Data Availability, Information Quality, Accountability...

Accountability on Financial Systems: $100's millions with no end

I was involved with the previous financial management system implementation at Interior that resulted in sunk and operation and maintenance costs of several hundred million dollars over the life cycle of the system (without reducing normal operational costs, implementing a highly complex and inefficient system, adding bureaucracy, and resulting in minimal, if any, improvements to financial integrity, FACT!). Currently, Interior is pursing a project, FBMS, that will cost Interior upwards of $300 million+ and share the same problems, perhaps at higher levels, than their previous attempt to improve financial management. Why does Interior continue pursue these endeavors, manage them with recklessness and inefficiency, and hold no manager or private business accountable for meeting measurable goals (including cost and staff reductions via technology, etc.) or for justifying, once again, increased costs. As a former Federal employee and taxpayer, I find this reckless and unnecessary spending that could otherwise go to improving National Parks, managing land and water resources, etc. I would call on Interior to rethink their position on this project, limit the scope,and seek out alternatives via an independent panel to avoid future and extreme increases in financial systems conversion, implementation, operation, and maintenance costs.



27 votes
Idea No. 18