oversight

Results Act: Observations on NASA's May 1997 Draft Strategic Plan

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1997-07-22.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                     United States
GAO                  General Accounting Office
                     Washington, D.C. 20548

                     National Security and
                     International Affairs Division

                     B-277470

                     July 22, 1997

                     The Honorable Richard K. Armey
                     Majority Leader
                     House of Representatives

                     The Honorable John Kasich
                     Chairman, Committee on the Budget
                     House of Representatives

                     The Honorable Dan Burton
                     Chairman, Committee on Government Reform
                       and Oversight
                     House of Representatives

                     The Honorable Bob Livingston
                     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations
                     House of Representatives

                     Subject: Results Act: Observations on NASA’s May 1997 Draft Strategic Plan

                     On June 12, 1997, you asked us to review the draft strategic plans
                     submitted by the cabinet departments and selected major agencies for
                     consultation with the Congress as required by the Government
                     Performance and Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act). This letter is our
                     response to that request concerning the National Aeronautics and Space
                     Administration (NASA).


                     Our overall objective was to review and evaluate the latest version of
Objectives, Scope,   NASA’s draft strategic plan. Specifically we (1) assessed the draft plan’s
and Methodology      compliance with the act’s requirements and its overall quality;
                     (2) determined if NASA’s key statutory authorities were reflected;
                     (3) identified whether decisions about crosscutting functions and
                     interagency involvement were included; (4) determined if the draft plan
                     addressed major management problems; and (5) discussed NASA’s capacity
                     to provide reliable information about its operations and performance.

                     Our overall assessment of NASA’s draft plan was generally based on our
                     knowledge of NASA’s operations and programs, our numerous reviews of
                     the agency, and other existing information available at the time of our
                     assessment. Specifically, the criteria we used to determine whether NASA’s




                     Page 1                             GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
             B-277470




             draft strategic plan complied with the requirements of the Results Act
             were the Results Act itself supplemented by Office of Management and
             Budget (OMB) guidance on developing strategic plans (Circular A-11,
             part 2). To make judgments about the overall quality of the plan and its
             components, we used our own guidance (GAO/GGD-10.1.16, May 1997) for
             congressional review of the plans as a tool. To determine whether the plan
             contained information on interagency coordination and addressed
             management problems we previously identified, we relied on our general
             knowledge of NASA’s operations and programs and the results of our
             previous reports. A list of our major products related to NASA operations is
             at the end of this letter. We conducted our assessment between June 13,
             and July 11, 1997, in accordance with generally accepted government
             auditing standards.

             We based our assessment on the May 1997 draft strategic plan that NASA
             provided to the House of Representatives congressional staff team
             working with the agency. However, we did not examine other related
             planning documents or examine the strategic plans prepared by NASA’s
             four enterprises: Mission to Planet Earth, Aeronautics and Space
             Transportation Technology, Human Exploration and Development of
             Space, and Space Science. NASA considers these enterprises to be its four
             principal business units, and each enterprise has developed its own
             strategic plan to supplement the overall NASA plan.

             The Results Act anticipated that it may take several planning cycles to
             perfect the process and that the final plan would be continually refined as
             various planning cycles occur. Thus, our comments reflect a snapshot
             status of the plan at a given point in time. We recognize that developing a
             strategic plan is a dynamic process and that NASA is continuing to revise
             the draft with input from OMB, congressional staff, and other stakeholders.


             NASA conducts aeronautics and space research and develops, constructs,
Background   tests, and operates space vehicles. It conducts activities required for the
             exploration of space with manned and unmanned vehicles. The agency is
             currently undertaking programs such as the International Space Station to
             provide a permanently inhabited international space station in earth orbit,
             and the Mission to Planet Earth program to provide data relevant to the
             study of global change. NASA’s annual budget is about $13 billion and the
             agency employs about 20,000 workers located in headquarters and nine
             field centers across the country.




             Page 2                             GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277470




There is no more important element in results-oriented management than
a strategic plan that defines what the agency seeks to accomplish,
identifies strategies for achieving desired results, and provides the starting
point for determining how well results-oriented goals and objectives are
being achieved. Leading results-oriented organizations focus on the
process of strategic planning, rather than on a strategic planning
document. When done well, strategic planning is continuous, provides the
basis for everything the organization does each day, and fosters
communication between the organization and its customers and
stakeholders.

NASA’s efforts to develop a strategic plan and performance measurements
predate the passage of the Results Act. In 1992, NASA revised its strategic
planning process. Previous attempts at strategic planning did not fully
consider budget realities and other external pressures on the agency and
did not outline true goals and strategic outcomes. Consequently, these
plans were not widely accepted. In 1994, NASA issued its first strategic plan
under the new planning process and updated this plan in 1995 and 1996. Its
fiscal year 1995 and 1996 accountability reports provided a summary of the
agency’s progress towards achieving the goals of its strategic plan.1 NASA
submitted its draft May 1997 version of its strategic plan to Congress to
meet the consultative requirements of the Results Act.

The Results Act requires each federal agency to develop a strategic plan by
September 30, 1997. Each plan is to include the following six elements:
(1) a comprehensive mission statement covering the major functions and
operations of the agency, (2) the agency’s general goals and objectives,
(3) a description of how the goals and objectives are to be achieved, (4) a
description of how the performance goals included in the annual
performance plan shall be related to the agency’s general goals and
objectives, (5) identification of key factors external to the agency and
beyond its control that could affect achievement of general goals and
objectives, and (6) a description of the program evaluations used to
establish/revise strategic goals with a schedule for future program
evaluations.




1
 NASA was one of six pilot agencies selected by OMB to produce accountability reports. These reports
cover the agency’s financial activities for the fiscal year, including (1) an agency profile,
(2) performance planning and assessment information, (3) management’s discussion and analyses of
controls required by the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act, (4) auditors’ reports, and
(5) financial statements.



Page 3                                         GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
                   B-277470




                   To its credit, NASA has been actively pursuing a strategic planning process
Results in Brief   since 1992—before enactment of the Results Act. Of the six elements
                   required by the Act, four are included in the draft strategic plan—a
                   mission statement, goals and objectives, strategies for achieving the goals
                   and objectives, and a discussion of external factors (discussed in the
                   context of NASA’s environmental assessment). Two of those four elements
                   have weaknesses, some more significant than others. The other
                   elements— relating annual performance goals to general goals and
                   objectives and a description of program evaluations used to establish
                   general goals and objectives and a schedule for future program
                   evaluations—are not explained in enough detail in the draft plan itself.

                   The draft plan sets forth NASA’s primary legislative mandate, the National
                   Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (the Space Act), as well as other key
                   statutory authorities of the agency. For example, as discussed in the plan,
                   the agency carries out its requirement to expand knowledge of the earth
                   through the earth sciences, remote sensing, and upper atmospheric
                   research activities of the Mission to Planet Earth enterprise.

                   Though many of NASA’s objectives are shared with or involve other
                   agencies, the draft plan does not discuss what interagency coordination
                   occurred to address the issues of duplication and overlap. The draft plan
                   does note the importance of working with other agencies in achieving its
                   objectives, and NASA officials stated that coordination has occurred at the
                   program level. These efforts, though, are not discussed in the plan, and
                   coordination at higher agency levels may be needed to ensure consistency
                   of program objectives between agencies.

                   Major management problems facing the agency that could affect its ability
                   to achieve its mission are not explicitly discussed in the draft plan. For
                   example, problems with managing contracts, managing information
                   technology, and developing a fully integrated accounting system are three
                   long-standing problems the agency faces that are not discussed in the draft
                   plan, even though the agency has recognized them as problems and has
                   taken steps to address them.

                   Our work has shown that the agency’s capability to generate reliable
                   information needed to measure the achievement of its strategic goals is
                   questionable. Problems with the agency’s financial management system
                   may make it difficult for the agency to accurately determine whether, for
                   example, it is meeting its goal to reduce the costs of placing payloads into
                   orbit. To evaluate the effectiveness of the agency’s efforts to achieve its



                   Page 4                              GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
                                    B-277470




                                    goals and objectives, the agency and the Congress will need complete,
                                    reliable, and timely performance, program cost, and management
                                    information.


                                    Of the six elements required by the Results Act, four are included in NASA’s
NASA’s Draft Strategic              draft strategic plan—a mission statement, goals and objectives, strategies
Plan Includes Four of               to achieve the goals and objectives, and external factors. The discussion of
Six Required                        two of those four elements in the draft plan needs to be improved. The
                                    other required elements—relating annual performance goals to general
Elements                            goals and objectives and a description of program evaluations used to
                                    establish goals and objectives and a schedule of future program
                                    evaluations—are not explained in enough detail in the draft plan itself.
                                    Table I shows the Results Act’s required components and, where
                                    applicable, the corresponding sections in NASA’s draft plan.

Table I: Strategic Plan Required
Components and Corresponding        Strategic plan required component                 Corresponding sections in draft plan
Sections in NASA’s May 1997 Draft   1.Comprehensive mission statement                 Vision, Mission and Strategic Outcomes
Strategic Plan
                                    2.General goals and objectives for the            NASA’s Strategic Roadmap to the Future
                                      major functions and operations of the           Four Strategic Enterprises for a Single
                                      agency                                          NASA
                                    3.Description of how the goals and                NASA’s Strategic Roadmap to the Future
                                      objectives are to be achieved                   Framework
                                    4.Description of how the performance              NASA’s Strategic Roadmap to the Future
                                      goals included in the annual performance        Four Strategic Enterprises for a Single
                                      plan shall be related to the general goals      NASA
                                      and objectives in the strategic plan.           NASA’s Crosscutting Processes
                                                                                      Implementing Strategies to
                                                                                      Revolutionize NASA
                                    5.Identification of key factors external to Environmental Assessment
                                      the agency and beyond its control that
                                      could affect achievement of general goals
                                      and objectives.
                                    6.Descriptions of how program                     Framework
                                      evaluations were used to establish/revise       NASA’s Crosscutting Processes
                                      strategic goals with a schedule for future      Implementing Strategies to Revolutionize
                                      program evaluations.                            NASA
                                    Source: The Results Act of 1993 and NASA’s May 1997 draft Strategic Plan.



                                    The following discusses the extent the draft plan meets the requirements
                                    of the Results Act and specific areas where the plan could be
                                    strengthened.




                                    Page 5                                       GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
                        B-277470




Mission Statement       The Results Act requires each agency’s strategic plan to include a
                        comprehensive mission statement covering the major functions and
                        operations of the agency. OMB’s guidance on preparing strategic plans gives
                        the agencies discretion about whether the mission statement should lay
                        out statutory authorities. OMB’s guidance states that “the mission statement
                        may include a concise discussion of enabling or authorizing legislation, as
                        well as identification of the issues that Congress specifically charged the
                        agency to address.”

                        NASA’s draft plan contains a comprehensive mission statement that covers
                        the major functions and operations of the agency. The mission statement
                        identifies three key missions for the agency. In short, NASA’s mission is to

                    •   advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the
                        earth, the solar system, and the universe and use the environment of space
                        for research;
                    •   explore, use, and enable the development of space for human enterprise;
                        and
                    •   research, develop, verify, and transfer advanced aeronautics, space, and
                        related technologies.

                        The draft plan notes that the agency’s mission is based on NASA’s primary
                        legislative mandate, the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (the
                        Space Act). NASA’s mission statement is consistent with the Space Act,
                        which gives NASA the responsibility for carrying out aeronautical and space
                        activities for the general welfare and security of the United States. NASA is
                        required to carry out this activity to satisfy objectives such as expanding
                        knowledge of the earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space,
                        developing and improving aeronautical and space vehicles, and preserving
                        the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science
                        and technology. NASA must also disseminate information about its
                        activities and their results as widely as possible, encourage the fullest
                        commercial use of space, and conduct its work in cooperation with other
                        nations and groups of nations.

                        In our opinion, the clarity of NASA’s mission statement as stated in the draft
                        plan is clouded by the inclusion of several questions in the draft plan’s
                        introduction. In this introductory section, the NASA Administrator
                        discusses the agency’s strategic outlook. Seven questions are identified
                        that the agency says it plans to use to “implement its mission and define its
                        goals.” However, these questions are not discussed in the context of the
                        three stated missions of the agency. These questions are also identified in



                        Page 6                              GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
                       B-277470




                       the sections discussing the goals of each strategic enterprise. It is unclear
                       from the Administrator’s statement and the rest of the draft plan whether
                       these seven questions are intended to drive the mission of the agency or
                       are subparts of the agency’s mission.


Goals and Objectives   The Results Act requires that strategic plans describe the agency’s general
                       goals and objectives, including outcome-oriented goals and objectives, for
                       major agency functions. OMB’s guidance on preparing strategic plans notes
                       that the goals and objectives should be specific and permit assessment of
                       whether the goals are being achieved.

                       NASA’s draft plan includes a “strategic roadmap” that outlines agencywide
                       goals for each of its three missions identified in the mission statement.
                       Separate goals are listed for near-, mid-, and long-term time periods over
                       the next 25 years and beyond. In addition to listing agencywide goals, the
                       draft plan includes a “strategic roadmap” for each of the four major NASA
                       strategic enterprises. Near-, mid-, and long-term objectives for each of the
                       three agency missions are described for Mission to Planet Earth,
                       Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology, Human Exploration
                       and Development of Space, and Space Science.

                       As required by the Results Act, most of the goals listed in NASA’s draft plan
                       elaborate on the agency’s mission and are specific. The goals in the
                       agencywide roadmap and the objectives in the enterprise strategic
                       roadmaps are related to both outcomes (describing desired results) and
                       outputs (describing levels of activity). For example, NASA cites improved
                       space shuttle safety—an outcome-oriented goal— and the use of robotic
                       explorers in space—an output-oriented goal—as near-term goals for the
                       agency’s mission to explore, use, and develop space.

                       While the goals outlined by NASA appear to meet the Results Act’s
                       requirements, progress towards some of the goals NASA has outlined may
                       prove difficult to assess. For example, the goals to “characterize the earth
                       system,” “explore nature’s processes in space,” and “acquire and promote
                       knowledge and technologies that promise to promote our quality of life”
                       will be difficult to measure. As we recently reported, it is inherently
                       difficult to measure the performance of research and development
                       programs because the results are typically not apparent until many years
                       later.2 A large part of NASA’s mission is to research, develop, and advance

                       2
                        Measuring Performance: Strengths and Limitations of Research Indicators (GAO/RCED-97-91, Mar. 21,
                       1997).



                       Page 7                                       GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
                                B-277470




                                knowledge. Developing effective performance measures for these program
                                goals will be a major challenge for science agencies, including NASA.

                                One other challenge not addressed in the draft plan, but relevant to NASA
                                and many other agencies, will be developing measurable goals and
                                measures for agency missions that involve multiple federal agencies
                                and/or private industry. The Results Act is based on the premise that
                                budget decisions should be more clearly informed by expectations about
                                program performance. Without clear and precise measures of
                                agency-unique contributions, the Congress will be unable to determine the
                                relative contributions of each agency, and this goal of the Results Act will
                                not be realized. For example, the draft plan cites as a goal the reduction of
                                the civil aircraft accident rate. The Federal Aviation Administration also
                                shares this goal, and airlines and aircraft manufacturers will play a
                                decisive role in the achievement of the goal.


Strategies to Achieve the       The Results Act requires strategic plans to address how the goals and
Goals and Objectives and        objectives are to be achieved, including a description of the operational
Needed Resources                processes, skills, technology, and other resources required to meet these
                                goals and objectives. OMB guidance to the agencies on preparing strategic
                                plans directs the agencies to include schedules for completing actions and
                                to project staffing and funding levels. OMB guidance also requires strategic
                                plans to discuss how they will assign accountability to managers and staff
                                for achieving goals and how they will communicate goals throughout the
                                agency.

                                NASA’s draft plan describes in general terms the agency’s strategy to
                                achieve its goals and objectives.

                            •   NASA’sdraft plan identifies four strategic enterprises through which it
                                implements its mission and satisfies the needs of its external customers.
                            •   The draft plan includes a “strategic roadmap” for each enterprise that
                                defines the near-, mid-, and long-term goals NASA seeks to achieve in the
                                three mission areas and discusses the roles that will be played by NASA’s
                                nine centers.3 The plan very briefly notes that other agencies have roles in
                                these missions.
                            •   Each center has a mission that provides a basis for building human
                                resource capabilities and a physical infrastructure in direct support of

                                3
                                 NASA’s nine centers are the Ames Research Center, Dryden Flight Center, Johnson Space Center,
                                Stennis Space Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, Lewis Research Center, Kennedy Space Center,
                                Langley Research Center, and Goddard Space Flight Center. In addition to the nine centers, the Jet
                                Propulsion Laboratory also plays a role in implementing NASA’s programs.



                                Page 8                                         GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277470




enterprise requirements. In addition, each center has responsibility as a
“Center of Excellence” to maintain leadership responsibility for an area of
technology as well as responsibility as a “Lead Center” to manage specific
programs across the agency.

The draft plan loses some focus following the discussion of its four
enterprises. The draft plan identifies four “crosscutting processes”
(essentially key internal functions) that NASA uses to achieve its mission,
support the strategic enterprises, and develop and deliver products and
services to internal and external customers.4 In addition, the draft plan
includes a section on “Implementing Strategies to Revolutionize NASA” that
also discusses internal processes and functions, such as internal
evaluation and contracting. The use of the term “implementing strategies”
is unclear because it implies (under the terms of the Results Act) a
discussion of how the agency will achieve its goals and objectives rather
than changes to internal processes. We believe that it would be more
helpful if this section of the plan was more clearly integrated with the
discussion of internal crosscutting processes.

While the draft plan only briefly mentions the staff and resources required
to carry out the plan, NASA officials noted that the plan states that it
assumes a stable budget for NASA. They also stated that more detailed
resource and budgetary information is contained in the agency’s budget
documents.

Though the draft plan notes that communicating the agency’s direction is
an objective of the managing strategically crosscutting process, it does not
explicitly indicate how the goals of the plan will be communicated
throughout the agency. Similarly, while the plan indicates that employees’
annual performance plans are used to ensure the alignment of individual
activities with the goals of the strategic plan, and that the Administrator
urges all employees to read the plan, it only briefly describes how
accountability will be assigned. NASA officials noted that for several years
the agency has had in place management processes—now included in
NASA’s Strategic Management Handbook—that help ensure that each
employee understands the goals and objectives of the agency and the way
that activities contribute to the achievement of these goals and objectives.
We believe that it would be helpful if the plan noted and explained the role




4
 The crosscutting processes include (1) generate knowledge, (2) communicate knowledge, (3) provide
aerospace products and capabilities, and (4) manage strategically.



Page 9                                        GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
                           B-277470




                           of the Strategic Management Handbook and other relevant plans and
                           guidance.5


Relating Annual            The Results Act and OMB guidance require that strategic plans outline the
Performance Goals to       type of performance goals to be included in the annual performance plan,
General Goals and          the relation between those performance goals and the agency’s strategic
                           goals and objectives, and the relevance and use of annual performance
Objectives                 goals in helping determine the achievement of general goals and
                           objectives.

                           In the sections “NASA’s Crosscutting Processes” and “Implementing
                           Strategies to Revolutionize NASA” (i.e., internal agency functions), the draft
                           plan indicates that the agency will review its performance against its goals
                           and objectives. However, NASA’s draft plan does not include a specific
                           discussion or demonstrate a direct relationship between annual
                           performance goals and the agency’s general goals and objectives. A clear
                           explanation of these issues would be helpful to show linkages among the
                           several goals and questions discussed in the plan. For example:

                       •   The description of each enterprise in the draft plan includes two sections
                           labeled “Goals” and “Questions to Address.” The draft plan does not fully
                           explain the relationship between these various goals and questions with
                           the agency goals and questions, nor does it indicate which goal or question
                           will be measured to assess the agency’s performance.
                       •   NASA’s draft plan includes a listing of “strategic outcomes” for the agency.
                           The plan also includes a strategic roadmap for the agency and each
                           strategic enterprise that identifies near-, mid- and long-term objectives for
                           the agency. The draft plan, however, does not indicate whether
                           performance will be measured against the strategic outcomes, agencywide
                           goals, those of individual enterprises, or some combination of these.
                       •   The draft plan does not clearly indicate whether near-term, mid-term, or
                           long-term goals will be used for performance measurement.

                           According to NASA officials, the agency plans to measure performance
                           against the near-term objectives outlined in the strategic roadmaps for
                           each enterprise and the objectives of the crosscutting processes. The draft
                           plan, however, does not clearly explain this and does not discuss how
                           measuring performance at the enterprise level will allow an assessment of
                           agencywide goals. NASA officials noted that a full discussion of the

                           5
                            The NASA Strategic Management Handbook was developed to define and document how NASA does
                           strategic planning, implementation planning, execution, and performance evaluation. The handbook
                           also ties together the results of several management and policy studies.



                           Page 10                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
                             B-277470




                             methodology for evaluating performance will be included in the agency’s
                             annual performance plan.


Key External Factors         OMB guidance requires agencies to identify each key external factor,
                             indicate its link with a particular goal, and describe how attainment of
                             each goal would be affected. Rather than identifying key external factors,
                             NASA’s draft plan discusses the “external and internal environment” and
                             “key assumptions” that could affect the agency’s ability to implement its
                             plan. For example, the draft plan assumes that NASA’s budget will remain
                             stable for the foreseeable future, international cooperation will be
                             increasingly important in achieving NASA’s mission, and the international
                             space station will be successfully developed. The draft plan does not,
                             however, explain how these assumptions are linked to particular goals of
                             the agency and how these goals might be affected if assumptions are not
                             met.


How Program Evaluations      The Results Act requires “a description of the program evaluations used in
Were Used to Establish or    establishing or revising general goals and objectives, with a schedule for
Revise Strategic Goals and   future program evaluations.” OMB’s guidance notes that the strategic plan
                             should include an outline of the methodology to be used, issues to be
Schedule for Future          addressed, and a schedule for future evaluations covering, at a minimum,
Evaluations                  the fiscal years prior to the next revision of the strategic plan.

                             The draft plan mentions that NASA plans to review performance against the
                             goals and objectives contained in the strategic plan and states that the
                             agency’s Program Management Council and Capital Investment Council
                             will continue to review programs and investments. The draft plan notes
                             that it builds on three previous editions and identifies the plan’s most
                             recent changes and improvements. However, the draft plan does not
                             explicitly discuss or demonstrate how program evaluations were used in
                             establishing or revising agency goals and objectives, nor does it provide a
                             schedule for future evaluations.

                             NASA officials explained that program evaluation has been extensively used
                             since the agency’s first strategic plan was issued in 1994. They stated that
                             evaluating the strategic plan is part of its strategic management process
                             and that this is discussed in its Strategic Management Handbook. We
                             believe that it would be useful if NASA’s plan cited these past efforts as well
                             as the agency’s plans for program evaluations.




                             Page 11                              GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
                      B-277470




                      NASA’s primary legislative mandate is contained in the Space Act. The act
Key Statutory         gives NASA the responsibility for aeronautical and space activities to be
Authorities Are       carried out for the general welfare and security of the United States. NASA
Addressed             is required to satisfy such objectives as expanding knowledge of the earth
                      and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space, developing and improving
                      aeronautical and space vehicles, and preserving the role of the United
                      States as a leader in aeronautical space science and technology. NASA must
                      disseminate information about its activities as widely as possible,
                      encourage the fullest commercial use of space, and conduct its work in
                      cooperation with other nations and groups of nations.

                      NASA’s draft plan, including its mission statement, goals, and objectives,
                      addresses the Space Act requirements. For example, as outlined in the
                      plan, NASA carries out the statutory requirement to expand knowledge of
                      the earth through the earth sciences, remote sensing, and upper
                      atmospheric research activities of its Mission to Planet Earth enterprise.
                      The requirement to develop and improve aeronautical and space vehicles
                      is exemplified by the plan’s references to the Aeronautics and Space
                      Transportation Technology enterprise, whose goals include the reduction
                      of accident rates of global civil aviation and the development of
                      next-generation design tools and experimental aircraft. The requirement to
                      preserve the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical space
                      sciences and technology is set out in the plan’s references to the
                      high-performance computing research objectives of the Aeronautics and
                      Space Transportation enterprise.

                      In addition to the Space Act, several other important statutory
                      requirements are addressed in more specific areas of the draft plan. For
                      example:

                  •   The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of
                      1988, as amended, required NASA’s Administrator to construct a
                      permanently manned space station to be used to conduct scientific,
                      applications, and engineering experiments and establish a space base for
                      other civilian and commercial space activities. NASA’s draft plan includes
                      assembly of the international space station as one of NASA’s short-term
                      goals for the 1997-2002 time period and aligns this goal with its overall
                      mission of exploring, using, and enabling the development of space for
                      human development.
                  •   Section 102 of the fiscal year 1993 National Aeronautics and Space
                      Administration Act directed the NASA Administrator to carry out an Earth
                      Observing System program that addresses the highest priority



                      Page 12                            GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
                         B-277470




                         international climate change research goals. Activity in this area aligns
                         with NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth enterprise, which, according to the
                         draft plan, “is pioneering the new discipline of Earth system science, with
                         a near-term emphasis on global climate change.” According to the draft
                         plan, the agency plans to deploy the first series of Earth Observing System
                         missions, including Landsat 7, in the 1997 through 2002 time period.

                         Statutory directives addressing specific aspects of biomedical research in
                         space are set out in 42 U.S.C. 2487a-2487f. While these provisions are not
                         specifically addressed in the draft plan, biomedical research in general is
                         discussed in the Human Exploration and Development of Space enterprise
                         section. A listing of NASA’s key statutory authorities is provided in
                         enclosure I.


                         Given the broad mission of many agencies, some of the general goals and
Crosscutting             objectives identified in their strategic plans will overlap or be shared with
Activities Are Not       other agencies. In such cases, they may have a shared responsibility for
Discussed                defining and achieving these crosscutting objectives. Recognizing the
                         importance of interagency coordination in such cases, OMB guidance
                         requires that “appropriate and timely consultation occurs with other
                         agencies during development of strategic plans with crosscutting goals
                         and objectives.”

                         Though several of NASA’s objectives are shared with those of other
                         agencies, the draft plan does not identify specific programs and activities
                         that are crosscutting or similar to those of other federal agencies. Many of
                         NASA’s objectives, however, are shared with other agencies.


                     •   The Human Exploration and Development of Space enterprise objective
                         for space medicine research involves the National Institutes of Health.
                     •   The Mission to Planet Earth enterprise objectives on long-term climate and
                         ozone research involve the National Science Foundation, the Department
                         of Energy, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
                     •   The Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology enterprise
                         objectives to improve civil air safety and reduce air travel costs are shared
                         with the Federal Aviation Administration.

                         The draft plan acknowledges in several places the need to work with other
                         agencies (as well as private industry). However, the plan’s discussions of
                         crosscutting programs are brief and do not explain what, if any,
                         coordination was done in developing goals and objectives. NASA officials



                         Page 13                             GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
                       B-277470




                       stated that each strategic enterprise coordinated its objectives with the
                       relevant agencies at the program level. They noted that NASA officials
                       participate in many crosscutting groups, like the Research Roundtable,
                       where programmatic objectives are discussed. They also noted that for the
                       last few years the agency has shared its strategic plan with other federal
                       agencies. However, these activities, and the extent to which they
                       addressed the issue of duplication and overlap, are not discussed in the
                       plan. In addition, these activities are primarily at the program level. The
                       plan could be enhanced by being more descriptive of how NASA priorities
                       are consistent with the priorities of other agencies. Such interagency
                       coordination may have to take place at the senior management level.


                       For several years, we have reported on many of the major management
Major Management       problems NASA faces in carrying out its mission. The agency faces many
Challenges Are Not     problems and challenges such as controlling costs of major programs like
Explicitly Addressed   the space station and earth observing system, determining its
                       environmental liability, overseeing space shuttle operations, and managing
                       budget carryover balances. In response to our work and the work of
                       others, including NASA’s Inspector General, NASA has undertaken efforts to
                       improve its mission-related management approaches.

                       NASA’s draft plan does not comment on its major management challenges
                       or the status of its reform efforts. This information could be beneficial to
                       NASA and its stakeholders because major management problems could
                       impede the agency’s efforts to achieve its goals and objectives. Examples
                       of three significant areas are (1) managing contracts, (2) managing
                       information technology, and (3) developing a fully integrated accounting
                       system. While the draft plan includes information technology as a specific
                       objective of the managing strategically crosscutting process, specific
                       objectives are not listed for contract management or improving the
                       agency’s accounting system.


Contract Management    In 1990, we identified NASA contract management as an area of high risk for
                       fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. When looked at functionally,
                       NASA can be seen principally as a procurement organization. In a typical
                       year, NASA uses between 85 percent and 90 percent of its budget for
                       purchasing goods and services—about $12 billion or more each year. NASA
                       has made considerable progress in addressing its contract management
                       problems, including restructuring contract award fees so that space
                       system performance is emphasized, and changing how it shares risk under



                       Page 14                             GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
                             B-277470




                             research and development contracts. In our most recent high-risk report to
                             NASA, we noted that NASA has effectively addressed many problems
                             throughout the procurement cycle but that the agency still lacked relevant
                             and reliable contract performance measurements as well as periodic
                             performance reviews that would allow it to effectively oversee contracts.6
                             NASA indicated it would take action in this area.



Information Technology       NASA is one of the federal government’s top information technology
                             investors. The agency estimates that it will spend $1.4 billion on
                             information technology in fiscal year 1997. Since establishing the position
                             of chief information officer (CIO) in February 1995, NASA has been working
                             to correct information technology acquisition and management practices
                             that had previously been criticized as fragmented, duplicative, and lacking
                             adequate oversight. In August 1996, we reported on the CIO’s activities to
                             date, noting that NASA still faces significant challenges in managing its
                             investment in information technology.7

                             The draft plan includes information technology management as an
                             objective under its process for managing strategically.8 The draft plan,
                             however, does not discuss

                         •   how NASA plans to comply with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, which calls
                             for agencies to implement a framework of modern technology
                             management based on practices followed by leading private-sector and
                             public-sector organizations that have successfully used technology to
                             dramatically improve performance and meet strategic goals;
                         •   how the agency’s new CIO management structure, which depends on the
                             cooperation of NASA’s diverse enterprises and field centers, will be able to
                             provide strategic direction to information technology investments; and
                         •   how NASA plans to address the “year 2000 problem” (which requires that
                             computer systems be changed to accommodate dates beyond the year
                             1999) as well as any significant information security weaknesses—two
                             issues that we have identified as high risk across the federal government.9

                             6
                              NASA Procurement Contract Management Oversight (GAO/NSIAD-97-114R, Mar. 18, 1997).
                             7
                              NASA Chief Information Officer: Opportunities to Strengthen Information Resource Management
                             (GAO/AIMD-96-78, Aug. 15. 1996).
                             8
                              The objective is to “ensure that information technology provides an open and secure exchange of
                             information, is consistent with agency technical architectures and standards, demonstrates a projected
                             return on investment, reduces risk, and directly contributes to mission success.”
                             9
                             The year 2000 problem refers to the potential for computer programs to generate incorrect results
                             when using dates from the year 2000 and beyond to perform calculations, comparisons, or sorting.



                             Page 15                                        GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
                        B-277470




                        Both the “year 2000 problem” and information security weaknesses could
                        seriously undermine the integrity of NASA’s information systems if not
                        adequately addressed.


Developing a Fully      It is especially critical that NASA’s operations be supported by reliable
Integrated Accounting   information systems. Our past work has shown that NASA’s financial
System                  management systems do not provide complete, accurate, or timely
                        information. For many years, NASA has reported its systems as either high
                        risk or a material weakness in its Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act
                        reports because its systems are center-unique and nonintegrated. The
                        Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 requires that each agency develop and
                        maintain an integrated agency accounting and financial management
                        system that provides for (1) the integration of accounting and budgeting
                        information, (2) the development and reporting of cost information, and
                        (3) the systematic measurement of performance—information needed to
                        meet the requirements of the Results Act.

                        Although the draft plan states that the agency will tie its budget process to
                        the strategic plans, it does not address the challenges NASA faces in
                        implementing its new accounting system and the importance of this effort
                        to (1) providing agency management and the Congress with better
                        financial information and (2) allowing the agency to move to full cost
                        accounting. In February 1995, NASA initiated the Integrated Financial
                        Management Project, with a goal to establish an integrated financial
                        management system for the agency. NASA plans for the system to provide a
                        financial management core as well as other modules, such as budget,
                        procurement, time and attendance, asset management, and travel, that it
                        believes will meet the needs of all levels of decisionmakers. The
                        implementation of the integrated financial management system has been
                        delayed from October 1998 to sometime in 1999.


                        To evaluate the effectiveness of the goals and objectives contained in its
Capacity to Provide     strategic plan, NASA and its stakeholders need complete, reliable, and
Reliable Information    timely performance, program cost, and management information. NASA
on Achievement of       needs data to measure its performance and monitor the progress of its
                        work. The plan does not address how NASA will collect and evaluate this
Strategic and           data. Although NASA has prepared summary performance data in its prior
Performance Goals Is    accountability reports, being able to fully and effectively measure the
                        progress towards the agency’s goals is contingent upon various events,
Questionable


                        Page 16                             GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
                     B-277470




                     such as the implementation of the integrated financial management
                     system.

                     NASA currently relies on several automated accounting systems to carry out
                     its mission. Despite the lack of an integrated system, NASA was one of the
                     few agencies to receive an unqualified audit opinion for the past 3 years.
                     While this is a necessary and important first step to generating complete
                     and accurate financial information, it is not a guarantee that useful
                     financial information will be available for decisionmakers at all levels to
                     measure performance and results and, in fact, NASA’s financial reporting
                     process could be improved. For example, in its 1996 audit, NASA’s
                     independent public accountant identified two reportable conditions
                     dealing with this issue: (1) NASA’s financial reporting process requires
                     improvement to ensure the accuracy and completeness of its financial
                     information and (2) NASA’s accounting and financial reporting procedures
                     require improvements to ensure that transactions are properly recorded
                     and internal controls are properly designed and operating effectively.

                     NASA  does not have all the information it needs to measure the costs
                     associated with its proposed goals. Without an effective full-cost
                     accounting system, it will be difficult for NASA to completely accumulate
                     the cost of its activities and operations. NASA’s draft plan, for example,
                     calls for more affordable air and space travel and a reduction in the cost
                     per pound of payloads from $10,000 to $1,000 per pound by the next
                     decade. Cost accounting information is needed to help automate the
                     agency’s operations and link data results and all agency costs to major
                     agency activities, budgets, accounts, and reports. NASA’s 1996
                     accountability report describes the agency’s plans for a full cost
                     accounting system and states that cost accounting should also enhance its
                     cost-effective mission performance by providing more complete cost
                     information for improved and more fully informed decision-making and
                     management.

                     NASA’s plans to implement full cost accounting are contingent upon the
                     timely completion of the Integrated Financial Management Project.
                     Because the project is in its early phases, it is too soon to know whether
                     progress toward a number of NASA’s strategic goals can be measured in a
                     meaningful way.


                     We provided a draft of this report to NASA’s Administrator for his review
Agency Comments      and comment. On July 18, 1997, the Acting Deputy Administrator provided
and Our Evaluation

                     Page 17                            GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277470




us with NASA’s comments. (NASA’s comments are in enclosure II.) He stated
that our report reflected a comprehensive analysis of the strategic plan,
and that NASA intended to incorporate a number of changes into the final
version of the plan. However, he stated that NASA firmly believes that its
strategic plan meets all six elements of the Results Act, as well as the
requirements set forth in OMB Circular A-11. He further stated that our
addition of suggested “tactical sections” and other reporting
requirements—such as management challenges—go well beyond Results
Act requirements. NASA’s comments focused on the extent to which its
draft plan (1) relates annual performance goals to general goals and
objectives, (2) uses program evaluations to establish/revise strategic goals
and a schedule for future program evaluations, (3) communicates goals
throughout the agency, (4) measures performance against established
goals, (5) identifies crosscutting issues, and (6) highlights major
management issues. Our evaluation of each of these points is as follows.

Regarding the relationship between annual performance goals and general
goals and objectives, NASA commented that the agency will measure
performance against the goals and objectives in the Strategic, Enterprise,
and Annual Performance Plans; use development cycle times, cost, launch
rate to measure performance; and measure the outcomes of NASA activities
focused on”generating communicating knowledge”. We agree that a
building block approach is useful in relating annual objectives and goals to
general objectives and goals. However, OMB guidance on strategic planning
states that the strategic plan should outline the type, nature, and scope of
the performance goals; the relationship between the performance goals
and the general goals and objectives; and the relevance and use of
performance goals in helping determine the achievement of general goals
and objectives. NASA’s draft plan does not provide a clear explanation of
these points.

Concerning program evaluations, NASA commented that responsibility for
assessing performance and investments of capital and resources is vested
in various intra-agency councils. Further, the Acting Deputy Administrator
stated that the Strategic Management Handbook addresses evaluation
processes and the Senior Management’s role in the overall performance
evaluation process. The point expressed in our report centers on the draft
plan’s lack of (a) a discussion on how program evaluations were used in
establishing and revising general goals and objectives, and (b) a schedule
for future evaluations, both key requirements of the Results Act. Regarding
NASA’s response that its Handbook contains the schedule for reviews, we
note that our analysis of the elements in NASA’s draft plan is based on



Page 18                            GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277470




information contained solely in the plan itself, and not in other
documents—which are beyond the scope of our review.

In commenting on NASA’s efforts to communicate the agency’s direction,
the Acting Deputy Administrator pointed to several initiatives as
illustrative, such as the alignment of employees’ activities with agency
goals, and the Administrator’s urging of NASA employees to read the plan.
Our report acknowledges NASA’s effort to integrate employee contributions
to the plan and has been revised to reflect the Administrator’s action. As
previously noted, our analysis of the elements in NASA’s draft plan is based
on information contained solely in the draft plan itself, and not in other
documents. We continue to believe that (a) the draft plan, by itself, only
provides a brief description of how accountability will be assigned and
(b) it would be helpful if the plan noted and explained the role of other
relevant NASA guidance which agency officials reference as providing
further details.

In reference to our discussion on measuring performance against
established goals, the Acting Deputy Administrator said that it is incorrect
to conclude that NASA’s draft plan does not indicate whether performance
will be measured against the strategic outcomes, agencywide goals, those
of individual enterprises, or some combination of these. He referenced the
statement in the draft plan that said that performance will be measured
against the goals and objectives contained in the strategic plan, the
Enterprise Strategic Plans, and the Annual Performance Plan. Our position
on this issue remains unchanged as NASA’s response provides no additional
information. We continue to believe that a clear explanation to show
linkages would be helpful in NASA’s plan.

Responding to our inclusion of crosscutting issues in this report, NASA
noted that the Results Act does not explicitly require agencies to address
crosscutting activities in their Strategic Plans. Reporting on this issue was
specifically identified by our requesters. In addition, we note that
crosscutting issues are addressed in OMB Circular A-11 in the context of
consultations with other agencies; and that such consultations be
completed prior to the development of strategic plans with crosscutting
goals and objectives. In our opinion, recognition of having completed such
coordination activities would be helpful to the Congress as such
information provides perspective to agency funding requests that involve
collaborative projects.




Page 19                             GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277470




In commenting on the section of our report discussing major management
challenges and the status of NASA’s reform efforts, the Acting Deputy
Administrator indicated that it is NASA’s position that the Results Act does
not require agencies to address specific management challenges in their
strategic plans. He indicated that such information should be addressed in
more detailed implementation plans. Reporting on this issue was
specifically identified by our requesters. Moreover, we believe some of
these challenges could affect the extent to which NASA can achieve its
goals and objectives in an effective and timely manner. Therefore, we
believe that their identification in the plan would be helpful.

NASA also made several suggestions to improve the technical accuracy of
this report. We made changes where appropriate.


As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its
issue date. At that time, we will send copies to the Ranking Minority
Members of your Committees and to the Chairmen and Ranking Minority
Members of other Committees that have jurisdiction over NASA activities;
the Administrator of NASA; and the Director, Office of Management and
Budget. We will send copies to others on request.

Please contact me at (202) 512-4841 if you or your staffs have any
questions concerning this letter. Major contributors to this letter are listed
in enclosure III.




Allen Li
Associate Director
Defense Acquisitions Issues

Enclosures - 3




Page 20                              GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
Page 21   GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
Enclosure I

Key Statutory Authorities of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration

               15 U.S.C. 5522 Requires the National Aeronautics and Space
               Administration (NASA) to conduct basic and applied research in
               high-performance computing, particularly in the field of computational
               science, with emphasis on aerospace sciences, earth and space sciences,
               and remote exploration and experimentation.

               15 U.S.C. 5631 Directs the Administrator of NASA and the Secretary of
               Defense to continue and to enhance programs of remote sensing research
               and development through experiments, technology development, and
               cooperative research.

               42 U.S.C. 2451 Sets out general objectives of NASA aeronautical and space
               activities, as well as specific objectives in the areas of commercial use of
               space; ground propulsion systems research and development; advanced
               automobile propulsion systems; and bioengineering research,
               development, and demonstration programs.

               42 U.S.C. 2465d, 2465f Requires NASA to purchase required launch
               services for its primary payloads from commercial providers. NASA space
               shuttles may only accept commercial payloads when the NASA
               Administrator determines that the payload requires the unique capabilities
               of the shuttle or a space shuttle payload launch is important for national
               security or foreign policy purposes.

               42 U.S.C. 2473 Sets out general responsibilities of the NASA
               Administrator, as well as specific responsibilities in the areas of ground
               propulsion, solar heating, and cooling technologies.

               42 U.S.C. 2481 Authorizes and directs the NASA Administrator to develop
               and carry out a comprehensive program of research, technology, and
               monitoring of upper atmospheric phenomena.

               42 U.S.C. 2486c Requires the NASA Administrator to establish and
               maintain a national space grant college and fellowship program.

               42 U.S.C. 2487a-2487f Requires the NASA Administrator and the Director
               of the National Institutes of Health to establish a working group to
               coordinate biomedical research activities related to a microgravity
               environment and to also establish biomedical grant and research
               fellowship programs. Requires the NASA Administrator to create and
               maintain a national electronic data archive for biomedical research data
               obtained from space-based experiments. Requires NASA and the Federal



               Page 22                             GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
Enclosure I
Key Statutory Authorities of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration




Emergency Management Agency, the Office of Foreign Disaster, and the
Surgeon General of the United States to jointly create and maintain an
international telemedicine satellite consultation capability to support
emergency medical services in disaster-stricken areas.

42 U.S.C. 5553 Requires membership of a NASA Associate Administrator
on the Solar Energy Coordination and Management Project. Gives NASA
responsibility to cooperate with the project in the areas of management
capability and technology development.

47 U.S.C. 721 Sets out responsibilities of NASA related to the
communications satellite system, including advice on technical
characteristics, research and development, and the provision of launching
services.

Permanently Manned Space Station
P.L. 100-147, Title I, secs. 106-112, Oct. 30, 1987, 101 Stat. 863-865,
as amended, and P.L. 102-195, sec. 16, Dec. 9, 1991, 105 Stat. 1614
Requires the NASA Administrator to construct a permanently manned space
station to be used to (a) conduct scientific, applications, and engineering
experiments; (b) service, rehabilitate, and construct satellites and space
vehicles; (c) develop and demonstrate commercial products and
processes; and (d) establish a space base for other civilian and commercial
space activities.

National Aeronautics and Space Capital Development Program (Space
Station)
P.L. 100-685, Title I, sec. 101, Nov. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 4083 Expands
on purposes of the manned space station (as set out in P. L. 100-147, as
amended) to also include the requirement that the space station serve as
an outpost for further exploration of the solar system.

National Aero-Space Plane Program
P.L. 101-611, Title I, sec. 116, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3202 Requires
the NASA Administrator and the Secretary of Defense to jointly pursue a
National Aero-Space program whose objective shall be the development
and demonstration, by 1997, of a primarily air breathing
single-stage-to-orbit and long-range hypersonic cruise research flight
vehicle.




Page 23                                     GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
Enclosure I
Key Statutory Authorities of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration




Earth Observing System Program
P.L. 102-588, Title I, Sec. 102(g), Nov. 4, 1992, 106 Stat. 5111
Requires the NASA Administrator to carry out an Earth Observing System
program that addresses the highest priority international climate change
research goals as defined by the Committee on Earth and Environmental
Sciences and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.




Page 24                                     GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
Enclosure II

Comments From the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration




Now on p. 2.




Now on pp. 4 and 10-11.




Now on pp. 4 and 11-12.




                          Page 25   GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
                    Enclosure II
                    Comments From the National Aeronautics
                    and Space Administration




Now on pp. 9-10.




Now on p. 11.




Now on pp. 13-14.




                    Page 26                                  GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
                    Enclosure II
                    Comments From the National Aeronautics
                    and Space Administration




Now on p. 14.




Now on pp. 14-15.




Now on p. 17.




                    Page 27                                  GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
Enclosure III

Major Contributors to This Report


                        Frank Degnan
National Security and   Jerry Herley
International Affairs   David C. Trimble
Division, Washington,
D. C.
                        William Woods
Office of General       Maureen A. Murphy
Counsel, Washington,
D. C.
                        Elizabeth M. Mixon
Accounting and          John DeFerrari
Information
Management Division,
Washington, D. C.




                        Page 28              GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
Page 29   GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
Related GAO Products


              Space Station: Cost Control Problems Continue to Worsen
              (GAO/T-NSIAD-97-177, June 18, 1997).

              NASA Procurement: Contract Management Oversight (GAO/NSIAD-97-114R,
              Mar. 18, 1997).

              NASA   Procurement Assessments (GAO/NSIAD-97-80R, Feb. 4, 1997).

              High-Risk Series: Quick Reference Guide (GAO/HR-97-2, Feb. 1997).

              NASA Infrastructure: Challenges to Achieving Reductions and Efficiencies
              (GAO/NSIAD-96-187, Sept. 9, 1996) and (GAO-T-NSIAD-96-238, Sept. 11, 1996).

              NASAChief Information Officer: Opportunities to Strengthen Information
              Resource Management (GAO/AIMD-96-78, Aug. 15, 1996).

              NASA Personnel: Challenges to Achieving Workforce Reductions
              (GAO/NSIAD-96-176, Aug. 2, 1996).

              NASA Budget: Carryover Balances for Selected Programs (GAO-NSIAD-96-206,
              July 16, 1996) and (GAO/T-NSIAD-96-207, July 18, 1996).

              Space Station: Cost Control Difficulties Continue (GAO/NSIAD-96-135, July 17,
              1996) and (GAO-T-NSIAD-96-210, July 24, 1996).

              Earth Observing System: Concerns Over NASA’s Basic Research Funding
              Strategy (GAO/NSIAD-96-97, July 11, 1996).

              Telecommunications Network: NASA Could Better Manage Its Planned
              Consolidation (GAO/AIMD-96-33, Apr. 9, 1996).

              Space Shuttle: Need to Sustain Launch Risk Assessment Process
              Improvements (GAO/NSIAD-96-73, Mar. 26, 1996).

              Earth Observing System: Cost and Research Issues (GAO/T-NSIAD-96-116,
              Mar. 6, 1996).

              NASA   Contract Management (GAO/NSIAD-96-95R, Feb. 16, 1996).

              Space Shuttle: Declining Budget and Tight Schedule Could Jeopardize
              Space Station Support (GAO/NSIAD-95-171, July 28, 1995).




              Page 30                              GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
Related GAO Products




Space Shuttle: NASA Must Reduce Costs Further to Operate Within Future
Projected Funds (GAO/NSIAD-95-118, June 15, 1995).

Space Station: Estimated Total U.S. Funding Requirements
(GAO/NSIAD-95-163, June 12, 1995).

NASA’sEarth Observing System: Estimated Funding Requirements
(GAO/NSIAD-95-175, June 9, 1995).

NASA Budget: Gap Between Requirements and Projected Budget Has Been
(GAO/NSIAD-95-155BR, May 12, 1995).

NASAProcurement: Contract and Management Improvements at the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory (GAO/NSIAD-95-40, Dec. 30, 1994).

Space Station: Plans to Expand Research Community Do Not Match
Available Resources (GAO/NSIAD-95-33, Nov. 22, 1994).

NASA Contract Management: Improving the Use of DCAA’s Auditing
Services (GAO/NSIAD-94-229, Sept. 30, 1994).

Environmental Management (GAO/NSIAD-94-264R, Sept. 21, 1994).

Space Station: Update on the Impact of the Expanded Russian Role
(GAO/NSIAD-94-248, July 29, 1994).

Space Station: Impact of the Expanded Russian Role on Funding and
Research (GAO/NSIAD-94-220, June 21, 1994).

NASA Property: Improving Management of Government Equipment
Provided to Contractors (GAO/NSIAD-93-191, Sept. 9, 1993).

NASA’s    FMFIA Assertions and CFO Plan (GAO/AFMD-93-65R, June 11, 1993).

Financial Management: NASA’s Financial Reports Are Based on Unreliable
Data (GAO/AFMD-93-3, Oct. 29, 1992).

NASA:
    Large Programs May Consume Increasing Share of Limited Future
Budgets (GAO/NSIAD-92-278, Sept. 4, 1992).

Financial Management: NASA’s Decisions Are Based on Unreliable Systems
Data and Reports (GAO/T-AFMD-92-9, May 7, 1992).



Page 31                               GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
           Related GAO Products




           NASAProcurement: Improving the Management of Delegated Contract
           Functions (GAO/NSIAD-92-75, Mar. 27, 1992).

           Earth Observing System: NASA’s EOSDIS Development Approach Is Risky
           (GAO/IMTEC-92-24, Feb. 25, 1992).

           Financial Management: Actions Needed to Ensure Effective
           Implementation of NASA’s Accounting System (GAO/AFMD-91-74, Aug. 21,
           1991).

           Environmental Protection: Solving NASA’s Current Problems Requires
           Agencywide Emphasis (GAO/NSIAD-91-146, Apr. 5,1991).




(707280)   Page 32                           GAO/NSIAD-97-205R NASA’s Draft Strategic Plan
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
following address, accompanied by a check or money order
made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address
are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000
or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on
how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,
send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov




PRINTED ON    RECYCLED PAPER
United States                       Bulk Rate
General Accounting Office      Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001           GAO
                                 Permit No. G100
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested