs)
Gary V. Hinkle, Director
Edward A. Neuwirth, Audit Manager
Bruce Polidori, Senior Auditor
Tina Wong, Senior Auditor
Louis V. Zullo, Senior Auditor
Appendix III
Acting Commissioner C
Office of the Commissioner – Attn: Acting Chief of Staff C
Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support OS
Associate Chief Information Officer, Applications Development OS:CIO:AD
Associate
Chief Information Officer,
Deputy Associate Chief Information Officer, Applications Development OS:CIO:AD
Deputy Associate Chief Information Officer, Business Integration OS:CIO:ES:BI
Deputy Associate Chief Information Officer, Systems Integration OS:CIO:ES:SI
Director, Procurement OS:A:P
Director, Stakeholder Management OS:CIO:SM
Director, Test, Assurance, and Documentation OS:CIO:AD:TAD
Chief Counsel CC
National Taxpayer Advocate TA
Director, Office of Legislative Affairs CL:LA
Director, Office of Program Evaluation and Risk Analysis RAS:O
Office of Internal Control OS:CFO:CPIC:IC
Audit Liaisons:
Associate Chief Information Officer, Applications Development OS:CIO:AD
Director, Program Oversight
OS:CIO:SM:PO
Appendix IV
Enterprise Life
Cycle Overview
The Enterprise Life Cycle[9] is the IRS’ standard approach to business change and information systems initiatives. It is a collection of program and project management best practices designed to manage business change in a successful and repeatable manner. The Enterprise Life Cycle addresses large and small projects developed internally and by contractors.
The Enterprise Life Cycle includes such requirements as:
·
Development of
and conformance to an enterprise architecture.
·
Improving
business processes prior to automation.
·
Use of
prototyping and commercial software, where possible.
·
Obtaining early
benefit by implementing solutions in multiple releases.
·
Financial
justification, budgeting, and reporting of project status.
In addition, the Enterprise Life Cycle improves the IRS’ ability to manage changes to the enterprise; estimate the cost of changes; and engineer, develop, and maintain systems effectively. Figure 1 provides an overview of the layers, paths, phases, and milestones (shown as “MS” in Figure 1) within the Enterprise Life Cycle Framework.
Figure
1:
Figure 1 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 1, please go to the Adobe PDF
version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
The Enterprise Life
Cycle is a framework for organizing and using IRS directives, processes,
procedures, templates, and standards to accomplish business change. It is organized as a set of six interacting
layers.
·
The Management Layer specifies how to plan
and control business change programs, projects, acquisitions, and solutions
throughout the Enterprise Life Cycle.
·
The Governance Layer specifies additional
controls imposed from outside the project or program.
·
The Solution Life Cycle Layer specifies
what should be done, but not how to do it.
·
The Solution Layer manages the solution as
it is produced, including providing standards for consistent solution
specification and formal review of solution content. This Layer provides control over work
products that may be produced by multiple internal and external developers
using differing methodologies.
·
The Methodology Layer details how to do the
work and specifies a unique set of work products to be produced. Specific methodologies are not part of the Enterprise
Life Cycle Framework.
·
The Specialty Areas Layer provides
additional guidance for areas of particular importance within the IRS. These areas include Enterprise Integration,
Test, and Evaluation; Business Rules Harvesting and Management; Transition
Management; Enterprise Architecture; Capital Planning and Investment Control;
Security and Privacy; and Requirements Development and Management.
A path specifies a
unique “philosophy” or orientation for performing the work. Although the Enterprise Life Cycle specifies
a standard for the work required to produce and operate business change
solutions, there are multiple ways to approach and accomplish the required
work. Paths are like alternate roads,
each of which crosses different terrain, but all of which lead to the same
destination. The Enterprise Life Cycle
provides five distinct paths or approaches to developing systems:
·
The Large Custom Path is for large
projects.
·
The Small Custom Path is for small
projects.
·
The Commercial-Off-the-Shelf Path is a
commercial software-based approach.
·
The Joint Application Development/Rapid
Application Development Path is a highly accelerated, prototyping-based
approach for very small, standalone solutions or solution components.
·
The Iterative Custom Path is a hybrid
approach that combines elements of the other approaches.
A phase is a broad segment of
work encompassing activities of similar scope, nature, and detail and providing
a natural breakpoint in the life cycle.
Each phase begins with a kickoff meeting and ends with an executive
management decision point (called a milestone) at which IRS executives make “go/no-go”
decisions for continuation of a project.
Project funding decisions are often associated with milestones.
Figure
2:
|
Phase |
General Nature of Work |
Concluding Milestone |
|
Vision and
Strategy/ |
High-level direction setting. This is the only phase for enterprise
planning projects. |
0 |
|
Project Initiation
Phase |
Startup of development projects. |
1 |
|
Domain Architecture
Phase |
Specification of the operating concept,
requirements, and structure of the solution.
|
2 |
|
Preliminary
Design Phase |
Preliminary design of all solution
components. |
3 |
|
Detailed
Design Phase |
Detailed design of solution components. |
4A |
|
System Development
Phase |
Coding, integration, testing, and
certification of solutions. |
4B |
|
System Deployment
Phase |
Expanding availability of the solution
to all target users. This is usually
the last phase for development projects. |
5 |
|
Operations
and Maintenance Phase |
Ongoing management of operational
systems. |
System Retirement |
Source: The
Appendix V
|
Term |
Definition |
|
Business Rule |
A statement that defines or constrains some aspect of
the business. |
|
Business Rules
Harvesting |
A general term
used to broadly describe the entire set of activities involved in gathering,
formalizing, analyzing, and validating business rules for a particular scope. |
|
Customer Account Data Engine |
Consists of databases and related applications that will replace the IRS’ official repository of taxpayer information (the Master File) and provide the foundation for managing taxpayer accounts to achieve the IRS modernization vision. |
|
Customer Service
Executive Steering Committee |
Has the responsibility for ensuring the successful implementation and integration of modernization projects and related program activities within its portfolio by overseeing investments, including validating major investment business requirements and ensuring that enabling technologies are defined, developed, and implemented. |
|
Desktop
Integration |
Provides integrated access to multiple systems using only 1 computer terminal and supports over 30,000 end-users. |
|
|
A commercial off-the-shelf solution that will be used to enable the communication and data transformations between components of the AMS, the current processing environment, and the CADE. |
|
|
A
structured business systems development method that requires the preparation
of specific work products during different phases of the development process. |
|
Information
Technology Modernization Vision and Strategy |
Establishes a 5-year
plan that drives investment decisions; addresses the priorities around
modernizing
front-line tax administration and supporting technical capabilities; and
leverages existing systems (where possible) and new development (where
necessary) to optimize capacity, manage program costs, and deliver business
value on a more incremental and frequent basis. |
|
Infrastructure |
The fundamental structure of a system or organization. The basic, fundamental architecture of any system (electronic, mechanical, social, political, etc.) determines how it functions and how flexible it is to meet future requirements. |
|
Integrated
Data Retrieval System |
An IRS mission-critical system consisting
of databases and programs supporting IRS employees working active tax
cases. It manages data retrieved from
the Master File allowing IRS employees to take specific actions on taxpayer
account issues, track status, and post updates back to the Master File. |
|
Integrated Financial
System |
The
IRS’ administrative financial accounting system. |
|
Item Tracking
Reporting and Control System |
An information system used to track and report on issues, risks, and action items in the modernization effort. |
|
Legacy Systems |
A mainframe or minicomputer information system that has been in existence for a long period of time. |
|
Logical Design |
Describes the functions required of a system; that is,
what is to be done, not how it will be done.
Logical design is concerned with the processes to be performed. |
|
Master File |
The IRS database that stores various types of taxpayer
account information. This database
includes individual, business, and employee plans and exempt organizations
data. |
|
Physical Design |
Describes how
the processing will be performed; for example, whether data are input by a
person or read by a barcode reader, whether a file is electronic or print. Tools to represent the physical design
include system flowcharts and structure charts. |
|
Release |
A specific edition of software. |
|
Request Tracking
System |
A web-based application that allows IRS personnel to
prepare, approve, fund, and track requests for the delivery of goods and
services. |
|
Requirements |
A formalization of a need and the statement of a capability or condition that a system, subsystem, or system component must have or meet to satisfy a contract, standard, or specification. |
|
Task Order |
An order for services planned against an established
contract. |
Appendix VI
Management’s Response to the Draft Report
The response
was removed due to its size. To see the
response, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public
Web Page.
[1] See Appendix V for a Glossary of Terms.
[2] Appendix IV provides an overview of the Enterprise Life Cycle process.
[3] See Appendix V for a Glossary of Terms.
[4] AMS Release 1.1 received authorization to operate on September 28, 2007.
[5] Appendix IV provides an overview of the Enterprise Life Cycle process.
[6] The AMS project had responsibility for the development of the Release 1.2B business systems requirements report.
[7] See Appendix V for a Glossary of Terms.
[8] Appendix IV presents an overview of the Enterprise Life Cycle.
[9] See Appendix V for a Glossary of Terms.