The Sustaining Infrastructure Program Is Significantly Improved and a Comprehensive Information Technology Infrastructure Strategy Has Been Developed
December 30, 2010
Reference
Number: 2011-20-006
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
HIGHLIGHTS
THE
SUSTAINING INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM IS SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED AND A COMPREHENSIVE
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGY HAS BEEN DEVELOPED
Highlights
Final
Report issued on December 30, 2010
Highlights of Reference Number:
2011-20-006 to the Internal Revenue Service Chief Technology Officer.
IMPACT ON TAXPAYERS
The
Sustaining Infrastructure Program centrally funds the Internal Revenue
Service’s (IRS) information technology infrastructure investments primarily to
replace computer hardware that has reached or surpassed its useful life. The Sustaining Infrastructure Program is
significantly improved, and agreed-upon prior recommendations are being
implemented. Taxpayers and IRS employees
rely on the information technology infrastructure to ensure satisfaction of tax
liabilities, quick resolution of any issues, and a high level of service to
both taxpayers and the Federal Government.
WHY TIGTA DID THE AUDIT
This
audit was initiated at the request of a Modernization and Information
Technology Services organization executive.
The overall objective of this review was to determine the effectiveness
of the IRS’s efforts to address the critical issue of sustaining the IRS
information technology infrastructure.
WHAT TIGTA FOUND
The annual baseline amount allocated to the Sustaining
Infrastructure Program is approximately $150 million, and the program is
centralized to ensure the replacement of
the IRS information technology infrastructure is addressed corporately. The Sustaining Infrastructure Program
developed and implemented a process for identifying, reviewing, prioritizing,
and making decisions on funding the replacement of aged computer hardware as
well as other critical infrastructure needs. The
Sustaining Infrastructure Program is significantly improved, and agreed-upon
prior recommendations are being implemented. For example,
monthly reports are generated showing the number and value of aged computer
hardware. IRS management uses the reports to monitor their progress in replacing the
aged computer hardware. The appropriate executive steering committee is
overseeing the Sustaining Infrastructure Program. The IRS also approved the business case for a new tool called
the Knowledge, Incident/Problem, Service Asset Management system which can
associate information technology problem tickets with the aged hardware that
caused the problem. The Knowledge, Incident/Problem, Service
Asset Management system implementation involves replacing the current inventory
and problem management system and is scheduled to be implemented by July 2011. The business case also reported potential benefits
resulting from the Knowledge, Incident/Problem, Service
Asset Management system implementation of $28,825,667.
In addition, the IRS developed a comprehensive
information technology Infrastructure Strategy that will be used to improve
access to data, access to information technology services, responsiveness to
demand, optimization, and cost effectiveness in a sustainable manner.
WHAT TIGTA RECOMMENDED
TIGTA
made no recommendations.
In their response to the report, IRS management was pleased with TIGTA’s
comments and observations acknowledging the Sustaining
Infrastructure Program had significantly improved.
December 30, 2010
MEMORANDUM FOR CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER
FROM: For Michael R. Phillips /s/ Alan R. Duncan
Deputy Inspector General for Audit
SUBJECT: Final Audit Report – The Sustaining Infrastructure Program Is Significantly Improved and a Comprehensive Information Technology Infrastructure Strategy Has Been Developed (Audit # 200920026)
This report presents the results of our review to determine the effectiveness of the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) efforts to address the critical issue of sustaining the IRS information technology infrastructure. This review was part of our Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Audit Plan and addresses the major management challenge of Modernization of the IRS.
Management’s complete response to the draft report is included as Appendix VII.
Copies of this report are also being sent to the IRS
managers affected by the report. Please
contact me at (202) 622-6510 if you have questions or Alan R. Duncan, Assistant
Inspector General for Audit (Security and Information Technology Services), at
(202) 622-5894.
A Comprehensive
Information Technology Infrastructure Strategy Has Been Developed
Appendices
Appendix
I – Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology
Appendix
II – Major Contributors to This Report
Appendix III – Report
Distribution List
Appendix
IV – Outcome Measures
Appendix
V – Aged Computer Hardware Inventory Trends
Appendix
VI – Glossary of Terms
Appendix
VII – Management’s Response to the Draft Report
Abbreviations
|
IESC |
Infrastructure
Executive Steering Committee |
|
IRS |
Internal Revenue Service |
|
ITAMS |
Information Technology Asset
Management System |
|
KISAM |
Knowledge, Incident/Problem, Service
Asset Management |
|
MITS |
Modernization and Information
Technology Services |
|
SIP |
Sustaining Infrastructure Program |
The core technology systems that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses to manage taxpayer data and facilitate its service and enforcement work were groundbreaking when first created. However, they have not kept pace with rapid innovations in technology and the explosion in online interaction. This limits the new capabilities the IRS can deliver to its employees and taxpayers. One of the objectives of the IRS Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2009–2013 is to “Build and deploy advanced information technology systems, processes, and tools to improve IRS efficiency and productivity.” One of the strategies to help achieve this objective is to continually monitor the technology portfolio to ensure it supports core operating needs, upgrading physical infrastructure[1] when appropriate. The management, maintenance, and ongoing enhancement of the information technology infrastructure are central to the successful accomplishment of the IRS’s mission “to provide America’s taxpayers top-quality service.”
The management, maintenance, and ongoing enhancement of the
information technology
infrastructure are central to the successful accomplishment of the IRS’s
mission “to provide America’s taxpayers top-quality service.”
The Sustaining Infrastructure Program (SIP) centrally funds IRS information technology infrastructure
investments primarily to replace computer hardware that has reached or
surpassed its useful life. The annual
baseline amount allocated to the SIP is approximately $150 million, and the
program is centralized to ensure the replacement of the IRS information
technology infrastructure is addressed corporately.
In addition, IRS executives
saw a need for a more comprehensive Modernization
and Information Technology Services
(MITS) approach to defining the overall information technology infrastructure strategy. A MITS organization executive described the
issue by stating, “The strategy should lay out guiding principles, establish a
set of guard rails within which all parts of the MITS organization should
operate, and do so in a manner that is aligned with other IRS business and
technology strategy initiatives.” Taxpayers rely on the infrastructure to ensure reliable
satisfaction of their tax liabilities and quick resolution of any issues that
might arise as they meet those obligations. IRS employees rely on the information
technology infrastructure
as they work to ensure a high level of service to both taxpayers and the Federal
Government.
Our prior audit report[2] regarding aged computer hardware included
five recommendations to improve the process for replacing the aged computer
hardware. The IRS agreed to four of the
five recommendations and reported that corrective actions for those four
recommendations were complete. This
audit followed up on the four recommendations the IRS agreed to implement.
IRS Corrective
Action: The IRS stated it would identify
discrepancies in the ITAMS database for correction and develop processes to
improve and maintain the accuracy of the ITAMS data. It would also implement a process to produce
quarterly estimates of the aged computer hardware based on ITAMS data, along with
current estimates of the replacement costs.
IRS Corrective Action: The IRS stated
it would develop a business case
for using a software tool to improve the integration of asset/inventory
management with incident and problem management. The business case would be presented to the
appropriate MITS Governance Board for approval to implement.
IRS Corrective Action: The IRS
stated it would implement a governance model that includes oversight from the
IESC.
IRS Corrective
Action: The IRS stated it would implement outcome measures and a monitoring
process to report on the IRS’s progress in reducing its aged asset inventory.
This review was performed at the MITS organization in New Carrollton, Maryland, during the period January through September 2010. We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. Detailed information on our audit objective, scope, and methodology is presented in Appendix I. Major contributors to the report are listed in Appendix II.
The Sustaining Infrastructure Program Is Significantly Improved, and Agreed-Upon Prior Recommendations Are Being Implemented
The SIP developed and implemented a process for identifying, reviewing, prioritizing, and making decisions on funding the replacement of aged computer hardware as well as other critical infrastructure needs. In Fiscal Year 2010, the SIP adopted a “strategic expansion” mission to begin implementing short- to medium-term improvements to the SIP process to solicit, review, and fund strategic investment requests that cover all infrastructure, not just aged computer hardware. The “strategic expansion” includes an Investment Management Plan for funding and a holistic plan for addressing key organizational priorities while moving the IRS’s infrastructure along an agreed-upon strategic direction. In addition, the program improvements and the corrective actions to the prior recommendations have enabled SIP management to reduce the aged computer hardware inventory from 40.3 percent in Fiscal Year 2007 to 28.6 percent in Fiscal Year 2009 (see Appendix V).
Recommendation 1: The
quantity of aged computer hardware is updated monthly
The IRS
implemented a process to produce the Obsolescence Comparison Report, which
groups aged computer hardware by inventory categories such as laptops, printers,
and servers. The report also includes
information on the hardware’s years of useful life, unit replacement cost (hereafter,
replacement cost will be referred to as value), number and value of items in
use and in stock, and the ratio/percentage of aged computer hardware to total computer
hardware in terms of the number and value of the items.
The quantities of all computer
hardware and aged computer hardware are updated monthly and the report is
provided to the IESC and the End User Equipment and Services organization for
review. However, the aged computer hardware inventory value and the standards established
for determining when computer hardware is considered aged (i.e., past its
useful life) were last reviewed and updated in Fiscal Year 2006. Management stated they consider several factors in determining useful life standards, including book
value, warranty, maintenance, contract upgrades, and updates cost. We compared
the IRS useful life standards to industry useful life standards and determined
the IRS useful life standards were comparable to
the industry useful life standards.
In May 2009, SIP
management initiated a review of the computer hardware inventory categories,
values, and useful life standards to ensure the information is current and
relevant. In June and July 2010, SIP
management reported the status of their review to the IESC. Based on the results of the review, IRS
management decided there was no need to change the useful life standards in
Fiscal Year 2010. The IESC is reviewing
the results information to determine what, if any, actions are needed to revise
the inventory categories, values, and useful life standards in Fiscal Year 2011.
Recommendation 2: The IRS is
in the process of developing the capability to associate information technology
problems with aged computer hardware
The IRS approved the business case for a new tool called the Knowledge,
Incident/Problem, Service Asset Management (KISAM) system, which can associate information
technology problem tickets with the aged hardware that caused the problem. The KISAM system implementation involves replacing
the current inventory and problem management system and is scheduled to be
fully implemented by July 2011.
The business
case and the IESC stated that implementation of the new inventory and problem
management system will address our prior recommendations. The business case also reported potential
benefits resulting from KISAM system implementation of $28,825,667. Our analysis allocated the benefits as follows: $12,395,037 in Cost Operational and Run
Savings and $16,430,630 in Revenue Collection Increases.
Recommendation 4: The
Sustaining Infrastructure Program has executive oversight
In February 2008, the IESC began to and currently provides
oversight of the SIP. The IESC meeting minutes document the SIP
presentations, activities, and issues presented as well as decisions made by
the IESC regarding the SIP. For example:
In addition to placing the SIP under the governance of the
IESC, the IRS implemented an investment management process to review and
prioritize investment requests for replacing aged computer hardware. All such investment requests must be approved
by the IESC before they are implemented.
Approved investment projects are entered into an automated
system called ProSight, which is used to document the status and key
information of the project. We reviewed nine
SIP projects and found the following:
Management action: In
July 2010, IRS management conducted a review of the information in ProSight and
identified projects that were not in ProSight or were missing key data. As a result, management is in the process of
scheduling meetings with each project team to discuss the project and to ensure
project information in ProSight is updated monthly as required.
Recommendation 5: A
performance measurement process has been implemented
IRS management established outcome
measures and implemented the monthly Obsolescence Comparison Report to monitor
and report on its progress in reducing its aged computer hardware
inventory. The outcome measures
established are the annual goals for reducing the aged computer hardware
inventory in terms of number and value.
The Fiscal Year 2010 goal is to reduce the number of items in the aged
computer hardware inventory to 24 percent and the value of the aged computer
hardware to 39 percent of the total computer hardware inventory. As of July 1, 2010, the actual quantity and
value of aged inventory were 29.5 percent and 42.0 percent, respectively. See Appendix V for the number and value of
the aged computer hardware inventory from Fiscal Years 2007 through 2010 (as of July 1, 2010).
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-50, Audit Followup, dated September 29, 1982, states that audit followup is an integral part of good management and that corrective action taken by management on findings and recommendations is essential to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Federal Government operations. It also states that one of the principle provisions of this circular is to emphasize the importance of monitoring the implementation of resolved audit recommendations in order to assure that promised corrective actions are actually taken.
In addition, the Clinger-Cohen Act
of 1996[3] requires
each agency to ensure senior management is provided with timely, verifiable
data as one of the elements in maximizing the value and assessing and
managing the risk of information technology acquisitions. To have a
successful information technology investment management process, the agency
must ensure management decisions are based on complete and current
information. In fact, informed
management decisions can occur only if accurate, reliable, and up-to-date
information is part of the decision-making process. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993[4] was enacted by Congress to hold
Federal Government agencies accountable for achieving business results by
requiring agencies to adopt performance measures and set goals to assess
performance.
A Comprehensive Information Technology Infrastructure Strategy Has Been Developed
In March
2010, the IRS developed a comprehensive information technology Infrastructure
Strategy. The Infrastructure Strategy focuses on the core infrastructure
technologies that are needed in order to support the current and future IRS goals
and objectives. The Infrastructure
Strategy will be used to improve access to data, access to information
technology services, responsiveness to demand, optimization, and cost
effectiveness in a sustainable manner.
Its goal is to achieve a centralized Service Oriented Infrastructure
through technology maturation, standardization, consolidation, and use of
shared resources.
The Infrastructure Strategy includes the results of a gap analysis
that identified the steps needed to achieve a centralized Service Oriented
Infrastructure. Two projects supporting
the Infrastructure Strategy have been implemented: Server Consolidation and Virtualization and
Phase I Storage Refresh. The Server
Consolidation and Virtualization project will enable the IRS to move away from
replacing physical servers on a one for one basis to replacing multiple servers
with one server. The goal of the Phase I
Storage Refresh project is to replace,
consolidate, and upgrade a significant portion of existing storage devices (many
had reached their end of life in Fiscal Years 2006 and 2009). Both projects are expected to generate cost
savings.
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources, requires agencies to
prepare and maintain a portfolio of major information systems that monitors
investments and prevents redundancy of existing or shared information technology capabilities. Agencies must develop or use an Enterprise
Architecture Framework. The Framework
must guide strategic and operational Information Resource Management Strategic planning. The Framework must also contain the relationship
between mission needs, information technology capabilities, and information
content. Agencies are also required to
prioritize key systems.
Appendix I
Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology
The overall objective of this review was to determine the effectiveness of the
IRS’s efforts to address the critical issue of sustaining the IRS information
technology infrastructure. To accomplish this objective, we:
I. Determined the efficiency and effectiveness of the SIP governance process.
A. Determined the governance process over the SIP and individual initiatives by interviewing Enterprise Services organization personnel and reviewing governance-related documentation (e.g., IESC meeting minutes, Executive Steering Committee charters, and briefing materials) to assess the actions of the IESC in overseeing the SIP and whether other governance bodies provided oversight of the SIP.
B. Determined the efficiency and effectiveness of the investment decision-making and project implementation process (i.e., project identification, prioritization, approval, and monitoring).
II. Determined the efficiency and effectiveness of the SIP’s efforts to replace critical aged computer hardware.
A. Interviewed SIP personnel to discuss the aging infrastructure problem and the status of the overall SIP and the five current individual initiatives established to mitigate the IRS operational risks.
B.
Interviewed SIP personnel to discuss their risk mitigation process
and the risks they have identified (e.g., funding and staffing). We obtained documentation of their risk
assessments.
C.
Reviewed project documentation for the SIP and individual
initiatives, including the current project schedule, key milestones, and
planned completion dates to determine whether the program and initiatives are
on schedule and within budget. Our review for this step and the next step was
limited to the individual initiatives that were in the ProSight
database and had an overall red status.
D.
Reviewed status reports for the SIP and the individual
initiatives.
E.
Reviewed documentation for the planned
funding for the SIP and individual initiatives for Fiscal Year 2008
through Fiscal Year 2010, including actual
expenditures for each year.
F.
Reviewed the controls over the procurement process to assess
contracting fraud risk.
G.
Interviewed SIP personnel to determine how they decided on the
following: a) the useful life for each
type of equipment and b) the acceptable percentage of aged inventory to carry
annually.
H.
Performed Internet research to determine whether private industry
and the Federal Government have established average years of useful life for
computer hardware and a standard acceptable percentage of aged computer
hardware.
III.
Determined the status of the Information
Technology Infrastructure Strategy.
A.
Interviewed SIP personnel and reviewed documentation to determine
the status of the Information Technology Infrastructure Strategy projects and whether the 5-year goal will be
met.
B.
Interviewed
SIP personnel and
reviewed documentation to determine whether the process used to develop the
Infrastructure Strategy was reasonable.
IV.
Determined the reliability of the Obsolescence
Comparison Reports as the mechanisms to report aged assets.
A.
Interviewed IRS personnel to determine how the reports are used and who
uses them.
B.
Interviewed IRS personnel and obtained supporting documentation to
validate the reasonableness of the process to gather the information needed for
the reports.
C.
Identified and trended the aged
inventory for Fiscal Years 2007 through 2010.
V.
Determined
whether effective corrective actions have been implemented to address prior Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration recommendations.[5]
A.
Recommendation 1:
Implement procedures to improve the accuracy and completeness of the
inventory data on the ITAMS and periodically prepare an updated aged computer
hardware estimate, including current replacement cost, based upon reliable and
current information.
B.
Recommendation 2: Improve
the integration of asset/inventory management with incident and problem
management so problems related to old computer hardware issues can be readily
identified and the IRS can report a more accurate assessment of the negative
impact of aging computer hardware.
C.
Recommendation 4: Ensure the End of Life Equipment Replacement
activity is included in the IESC governance process.
D. Recommendation 5: Ensure a performance measurement process
providing periodic monitoring and reporting of SIP accomplishments is
established for current and future efforts to address the aging computer
hardware issue.
Internal controls methodology
Internal controls
relate to management’s plans, methods, and procedures used to meet their
mission, goals, and objectives. Internal
controls include the processes and procedures for planning, organizing,
directing, and controlling program operations.
They include the systems for measuring, reporting, and monitoring
program performance. We determined the
following internal controls were relevant to our
audit objective: the MITS organization’s
policies and procedures for implementing
an effective SIP to address the critical issue of sustaining the IRS
information technology infrastructure. We
evaluated these controls by interviewing management and by reviewing policies
and procedures such as the Internal Revenue Manual, Federal guidance such as
the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996[6] and Office of Management and Budget Circulars, and relevant
supporting documentation.
Appendix II
Major Contributors to This Report
Alan R. Duncan, Assistant
Inspector General for Audit (Security and Information Technology Services)
Scott Macfarlane, Director
Tina Wong, Lead Auditor
George Franklin, Senior Auditor
Ashley Guthrie, Auditor
Anthony Morrison, Program Analyst
Appendix III
Commissioner C
Office of the Commissioner – Attn: Chief of Staff C
Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support OS
Deputy Chief Information Officer for Operations OS:CTO
Associate Chief Information Officer, End User Equipment and Services OS:CTO:EU
Associate
Chief Information Officer,
Associate Chief Information Officer, Strategy and Planning OS:CTO:SP
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 Liaison: Director, Risk Management Division OS:CTO:SP:RM
Appendix IV
This appendix presents detailed information on the measurable impact that our recommended corrective action will have on tax administration. These benefits will be incorporated into our Semiannual Report to Congress.
Type and Value of Outcome Measure:
· Cost Savings – Funds Put to Better Use – Potential; $12,395,037 over a 6-year period (see page 4).
· Increased Revenue – Potential; $16,430,630 over a 6-year period (see page 4).
Methodology Used to Measure the Reported Benefit:
The business case for the KISAM system reported a potential return on investment of $28,825,667 (shown as net present value and excluded expenses) over 6 years. The return on investment was attributed to two factors: 1) Cost Operational and Run Savings and 2) Revenue Collection Increases due to improved system availability. The 6-year benefit for each factor prior to subtracting the expenses is shown in Figure 1, Column B. The business case did not breakdown the return on investment by the two factors. Therefore, we used the benefits of the two factors to determine a ratio to be applied to the $28,825,667 return on investment to determine the amount of each outcome measure (see Figure 1, Column E).
Figure 1: Computation
of Outcome Measures
|
A. |
B. |
C. |
D. |
E. (Columns C x D) |
|
Cost Operational |
$43,718,600 |
43% |
$28,825,667 |
$12,395,037 |
|
Revenue Collection Increases |
$58,358,800 |
57% |
$28,825,667 |
$16,430,630 |
|
Total Benefits Flow (before expenses) |
$102,077,400 |
100% |
— |
— |
|
Total Return on Investment (Net Present Value)** |
— |
— |
— |
$28,825,667 |
Source:
Our calculations are based on data from
the IRS Information Technology Service Delivery Management
KISAM Return on Investment Model Overview, dated June 5, 2008.
* Percentages were rounded.
** Total benefits
less total expenses.
Appendix V
Aged Computer Hardware Inventory Trends
The IRS tracks its aged computer hardware inventory by both the number and value (i.e., replacement cost) of the aged hardware compared to fiscal year goals (Figure 1). Figures 2 through 5 present the information in a chart format that shows the trends. The fiscal year goals are established each year by the SIP based on the number and value of computer hardware that are or will become aged during the fiscal year and the available budget to purchase new computer hardware. The fiscal year goals are approved by the IESC.
Figure 1: Aged Computer Hardware Compared to Fiscal
Year Goals
|
Fiscal Year |
Total Ending Inventory |
Aged Ending Inventory |
Aged Ending Inventory (Percentage) |
Fiscal Year Goals (Number) |
Fiscal Year Goals (Percentage) |
|
Fiscal Year 2007 |
(as of
September 30, 2007) |
|
|
|
|
|
Obsolescence % (Number of items) |
250,076 |
100,821 |
40.3% |
N/A |
N/A |
|
Obsolescence % (Value) |
$1,035,349,580 |
$414,215,388 |
40.0% |
N/A |
N/A |
|
Fiscal Year 2008 |
(as of
September 2, 2008)* |
|
|
|
|
|
Obsolescence % (Number of items) |
229,382 |
78,940 |
34.4% |
63,768 |
27.8% |
|
Obsolescence % (Value) |
$982,725,574 |
$348,920,115 |
35.5% |
$307,593,105 |
31.3% |
|
Fiscal Year 2009 |
(as of
September 30, 2009) |
|
|
|
|
|
Obsolescence % (Number of items) |
238,573 |
68,297 |
28.6% |
50,816 |
21.3% |
|
Obsolescence % (Value) |
$922,539,286 |
$314,288,473 |
34.1% |
$294,290,032 |
31.9% |
|
Fiscal Year 2010 |
(as of July 1, 2010) |
|
|
|
|
|
Obsolescence % (Number of items) |
242,308 |
71,377 |
29.5% |
58,154 |
24.0% |
|
Obsolescence % (Value) |
$946,690,851 |
$397,663,028 |
42.0% |
$369,209,432 |
39.0% |
Source: Our
analysis of the Obsolescence Comparison Report.
* September 2, 2008, is the latest date used in the Obsolescence Comparison Report
to monitor and track aged
asset progress in Fiscal Year 2008.
Figure 2: Number of Aged
Computer Hardware Items Compared
to the Fiscal Year Goal (presented as a number)
Figure 2 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 2, please go
to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure 3: Value of Aged Computer Hardware Items Compared
to the Fiscal Year Goal (presented in dollars)
Figure 3 was removed due to
its size. To see
Figure 3, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public
Web Page.
Figure 4: Number of Aged
Computer Hardware Items Compared to the Fiscal Year Goal (presented as a
percentage)
Figure 4 was removed due to its size. To see Figure 4, please go
to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public Web Page.
Figure 5: Value of Aged
Computer Hardware Items Compared to the Fiscal Year Goal (presented as a
percentage)
Figure 5 was removed due to
its size. To see
Figure 5, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public
Web Page.
Appendix VI
|
Term |
Definition |
|
Client |
Software that allows the user to access a service from a server
computer (e.g., a server computer on the Internet). |
|
Information Technology Asset Management System |
The official IRS inventory system that enables tracking, reporting,
and management of computer equipment. |
|
Infrastructure |
The
fundamental structure of a system or organization. The basic, fundamental architecture of any
system (electronic, mechanical, social, political) determines how it
functions and how flexible it is to meet future requirements. |
|
Knowledge,
Incident/Problem, Service Asset Management |
The
system that will maintain the complete inventory of information technology
and non-information technology assets. It will also be the reporting tool for
problem management with all IRS-developed applications. |
|
ProSight
|
A database tool designed with specific tracking, reporting, and decision-making features used to monitor projects. |
|
Server |
A network device that provides
service to the network users by managing shared resources. |
|
Service
Oriented Infrastructure |
A service-driven infrastructure that provides a common and shared set of technologies that enable business processes to be added and changed readily. |
|
Virtualization |
Software that
separates an application from the underlying physical hardware on which it
runs. It allows a single piece of hardware
such as a server to support many applications, thereby running the software
more efficiently and at lower cost. |
Appendix VII
Management’s Response to the Draft Report
DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20224
CHIEF TECHNOLOGY
OFFICER
December 10, 2010
MEMORANDUM FOR DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDIT
FROM: Terence V. Milholland /s/ Terence V. Milholland
Chief Technology Officer
SUBJECT: Draft Audit Report - The Sustaining Infrastructure Program Is Significantly Improved and a Comprehensive Information Technology Infrastructure Strategy Has Been Developed (200920026)
Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft audit report and to discuss earlier draft report observations with the audit team.
I was pleased to read your comments and observations acknowledging the Sustaining Infrastructure Program has significantly improved. I am pleased that the report recognizes the IRS has effectively developed and implemented a process for funding and replacement of aged computer hardware as well as other critical infrastructure needs; and that the appropriate executive steering committee is overseeing this program.
Further, I appreciate you acknowledging the approved business case for the Knowledge, Incident/Problem, Service Asset Management (KISAM), and the development of our comprehensive information technology Infrastructure Strategy to support the current and future goals of the IRS.
The IRS acknowledges that the information provided by the Gartner study was one consideration in our decision to implement KISAM as replacement for the obsolete ITAMS (the Gartner study was provided to TIGTA in the course of the audit). It is important to qualify any expectation of return on our investment in KISAM with two considerations:
• As a matter of policy the strategy of the service is not focused on revenue targets and is therefore never committed to an increase in collection targets per se. While the implementation of KISAM was (and is) expected to result in increased capacity to support the collection of revenue, there are a multitude of external factors that influence actual revenue - all of which present significantly greater influence on revenue collection than the mere availability of capacity. Therefore we would propose replacing the articulated expectation of an increase in revenue collection with an acknowledgement that the capacity to support such an increase will be in place.
We are committed to continuously improving our information technology systems and processes. We value your continued support and the assistance and guidance your team provides. If you have any questions, please contact me at (202) 622-6800 or Karen Mayr at (202) 283-0015.
[1] See Appendix VI for a glossary of terms.
[2] Efforts to Update Aging Computer Hardware Are Underway, but Program Improvements Are Needed to Minimize Risks (Reference Number 2008-20-002, dated November 6, 2007).
[3] Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1996 (Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996), Pub. L. No. 104-106, 110 Stat. 642 (codified in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C., 5 U.S.C. app., 10 U.S.C., 15 U.S.C., 16 U.S.C., 18 U.S.C., 22 U.S.C., 28 U.S.C., 29 U.S.C., 31 U.S.C., 38 U.S.C., 40 U.S.C., 41 U.S.C., 42 U.S.C., 44 U.S.C., 49 U.S.C., 50 U.S.C.).
[4] Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C., 31 U.S.C., and 39 U.S.C.).
[5]Efforts to Update Aging Computer Hardware Are Underway, but Program Improvements Are Needed to Minimize Risks (Reference Number 2008-20-002, dated November 6, 2007).
[6] Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1996 (Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996), Pub. L. No. 104-106, 110 Stat. 642 (codified in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C., 5 U.S.C. app., 10 U.S.C., 15 U.S.C., 16 U.S.C., 18 U.S.C., 22 U.S.C., 28 U.S.C., 29 U.S.C., 31 U.S.C., 38 U.S.C., 40 U.S.C., 41 U.S.C., 42 U.S.C., 44 U.S.C., 49 U.S.C., 50 U.S.C.).