- NASA Watch
- August 3, 2023
OIG: NASA Chief Information Officer Is Doing A Crappy Job
OIG: NASA’s Efforts to Improve the Agency’s Information Technology Governance
“In the 4 years since issuance of our IT governance report and the 3 years since completion of its own internal review, the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) has made insufficient progress to improve NASA’s IT governance, casting doubt on the office’s ability to effectively oversee the Agency’s IT assets. Specifically, the NASA Chief Information Officer (CIO) continues to have limited visibility into IT investments across the Agency and the process NASA developed to correct this shortcoming is flawed.
Despite these efforts, the OCIO’s insight into and control over the bulk of the Agency’s nearly $1.4 billion in annual IT funding remains limited … this lack of authority and visibility over the majority of the IT budget limits the Agency’s ability to consolidate IT expenditures, realize cost savings, and drive improvements in the delivery of IT services. … the Agency’s current enterprise architecture remains immature after a decade-long effort, a situation that contributes to the undisciplined manner in which NASA makes IT investments. Moreover, despite changes to two of the Agency’s three top-level IT governance boards, IT managers across the Agency remain unsure of board functions and their decision making processes and the boards have yet to make strategic decisions that substantively impact how IT at NASA is managed. In addition, as of August 2017 the roles and responsibilities associated with NASA’s IT governance structure have not been finalized by the OCIO – one of the most basic and critical pieces of the Agency’s Business Services Assessment (BSA) Implementation Plan. … Lingering confusion about security roles coupled with poor IT inventory practices continues to negatively impact NASA’s security posture. … Finally, the OCIO continues to exercise limited ability to influence IT management within the Mission Directorates and Centers due to the autonomous nature of NASA operations and the office’s lack of credibility on IT issues in the eyes of its customers.”