Modernized, secure, and high quality information technology management and
infrastructure that meet critical business requirements.
![]() |
Input | |
|
JUSTIFICATION: The indicator directly measures the reliability, accessibility, and security of the Department's information technology infrastructure. | ||
| FY 2006 PERFORMANCE | Target |
|
|---|---|---|
| Results |
| |
| Rating | On Target | |
| Impact |
The elements (GITM, consolidation, mobile computing, and maintaining the secure global network) are critical to the Department's ability to provide a modernized, secure, and high quality infrastructure. Success of these elements will enable production of accurate information for decision makers and will make that information available anytime, anywhere in support of the foreign affairs mission. | |
| PERFORMANCE DATA | Data Source |
|
| Data Quality (Verification) |
On a monthly basis the E-Gov Program Office receives the most accurate and most current cost and schedule data for use in performing independent Earned Value Management calculations. The IT Consolidation effort and Mobile Computing are fairly new initiatives and Senior management assesses data submitted on a weekly basis. Data quality in the IT Consolidation plan was checked against industry standard information provided by recognized IT consulting firms, e.g. Gartner Group and others. | |
| PAST PERFORMANCE | 2005 |
|
| 2004 |
| |
| 2003 |
| |
![]() |
PART Output | |
|
JUSTIFICATION: This indicator reflects the degree to which USAID systems meet generally accepted standards for security in support of our goal of keeping information safe from compromise. | ||
| FY 2006 PERFORMANCE | Target | 100%. |
|---|---|---|
| Results | 100%. | |
| Rating | On Target | |
| Impact |
The 100% certification and accreditation of USAID's nine mission critical IT systems and applications will enable the Agency to perform its mission critical financial and inspection functions for development and humanitarian relief at reduced risk. The mission critical systems include the Agency's internal communications network, office-specific information systems of the Inspector General and the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, the New Management Systems Acquisition and Assistance Module, and the Phoenix and related financial systems. | |
| PERFORMANCE DATA | Data Source |
USAID Information Systems Security Officer (ISSO). |
| Data Quality (Verification) |
The Agency's performance data are verified using Data Quality Assessments (DQA), and must meet five data quality standards of validity, integrity, precision, reliability and timeliness. The methodology used for conducting the DQAs must be well documented by each operating unit. (For details, refer to USAID's Automated Directive System [ADS] Chapter 203.3.5, http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/203.pdf). | |
| PAST PERFORMANCE | 2005 | 100%. |
| 2004 | 100%. | |
| 2003 | N/A. | |
![]() |
PART Output | |
|
JUSTIFICATION: This measure indicates how well USAID information stored on and processed through its IT systems is protected. USAID's goal is to continually reduce vulnerabilities through FY 2009. | ||
| FY 2006 PERFORMANCE | Target |
Less than 25% of USAID systems have a vulnerability score of greater than 100 as measured by USAID's Information Systems Security Officer. |
|---|---|---|
| Results |
3.2% of USAID systems have a vulnerability score of greater than 100 (525/16,596). | |
| Rating | Above Target | |
| Impact |
As a result of achieving low information security vulnerabilities per IT hardware item, the Agency operates in a more secure environment. This is important because it allows the Agency to carry out its day-to-day activities and accomplish its mission with minimal disruption. | |
| PERFORMANCE DATA | Data Source |
USAID Information Systems Security Officer. |
| Data Quality (Verification) |
The Agency's performance data are verified using Data Quality Assessments (DQA), and must meet five data quality standards of validity, integrity, precision, reliability and timeliness. The methodology used for conducting the DQAs must be well documented by each operating unit. (For details, refer to USAID's Automated Directive System [ADS] Chapter 203.3.5, http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/203.pdf). | |
| PAST PERFORMANCE | 2005 |
0.054% of USAID systems have a vulnerability score of greater than 100. |
| 2004 |
9% of USAID systems have a vulnerability score of greater than 100. | |
| 2003 | N/A. | |
![]() |
Output | |
|
JUSTIFICATION: This indicator is appropriate for assessing the Department's overall performance on the SMART project, which will implement a modern, simple and secure, messaging system. | ||
| FY 2006 PERFORMANCE | Target |
|
|---|---|---|
| Results |
| |
| Rating | On Target | |
| Impact |
SMART represents one of the Department's top priorities. Its success is critical to the ability to provide a modernized, secure, and high quality infrastructure that will enable production of accurate information for decision makers and will make that information available anytime, anywhere in support of the foreign affairs mission. | |
| PERFORMANCE DATA | Data Source |
|
| Data Quality (Verification) |
On a monthly basis the SMART program office provides the E-Gov Program Office with the most accurate and most current cost and schedule data available for use in performing independent earned value management calculations. | |
| PAST PERFORMANCE | 2005 |
A requirements review resulted in a validated list of derived systems requirements. Based on a number of usability tests and demonstrations, the decision was reached to move forward with a revised architecture that leverages the Department's existing modern email infrastructure for the transmission of formal command and control messaging traffic. |
| 2004 |
The contractor requested a three-week delay to investigate a hybrid solution, which led to the establishment of the phase 1A beta solution with an end date of 10/15/04. Design demonstration completed and secure processing facility installed. | |
| 2003 |
The Secretary of State approved a new need-to-know policy; SMART prototype (proof-of concept) developed and evaluated; centralized approach approved; integrated acquisition team established. | |
< Go to Previous Page Go to Next Page >