|
January
20, 1998
M-98-02
MEMORANDUM FOR THE
HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
FROM:
Franklin D. Raines /s/
SUBJECT: Progress
Reports on Fixing Year 2000 Difficulties
This Memorandum revises
and replaces OMB Memorandum No. 97-13, "Computer Difficulties Due
to the Year 2000 -- Progress Reports" (May 7, 1997), which asked
selected agencies (Attachment B) to provide quarterly reports on
progress in addressing the difficulties relating to the year 2000
problem. This Memorandum adds new reporting requirements, establishes
new Government-wide target dates, and makes other clarifying changes,
which are described in detail in Attachment A.
As in the past, for
those agencies listed in Attachment B, I ask that you or your Chief
Operating Officer provide reports to OMB by the fifteenth of February,
May, August, and November through November 1999. Reports should
be directed to Virginia Huth, Office of Management and Budget, NEOB
10236, Washington, D.C. 20503. Telephone: 202-395-6929. In a subsequent
memorandum, we will ask all other agencies for a status report on
fixing their year 2000 difficulties.
New reporting elements.
The FY 1998 Treasury-Postal
Appropriation requires OMB to provide additional information to
the Congress and the public as part of its quarterly summary reports
on agency progress. In particular, OMB is to report on the status
of agency validation and contingency planning efforts and on progress
in fixing other government-wide equipment that is date sensitive.
Attached are instructions on new reporting elements for the reports
required by Memorandum 97-13. Specifically, under item 5, agencies
are required to report any mission critical system being repaired
or replaced which will not be fixed and fully implemented by the
new goal of March 1999. Agencies are to prepare contingency plans
for these systems.
Changes in Government-wide
goals.
Although the most recent
reports show that we are making progress, we must accelerate our
schedule for completion to ensure that Federal systems will work
smoothly. To avoid systems failing in the year 2000, we must fix
them in time for them to be thoroughly tested and implemented well
in advance of January 1, 2000.
Therefore, OMB has established
a new target date of March 1999 for implementing fixes to all systems
-- both mission critical and non-mission critical. OMB has also
established a new date of September 1998 for completion of renovation
and January 1999 for completion of validation. Item 2b of the report
should reflect your agency's revised dates.
These new dates will
allow at least nine months for the operation of each system that
has been fixed to assure that it is running smoothly prior to January
1, 2000. Recognizing that not all systems may achieve the March
1999 target, we expect agencies to make explicit triage decisions
as they prioritize their work. As noted above, agencies must have
contingency plans for those systems that are not expected to have
completed implementation by March 1999. Moving to this new goal
will not be easy; however, there is no viable alternative.
The March 1999 goal
should include fixing any data exchanges with outside entities.
In order to meet that deadline, your staff needs to take the following
steps now. First, your agency must inventory all of its data exchanges
with outside parties -- whether State or local governments, private
organizations, or foreign entities -- by February 1, 1998. Second,
your agency must coordinate with those parties by March 1, 1998,
to determine a transition plan. This communication is particularly
important for those systems that exchange data with States. At a
recent summit on fixing the year 2000 problem between Federal and
State Chief Information Officers, it was agreed that Federal agencies
would take the lead and assure that a timely dialogue occurs.
Thank you for your continued
support in this critical effort. The accelerated schedule and additional
reporting are vital to a smooth transition in the year 2000.
Attachment A, "Status
of Year 2000 Efforts: Quarterly Progress Report"
Attachment B, "Selected
Agencies for Quarterly Reporting"
Attachment A
Status
of (Department/Agency's) Year 2000 Efforts:
Quarterly
Progress Report(1)
Due
the 15th of February, May, August, and November through 1999
1. Organizational
Responsibilities. Describe how your Department/Agency is organized
to track progress in addressing the Year 2000 problem. (Provide
the information for this item once with the initial report, and
update it in future reports only if it changes.)
a. Organization.
Describe the responsible organizations for addressing the year 2000
problem within your Department/Agency and provide an organizational
chart.
b. Internal Accountability.
Describe your Department/Agency's processes for assuring internal
accountability of the responsible organizations. Include any quantitative
measures used to track performance and other methods to determine
whether the responsible organizations are performing according to
plan.
c. Oversight.
Describe the management actions taken and by whom when a responsible
organization falls behind schedule.
2. Status. Provide
a report of the status of agency efforts to address the year 2000
problem which includes:
a. An agency-wide
status of the total number of mission-critical systems.
| Total
Number of Mission-critical |
Number
Compliant |
Number
To Be Replaced |
Number
To Be Repaired |
Number
To Be Retired |
|
|
|
|
|
For this table, the
four right-hand columns ("Number Compliant," "Number Being Replaced,"
"Number Being Repaired," "and Number Being Retired") must add up
to the left-hand column ("Total Number of Mission-Critical Systems").
Over time, as systems are implemented, the "Number Being Repaired"
and "Number Being Replaced" will decline, while the "Number Compliant"
will increase by the same amounts. Ultimately, the "Total Number
of Mission-Critical Systems" will be equal to "Number Already Compliant."
Similarly, the "Number Being Retired" will also decline as systems
are actually retired. As this occurs, the "Total Number of Mission-Critical"
systems will also decline, in order to accurately reflect
the total number of mission-critical systems left. Although the
"Total Number of Mission-Critical Systems" should be fairly stable
at this time, you should adjust this number, as well as the number
in the relevant column on the right, as necessary, in order to reflect
the identity of new systems or determinations that systems are not
mission critical.
Any significant changes
in the Total Number of Systems should be explained in a footnote.
b. The status of
the mission-critical systems being repaired.
| |
Assessment |
Renovation |
Validation |
Implementation |
| Milestones |
|
|
|
|
| % Completed |
|
|
|
|
In the first row, indicate
the dates your agency has set for completing the phases of assessment,
renovation, validation, and implementation. In each report, restate
these dates and indicate if there is a change. In the second row,
present the status (i.e., percentage complete of assessment, renovation,
validation, and implementation) of all mission-critical systems
that are being or have been repaired. (This information
is necessary to calculate a Government-wide weighted average of
progress.) Do not use the number from Table 2a (which is
the current number of systems left to be repaired)
as your denominator. Instead, use that number plus the number of
systems that have already been repaired (and implemented) since
the beginning of this exercise. Although this number should be fairly
stable by this time, you may need to adjust it if you discover new
mission-critical systems or reclassify systems.
c. Description of
Progress. Provide a narrative description of progress, including
the following elements:
(1) Status of Mission
Critical System. Provide a description of progress in fixing
or replacing mission critical systems.
(2) Status of Non-Mission
Critical Systems. Provide a description of progress in fixing
non-mission critical systems, including measures that demonstrate
that progress.
(3) Data Exchanges.
Provide a description of the status of efforts to inventory all
data exchanges with outside entities and the method for assuring
that those organizations will be or have been contacted, particularly
State governments.
(4) Contingency Planning.
Provide a description of contingency planning activities, including
any criteria used to decide for which systems contingency plans
will be prepared and deadlines for when plans must be in place.
(5) Other Year 2000
Implications. Provide a description of efforts to address the
year 2000 problem in other areas (e.g. facilities, biomedical and
laboratory equipment, products using embedded chips, or telecommunications
systems).
(6) Problems Affecting
Progress. Provide a description of any problems affecting progress,
including any problem in acquiring or retaining skilled personnel.
(7) Government-wide
Systems. Provide a description of the status of the year 2000
readiness of each government-wide system operated by the agency
(e.g. GSA will report on FTS 2000).
(8) Verification
Efforts. Describe how and to what extent internal performance
reports, (i.e., compliance of systems repaired and replaced) are
independently verified. Provide a brief description of activities
to assure independent verification that systems are fixed and to
assure that information reported is accurate.
(9) Other evidence
of progress. Please include any additional information that
demonstrates your agency's progress. This could include charts or
graphs indicating actual progress against your agency's schedule,
lists of mission critical systems with schedules, or any other presentations.
3. Costs. Report
your estimates of year 2000 information technology costs(2)
(3). Report totals in millions of
dollars for FY 1996 through FY 2000. (For amounts under $10 million
report to tenths of a million.)
| Fiscal
Year |
1996 |
1997
|
1998
|
1999
|
2000
|
Total |
| Cost |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Exception Report
on Systems. Provide a brief status of work on each mission-critical
system which is not year 2000 compliant that is being either replaced
and has fallen behind the agency's schedule by two months or more,
or is being repaired and has fallen behind the agency's milestones
by two months or more.
a. If this is the first
time this system is reported, include:
(1) An explanation of
why the effort to fix or replace the system has fallen behind and
what is being done to bring the effort back on schedule.
(2) The new schedule
for replacement or completion of the remaining phases.
(3) A description of
the funding and other resources being devoted to completing the
replacement or fixing the system.
b. If this system has
been previously reported and remains behind schedule, include:
(1) An explanation of
why the system remains behind schedule and what actions are being
taken to mitigate the situation.
(2) A summary of the
contingency plan for performing the function supported by the system
should the replacement or conversion effort not be completed on
time.
5. Systems scheduled
for implementation after March 1999. Please include a list of
those mission critical systems where repair or replacement
cannot be implemented by the March 1999 deadline. The list should
include the title of the system, a brief description of what the
system does, the reason that the system cannot be implemented by
the deadline, and when a contingency plan will be in place.
Attachment
B
Selected Agencies
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Health
and Human Services
Department of Housing
and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of State
Department of Transportation
Department of the Treasury
Department of Veterans
Affairs
Environmental Protection
Agency
National Aeronautics
and Space Administration
Social Security Administration
Agency for International
Development
Central Intelligence
Agency
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
General Services Administration
National Science Foundation
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of Personnel
Management
Small Business Administration
1.
This memorandum does not obviate agency commitments to provide other
information agreed to in the budget process.
2.
Information Technology costs to be included are described in Section
43 of OMB Circular No. A-11. DOD should report obligational authority
requirements for business and weapons systems.
3.
In a change from previous guidance, you should report these costs
each time.
|