CONCLUSIONS
Within the House Information Resources (HIR) organization, the
Communications Group is responsible for the data, voice, and video
communications (telecommunications) needs of the U.S. House of
Representatives (House). The Group manages and provides network
connectivity, and telephone and voice mail services to Member,
Committee, and other House offices. The Group oversees the Campus
Data Network, which includes all House offices, is comprised of
approximately 7,000 microcomputers on two backbones using Fiber
Distributed Data Interface (FDDI) and Ethernet technologies. In
July 1996, off campus networks total about 540, consisting of
288 telecommunications frame relay networks and 252 WAN private
telecommunications lines to connect Members' Washington, D.C.
and district offices. They also oversee the Washington, D.C. telephone
system which has over 19,000 extensions operated from over 11,500
multi-button instruments (telephones and faxes). The district
office telephone systems are comprised of about 900 locations.
Voice mail facilities consist of over 5,600 mail boxes. Group
and desktop video technology as well as computer telephony integration
(CTI) are in the early phases of deployment. By any standards,
this environment would be considered one of the most diverse and
complex telecommunications environments in use today.
The Communications Group has been very successful in accomplishing
a number of initiatives and projects, which they can take pride
in. To name a few, the Group has successfully implemented the
frame relay services, which has resulted in a monthly savings
to date of $8,000 to the House since January 1996. Continuing
efforts to migrate all Members offices will reap further savings
to the House. By implementing a network management system to manage
and monitor the backbone and wide area network components, network
reliability has averaged over 99 percent, which exceeds industry
standards. In the problem management area, the Group implemented
a 2-hour commitment for on-site response to network problems.
In actuality, problems are typically responded to within one hour
of the problem being reported. This response time is better than
the typical response time in the private sector. In addition,
the House's outbound long distance voice telecommunications rate
is the least expensive in comparison to other government entities
as well as private sector companies. Furthermore, the House's
dependable and reliable voice services can be attributed to the
contract with Lucent Technologies, which was negotiated by HIR.
The contract contains extremely rigid requirements for vendor
performance. Other projects and initiatives are either planned
or underway to improve data, voice, and video telecommunications
in meeting the Speaker's CyberCongress vision.
The results of our limited analysis of the House FDDI backbone
showed the backbone to be solid from the architecture perspective
and operating adequately. Because Congress was not in session
at the time traffic statistics were gathered, the utilization
statistics were low, as expected.
In short, the Group has provided more than adequate operational
support and services. This is consistent with the results compiled
from the Customer Satisfaction Survey administered by the Office
of Inspector General in conjunction with this comprehensive telecommunications
audit. The results of that survey indicated that users were generally
"satisfied" to "very satisfied" with the quality
of telecommunications services provided by HIR (see OIG Report
No. 97-CAO-03, entitled Results of The House Telecommunications
Customer Satisfaction Survey, dated March 24, 1997).
Notwithstanding the above, our review indicated that while the
processes for implementing and maintaining the voice and data
networks are generally adequate, some functions/processes are
not well documented and can be enhanced by adding additional monitoring
steps and system capabilities. In addition, there are opportunities
for improving operational efficiency and effectiveness, which
are discussed in the Findings and Recommendations Section of this
report.
The following is a synopsis of the areas of weaknesses identified
during our review:
RECOMMENDATIONS
We made a total of 10 recommendations to the Acting CAO to improve
the operational aspects of the telecommunications functions. The
recommendations include: (1) defining, identifying, and prioritizing
all of the key points in the House network and implementing agents
for those points; (2) initiating a proactive performance monitoring
plan for each of the identified key points in the network, utilizing
the network management system (NMS) to automate the process, and
collecting historical data for trending and forecasting analyses;
(3) implementing and executing a monthly switch analysis
process to establish benchmarks and grade the health of the entire
House switching platform; (4) establishing formal processes and
procedures for implementing trending and forecasting analyses
by transferring relevant switch measurements, such as the information
from the switch analysis process, into a software tool that will
allow management to forecast and better manage the growth of the
House environment; (5) replacing the HIR Client Support System
with a more effective system; (6) developing and implementing
a plan to fully utilize the newly installed NMS, including defining
thresholds and alarm conditions, configuring automated alarms
and thresholds within the NMS, and developing and documenting
procedures and policies for reacting to alarms; (7) requiring
Lucent Technologies to provide a more detailed monthly Quality
Assurance Report that will provide the necessary detail to conduct
effective problem trend analyses; (8) developing and implementing
formal maintenance policies and procedures; (9) conducting a cost-benefit
analysis to determine whether it would be more economical to pay
for service for district office voice equipment (i.e., small electronic
key systems) on a time and materials basis rather than continue
with the full service maintenance agreement; and (10) requiring
HIR to follow an SDLC methodology, including a user needs analysis,
for identifying and implementing CTI within the House.
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
On January 16, 1997, the Acting CAO concurred with the findings
and all 10 recommendations (see Appendix).
According to the response, several initiatives are underway or
planned to improve telecommunications operational areas. Examples
of actions taken include: (1) defining, identifying, and
implementing network management agents for many key network points,
such as campus and frame relay routers; (2) implementing specific
maintenance policies and procedures, such as end users
notification, delineation of maintenance responsibilities, periodic
analyses of maintenance contracts, and preventive maintenance
schedules; and (3) evaluating current maintenance costs for reasonableness
against a time and materials cost basis.
Major actions planned include: (1) documenting the definition,
identification, and prioritization of all key points in the House
network; (2) implementing agents for all key points on the House
network; (3) initiating a proactive performance monitoring plan
for each of the identified key points in the network, utilizing
the NMS to automate the process, and collecting historical data
for trending and forecasting analyses; (4) establishing and
documenting the critical switch measurements, establishing top
performance benchmarks, and grading the health of the entire House
switching platform on a monthly basis; (5) establishing formal
processes and procedures for implementing trending and forecasting
analyses by transferring the information from the monthly switch
analysis process into a software tool with growth graphing capabilities;
(6) identifying and procuring a Customer
Tracking System; (7) prioritizing the key network components,
and developing and implementing a plan to fully utilize
the installed NMS, including the definition of thresholds and
alarm conditions, and automated alarms; (8) requiring
Lucent Technologies to provide a more detailed monthly
Quality Assurance Report that will provide more specific detail
on trouble reports, maintenance activities, and trend analysis;
and (9) ensuring that the Communications
Group follows the SDLC methodology adopted by HIR in June 1996
in implementing CTI within the House.
Notwithstanding the planned actions, the Acting CAO informed us
that implementation of several of the planned actions and/or their
completion would be dependent upon their ability to obtain additional
resources.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL COMMENTS
The Acting CAO's actions are responsive to the issues we identified
and, when fully implemented, should satisfy the intent of our
recommendations. The milestone dates provided for selected actions
appear reasonable. With respect to the actions indicated in the
report where implementation is dependent upon securing additional
resources, we trust that the Acting CAO will make every effort
to obtain the necessary resources to implement those recommendations
as expeditiously as possible.
House Information Resources (HIR) is the major provider of information
technology services to the Members, Committees, and other offices
of the U.S. House of Representatives (House). HIR is responsible
for the voice, data, and video infrastructures used within the
House, with the exception of the office level systems in the Member
suites.
Two of the four groups within HIR, the Communications Group and
Client Services Group, have responsibilities for providing and
maintaining the telecommunications function. This audit evaluated
the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the processes, procedures,
and infrastructure used by these groups in the delivery of services
to the user population.
The Communications Group provides voice, data, and video operations
and services. It is responsible for the telecommunications needs
of all House offices. This group manages networks and connectivity
for all Washington, D.C. and district offices, providing telecommunications
access and services to all Member, Committee, and other House
offices. It also provides and manages telephone and voice mail
facilities, and supports video conferencing capabilities. Internet
connectivity and administration is another aspect of the
group's responsibilities facilitating Member and staff research
and providing for dissemination of House information to the public.
There are also over 1,300 active users via mainframe access connections.
The Group oversees a large telecommunications arena. They oversee
the Campus Data Network, which includes all House offices and
is comprised of approximately 7,000 microcomputers on two backbones
using Fiber Distributed Data Interface (FDDI) and Ethernet technologies.
In July 1996, off campus networks total about 540, consisting
of 288 telecommunications frame relay networks and 252 WAN private
telecommunications lines to connect Members' Washington, D.C.
and district offices.
The Client Services Group provides the client interface for voice,
data, and video telecommunications resources. The Group oversees
the Washington, D.C. telephone system which has over 19,000 extensions
operated from over 11,500 multi-button instruments (telephones
and faxes). The district office telephone systems are comprised
of over 1,300 locations. Voice mail facilities in use consist
of over 5,600 mailboxes. Group and desktop video technology is
in the early phases of deployment. The Client Services Group administers
over 540 calling cards and 647 cellular phones.
HIR's Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 telecommunications budget was
approved at $8.2 million, which included funds for existing operations
and services, as well as new initiatives, such as migrating to
a network-centric computing environment, creating a paper-less
environment, and telecommunications system upgrades. Further,
HIR's long-range telecommunications plan entitled Five Year
Investment Plan for the Infrastructure and Operations of the U.S.
House of Representatives Communications called for a total
of $85.2 million between 1996-2000. This figure has since been
reduced to $77.7 million, which reflects a $7.5 million budget
reduction by the Subcommittee on Legislative Appropriations for
FY 1997. Of the $77.7 million, $43.2 million (55.6 percent) is
for equipment, operations and maintenance, and district to Washington,
D.C. data services for Members; $15.5 million (19.9 percent) is
for continuing switch and telephone upgrades; and the remaining
$19 million (24.5 percent) is required to continue major enhancements
to the House telecommunications infrastructure and services. Examples
of infrastructure initiatives include campus data networking,
switches, video and teleteaching, wiring, cables, fiber optics,
voice processing, voice mail, cellular and wireless telecommunications,
computer telephony integration, security, and disaster recovery.
Objectives, Scope, And Methodology
This audit is the third of five telecommunications audits aimed
at evaluating the House's telecommunications environment. The
five audits, all performed concurrently, focused separately on
telecommunications security; telecommunications costs; economy,
efficiency, and effectiveness of telecommunications; contingency
planning, backup, and disaster recovery; and telecommunications
management. In addition, we performed a telecommunications customer
satisfaction survey.
The objective of this audit was to evaluate the controls pertaining
to the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the telecommunications
environment. The scope of the review included voice, data, and
video telecommunications within the House. The review encompassed
the period of August 1995 through August 1996 and we conducted
the work during the months of June through August 1996.
In addition, we conducted a network backbone analysis, using automated
diagnostic software products, to assess whether HIR can improve
the FDDI network backbone configuration to better manage network
traffic and improve response time at the House. This backbone
analysis study included gathering network performance and traffic
information. The work was conducted between late September and
mid-October 1996.
We conducted our audit in accordance with Government Auditing
Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United
States. To gather and verify data, we interviewed key personnel,
reviewed relevant documents, and performed appropriate tests of
various processes and procedures. Specifically, we interviewed
personnel in HIR as well as selected vendors. The methodology
used to evaluate the controls surrounding the telecommunications
network included:
Within the scope of this audit, we evaluated internal controls
related to economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the telecommunications
function. The audit disclosed internal control weaknesses related
to moves, adds, and changes to network systems, configuration
management, performance monitoring, trending/forecasting, problem
management, change management, preventive maintenance, and computer
telephony integration. These internal control weaknesses are described
in the Findings and Recommendations section of this report.
No prior audits have been performed related to economy, efficiency,
and effectiveness of the House's telecommunications environment.
II. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding A: Inadequate Performance Monitoring Procedures Can Result In System
Inefficiencies
The House does not adequately conduct performance monitoring,
which is a key function for optimizing network performance. Further,
no standardized processes are in place for identifying the general
health and performance level of the House switches. Thus, the
House cannot comprehensively measure the effectiveness and performance
of the engineering and maintenance practices undertaken by House
staff or contractor staff related to the House's network.
Current data telecommunications performance management process
is inadequate
Performance monitoring is the monitoring of network activity to
facilitate network fine tuning. It includes the (1) definition
and prioritization of key network points (i.e., backbone and Internet
routers), (2) ability to monitor network performance on an ongoing
basis, (3) capability to monitor remote components, and (4) trend
analysis and forecasting. Effective performance monitoring optimizes
both the network resources and end user performance. Under best
practices, a large wide area network (WAN), such as the House
network, should be managed centrally, and should include functions
that automatically monitor network resources on a continual basis.
There is no formal process for defining and prioritizing key points
on the House network. All key points in the network should be
defined to include all interconnection devices (i.e., links that
connect multiple offices and/or multiple users, local area networks
(LANs), and any other links that provide access to the House network).
Without a formal process for prioritization of key points in the
network there may be confusion regarding the priority levels to
be used for improving network performance or enhancing network
performance to meet future needs.
A network management system (NMS), NetView for Advanced Interactive
Executive (AIX), capable of performance monitoring has been installed.
Performance monitoring is only done on an "as needed"
basis (e.g., telneting to routers to manual track backbone statistics).
Furthermore, remote monitoring of components requires that agents
be implemented in each device. The House's backbone routers are
configured with these agents, but other elements (e.g.,
the LAN hubs) have not been upgraded to implement
these agents.
Analysis of switch performance can be improved
Best practices call for the establishment of a consistent and
thorough process for the analysis of performance indices on the
various House voice systems on a regular (e.g., monthly)
basis. These indices should be used to measure the performance
of HIR staff, Lucent Technologies' staff, and the overall operation
and health of the switching systems. The analysis of performance
indices involves the compilation of available operational measurements
that are then statistically weighted to reveal the performance
level and real time usage of the switches. This practice will
provide a system which is consistently and fairly scored while
simultaneously eliminating any subjective inputs to this measurement
process.
There is not a consistent, thorough process for grading the general
health and performance level of the House switches. Without this
process, HIR cannot comprehensively measure the effectiveness
and performance of the maintenance and engineering practices conducted
internally or by Lucent Technologies. The House Private Branch
Exchanges (PBXs) generate many operational measurements related
to the performance of the critical components of the switches.
HIR presently monitors the critical components of the network
on a real time basis to identify trouble conditions. Processor
occupancy is the key measurement used to identify abnormal conditions.
Reports are also generated each week on several measurements during
peak periods. However, the performance measurements are not statistically
weighted to grade overall system and personnel performance.
Lack Of Trending/Forecasting Can Adversely Affect Capacity
Planning
Trending and forecasting of switch usage and router port usage
is not performed uniformly. Lack of trending and forecasting can
adversely affect capacity planning functions and current and future
user needs determinations, lead to wasted resources, and inhibit
problem prevention.
Based on industry best practices, trending and forecasting should
be done on a regular basis on all key points, such as PBX components,
backbone routers, etc. In its simplest form, trending involves
migrating performance measurements and traffic reports, and placing
them into a spreadsheet. This process provides invaluable at-a-glance
historical usage trending of all relevant switch subsystems, trunks,
peripherals, etc. It also represents a tool used to forecast necessary
growth of the PBX switching and/or the backbone network.
Trending and forecasting is not performed uniformly over all relevant
components of HIR's switching platform on a consistent basis.
The current trending process is performed on a weekly basis
on selective switch metrics. However, some trending and forecasting
is done on router port utilization when the routers are directly
attached to the FDDI backbone. FDDI port usage statistics are
obtained on a regular basis, but all other ports are monitored
on an "as needed" basis for troubleshooting and problem
solving purposes. The existing NMS has capabilities for monitoring
router port usage and collecting historical data, but these capabilities
have not yet been utilized.
Without an effective trending and forecasting process, capacity
planning functions are less effective. Trending information provides
valuable insight into the current needs of the users when planning
for upgrades, new technologies, etc. Inadequate planning can lead
to misuse of funds and wasted resources, and inhibit problem prevention.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Chief Administrative Officer:
1. Define, identify, and prioritize all of the key points in the
House network and implement agents for those points.
2. Initiate a proactive performance monitoring plan for each of
the identified key points in the network, utilizing the NMS to
automate the process, and collect historical data for trending
and forecasting analyses.
3. Implement and execute a monthly switch analysis process to
establish benchmarks and grade the health of the entire House
switching platform.
4. Establish formal processes and procedures for implementing
trending and forecasting analyses by transferring relevant switch
measurements, such as the information from the switch analysis
process, into a software tool that will allow them to forecast
and better manage the growth of the House environment.
Management Response
On January 16, 1997, the Acting CAO concurred with this finding
and all four recommendations (see Appendix).
According to the response, the HIR Communications Group has already
defined, identified, and implemented network management
agents for many key network points, such as campus and frame relay
routers. Planned actions include: (1) documenting the definition,
identification, and prioritization of all key points in the House
network by June 1, 1997; (2) implementing agents for all
key points on the House network by December 31, 1997; (3) initiating
a proactive performance monitoring plan for each of the identified
key points in the network, utilizing the NMS to automate the process,
and collecting historical data for trending and forecasting analyses
by the end of FY 1998; (4) establishing and documenting the
critical switch measurements, establishing top performance benchmarks,
and grading the health of the entire House switching platform
on a monthly basis; and (5) establishing formal processes
and procedures for implementing trending and forecasting analyses
by transferring the information from the monthly switch analysis
process into a software tool with growth graphing capabilities.
For item 3 above, the response indicated that they would take
action to implement our recommendation by the end of FY 1997 for
key components that are deemed high priority. The processes surrounding
the action items 4 and 5 are expected to be established and fully
documented by the end of FY 1997.
Notwithstanding these planned actions, the response emphasized
that implementation of these actions will be dependent upon the
Communications Group's ability to obtain additional resources.
Office of Inspector General Comments
The Acting CAO's actions are responsive to the issues we identified and, when fully implemented, should satisfy the intent of our recommendations. The milestone dates provided appear reasonable. However, we trust that the Acting CAO will make every effort to obtain the necessary resources to implement the recommendations as expeditiously as possible.
Finding B: Current Automated Problem
Management System Provides Limited Tracking Capabilities
The House's current automated problem management system does not
adequately track recurring problems. As a result, HIR is not able
to adequately identify recurring problems in order to effectively
identify trends. The current problem management system should
be replaced.
Problem management system needs to be replaced
Generally accepted standards for "help desk" operations
indicate that the problem management system should be user friendly
and provide meaningful data in the form of easy to read trouble
tickets and reports. However, HIR's Client Support System, which
is HIR's mainframe-based problem management system, is not user-friendly.
For example, the system does not (1) provide "help desk"
statistics, (2) link hardware problems to a specific piece of
equipment via a tracking number, such as a serial number or asset
tracking sticker, (3) have the flexibility to allow Network Control
Center (NCC) staff to correct input errors, such as incorrect
spellings or codes, (4) have security safeguards to prevent unauthorized
access, and (5) allow for the easy generation of meaningful reports.
As a result, NCC staff keep an on-going problem log on an independent,
microcomputer-based system. The microcomputer-based system in
place is an on-going word processing report that is used to track
the status of all problems. However, even though the microcomputer-based
system is more user friendly, it does not have the effective problem
management tools discussed above. The Client Support System needs
to be replaced by a system which has effective problem management
tools.
The HIR Client Support System also tracks moves, adds, and/or
changes (hereinafter referred to as M/A/Cs) to networks. Any change
to a hardware or software component on any of the telecommunications
supported networks requires that a change ticket be opened and
tracked. Some M/A/Cs for the network are tracked via individual
spreadsheets and microcomputer-based systems that are not integrated
with the HIR Client Support System. Consequently, the Communications
Group must gather information from multiple sources to provide
status reports on M/A/Cs. Based on the information from the HIR
Client Support System and individual spreadsheets, the Communications
Group provides a report to management several times a week describing
M/A/Cs that are in progress or completed as a result of requests
that have been received. This data is useful to management for
planning purposes, however, the method for gathering this data
needs improvement.
The HIR Client Support System is not integrated with the NMS (i.e.,
NetView for AIX), which has the capability of detecting the location
and type of equipment attached to the network. Interfacing these
two systems would make system inventory (e.g., hubs and routers)
easier and would facilitate the reconciliation of equipment locations
as a result of M/A/Cs.
Network reporting tools should be integrated into one NMS
According to best business practices, all tools providing statistics
on the health of the network should be integrated under one NMS
to assist in the timely detection of errors. Several facilities
exist in HIR for timely detection and correction of errors on
key network components such as routers, workstations, servers,
hubs, bridges, and the cable plant. These facilities
include sniffers on key WAN segments and CiscoWorks on
the Cisco routers. Frame relay reports are provided by MCI, and
other WAN/LAN management tools (e.g., NetView for AIX) are also
used. However, each of these tools are operating independently,
many without threshold or alarm conditions set. In addition, due
to the scope and complexity of the various data components that
make up the WAN, various tools are used to monitor each component.
As a result, the Network Administrator must be familiar with each
component and understand the statistics being provided. Standardization,
using one management tool, such as NetView for AIX, makes this
task easier. Instead of having to learn and/or maintain many diverse
systems, the Network Administrators can effectively develop and
use one system tool to their full advantage. By relying on various
tools that are not integrated, HIR has heightened the difficulty
in managing and maintaining the network.
Finally, automated thresholds and alarms have not been fully configured
within the NMS. Thresholds are the maximum acceptable, pre-defined
operating conditions and limits under which a device should operate.
Alarms provide notification of unusual network conditions such
as increasing error counts and increasing utilization. Some network
resources are checked for availability on a regular basis, but
very few thresholds have been set. Thresholds can be set to trigger
an alarm. Thresholds should include error rates, high utilization,
and collisions. Alarms can include all, or some, of the following:
Without thresholds and alarms, telecommunications managers do
not have advance warnings of impending problems, which limits
their ability to prevent failures or degradation of service to
users.
To the credit of the Communications Group, they were aware of
these network reporting and management weaknesses and planned
to address these issues in FY 1997 and FY 1998. According
to section II.H, entitled Network Management, of the House Information
Resources Communications Group Strategic Project Plans and Descriptions
1997-1999 document, management plans to (1) develop a standard
mechanism for reporting network traffic statistics and utilization
in FY 1997; (2) implement automatic paging and notification
functions in FY 1998; and (3) set appropriate system thresholds
for alert reporting in FY 1998.
Problem identification and tracking processes are inadequate
Under best practices, the House should regularly analyze the types
of problems their telecommunications systems are experiencing
in order to identify problem areas as soon as possible and to
establish a plan to minimize such problems. Currently, there is
a manual process in place to analyze the House's telecommunications
systems.
The House's process for identifying and tracking the causes and
frequency of recurring network problems is inadequate. HIR's Client
Support System is cumbersome and difficult to use. It does not
provide sufficient trending statistics because of its limited
reporting capabilities. Recurring problems are noticed only as
a result of staff familiarity with the nature of the problems
they are dealing with. Also, a lack of standard verbiage used
to describe a problem makes it difficult to determine if a problem
is recurring.
Lucent Technologies provides HIR management a monthly "Quality
Assurance Report", which is intended to identify and track
the causes and frequency of recurring problems to facilitate performance
trend analysis of these problems. However, the report is insufficient
to effectively perform this task. The report consists of one page
of information that identifies the number or problems/maintenance
visits broken out for various types of equipment. The document
does not describe the types of problems for each piece of equipment
and, therefore, does not provide enough information to accurately
perform problem trend analyses. This lack of information decreases
HIR's ability to perform analysis activities. For instance, HIR
has cited as a reason for upgrading the telephone instruments
the fact that other members of a Definity user's group complained
about the faceplate membrane on the instruments wearing out. This
is the type of information that should be included in the quality
assurance report and tracked from month to month.
There are several impacts of not performing adequate problem trend
analyses. First, HIR may not be able to identify frequent problems
and their causes. They, therefore, cannot take the necessary steps
to minimize such problems. Second, certain problem trends may
provide early warning signs of serious problems that could cause
catastrophic outages. Any such trends would presently go undetected.
Finally, limited numerical data exists to support telecommunications
system upgrade strategies based on system/device failure.
The Systems Support Group, implemented in May 1996 to provide
support to the Technical Support Representatives, is tasked with
reviewing the Client Services Group's "Open Issues Report"
and based on that analysis, identifying recurring problems. While
this group has contributed to problem trend analyses, more needs
to be done.
Procedures for automating the addressing scheme are not
incorporated into the NMS
Network addressing should be automated and maintained in an inventory
database that is integrated with the NMS. At the very least, network
addresses for infrastructure components should be logically monitored
and tracked to prevent address conflicts. Currently, the addressing
scheme for the House network is maintained manually on a spreadsheet.
The NMS is able to automatically monitor and track these network
infrastructure addresses, but the system has not been fully configured
to do so. Without proper addressing schemes, problems such as
network address conflicts and network resource failures can occur.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Chief Administrative Officer:
1. Replace the HIR Client Support System, ensuring that the replacement:
2. Develop and implement a plan to fully utilize the newly installed NMS, including addressing the following areas. (This requires an investment in additional resources--i.e.,
time and personnel, hardware, and software.)
3. Require Lucent Technologies to provide a more detailed monthly Quality Assurance
Report that will provide the necessary detail to conduct effective
problem trend analyses.
Management Response
On January 16, 1997, the Acting CAO concurred with this finding
and all three recommendations (see Appendix).
According to the response, efforts are underway to identify and
procure a Customer Tracking System. The new system is expected
to include all the functionalities and capabilities outlined in
Recommendation 1. This system is expected to be implemented
by the end of Calendar Year 1997. In addressing Recommendation
2, the Communications Group plans to prioritize
the key network components, and then develop and implement a plan
to fully utilize the installed NMS, including the definition
of thresholds and alarm conditions, and automated alarms. Policies
and procedures will be developed and documented for reacting to
alarms. The response stated that full implementation could not
be accomplished until the end of FY 1998 due to the size of the
House network and the number of key components that need to be
addressed. However, they expected to complete action on key components
that are of higher priority by the end of FY 1997. Lastly, the
Communications Group intends to require Lucent
Technologies to provide a more detailed monthly Quality Assurance
Report that will provide more specific detail on trouble reports,
maintenance activities, and trend analyses. These new reporting
requirements are expected to be in place for the February 1997
reporting cycle.
The response emphasized that full implementation of corrective
actions related to Recommendations 1 and 2 will be dependent upon
HIR's ability to obtain additional resources to assign to the
projects.
Office of Inspector General Comments
The Acting CAO's actions are responsive to the issues we identified and, when fully implemented, should satisfy the intent of our recommendations. The milestone dates provided appear reasonable. We trust that the Acting CAO will make every effort to obtain the necessary resources to implement the recommendations as expeditiously as possible.
With a wide assortment of hardware and software to maintain, HIR
staff must be diligent in assuring that all network components
are functioning 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The maintenance
of critical equipment should be supported by adequate cost-effective
procedures. Without formal maintenance policies and procedures
stating when, how, and by whom the maintenance should be performed,
management cannot be assured that operational errors and inefficiencies
will not occur, which in turn can adversely impact the quality
of the service to users and potentially increase costs.
Formal maintenance policies do not exist
Generally accepted standards in this area state that a maintenance
policy should exist and should include, but not be limited to,
the following:
There are currently no formal maintenance policies or procedures
within the House that define the tasks performed in order to keep
equipment and systems operational. Currently, maintenance is defined
by HIR as a function of system changes, and some procedures are
outlined in the Communications/Operations Binder (section
entitled Communications Group Network Change and Problem Procedure).
However, the procedures do not adequately cover maintenance requirements.
The lack of formal maintenance policies and procedures could potentially
have an adverse impact on the overall telecommunications operations.
Without a document stating when, how, and by whom the maintenance
should be performed, a lack of standard practices results, which
contributes to increased costs and inefficiencies and decreased
quality of service to users.
The House may be overpaying for district office telephone
maintenance contracts
Best practices dictate that maintenance contracts be reviewed
periodically to determine if they are the most cost-effective
option available. In order to conduct this analysis, records must
be maintained that indicate the number of maintenance calls for
each month, the length of each repair visit, and the procedures
that were performed.
HIR provides small electronic key systems for use in
the Member's district offices. Most of these systems are purchased
from Lucent Technologies. The House has a maintenance contract
for this equipment with Lucent Technologies at a cost of approximately
$25,000 per month. This contract is a full service contract under
which Lucent will repair any faulty equipment in return for a
fixed monthly fee per handset. These instruments (i.e., systems
and handsets) are typically very reliable systems and therefore
do not require much maintenance. Full service contracts are usually
an expensive option for maintaining this type of equipment compared
to other available maintenance plans. Lucent provides a maintenance
plan option under which the House can pay time and materials charges
for each instance in which Lucent is dispatched on a maintenance
call.
Presently, the House does not conduct periodic analyses of its
maintenance contract because it does not maintain the necessary
information. Furthermore, Lucent Technologies is not able to readily
provide this information. Failure to conduct this analysis may
mean that the House pays more than necessary to maintain this
equipment.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Chief Administration Officer:
1. Develop and implement formal maintenance policies and procedures
that include:
2. Conduct a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether it would be more economical to pay for service for district office voice equipment (i.e., small electronic key systems) on a time and materials basis rather than continue with the full service maintenance agreement. Based on the results of this study, if warranted, make a recommendation for change to the Committee on House Oversight.
Management Response
On January 16, 1997, the Acting CAO concurred with this finding
and both recommendations (see Appendix). The
HIR Communications Group stated that many of the specific policies
and procedures cited in Recommendation 1 were implemented and
practiced. They agreed to document maintenance policies and procedures
to include all issues addressed in the recommendation by the end
of FY 1997. In responding to Recommendation 2, the Acting CAO
indicated that maintenance costs are and will continue to be periodically
reviewed by HIR's Client Services Group for reasonableness. The
response indicated that HIR recently conducted a review of the
type of services provided by Lucent Technologies and compared
current costs for those services against a time and materials
cost basis. Based on this work, HIR concluded that, at this time,
it would be more economical to stay with the existing maintenance
agreement. In addition, the Acting CAO further informed us that
the Office of Procurement and Purchasing was in the process of
developing a certification program for maintenance providers,
whereby Members could select a maintenance provider from a list
of certified providers.
Office of Inspector General Comments
The Acting CAO's actions are responsive to the issues we identified
and, when fully implemented, should satisfy the intent of our
recommendations. The milestone date provided for Recommendation
1 appears reasonable. We consider Recommendation 2 closed.
HIR has not developed an effective plan for identifying and implementing
Computer Telephony Integration (CTI) technology. As a result,
the House may not be able to take full advantage of the opportunities,
including cost savings, offered by this technology. In order to
develop a useful plan that maximizes the benefits of CTI, the
House must develop and implement a structured approach to identifying
and implementing CTI.
CTI is the result of advances in the computer-based technologies
used in the public telephony network and in most business locations.
It represents the true integration of voice and data telecommunications
and processing technologies. CTI involves subscribing with public
carriers to receive the identification of the calling number.
The calling number is captured by the voice switch and routed
to a database. This database will attempt to match the calling
number with a specific customer's number(s). If there is a match,
both the phone call and the specific customer records are delivered
to the answering position simultaneously. The major benefit is
the increased efficiency in handling calls because the process
of conducting a search for records pertaining to the call is eliminated.
CTI is presently very popular in business locations that handle
large numbers of incoming calls as it facilitates this process.
Under best practices there should be a structured approach to
identify and implement CTI in those areas of the House that handle
large numbers of caller inquiries (e.g., HIR "help desks",
central operators, and Member offices).
HIR has identified several areas within the existing user community
that would benefit from the implementation of CTI. The 5-year
budget includes funds in Years 4 and 5 for the implementation
of this technology. Present responsibility for identifying and
implementing CTI rests with the vendors providing information
systems to the Members' offices. While HIR has identified potential
uses of this technology, responsibility for further development
of these opportunities rests with these outside vendors.
Dependence on outside vendors for the development of such
technology is inappropriate. Without a formal internal plan for
identifying user CTI requirements and implementing CTI applications,
opportunities to make the House telecommunications system as effective
as possible may be overlooked. In addition, cost savings that
typically are the result of the implementation of CTI may not
be realized.
In order to develop an effective plan that will meet the needs
of the House and maximize the benefits of CTI, the House must
first develop and implement a formal systems development life
cycle (SDLC) methodology. An SDLC methodology provides a well-established,
structured approach for managing a system implementation project.
This structured approach includes guidelines spanning from planning
the project to execution of key activities throughout the project
to system implementation. Some of the fundamental baseline activities
in an SDLC methodology include identifying user requirements,
conducting feasibility studies, and performing a cost-benefit
analysis, conducting comprehensive testing, executing a well thought-out
implementation plan, and addressing on-going maintenance requirements.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Chief Administrative Officer follow an SDLC
methodology, including a user needs analysis, for identifying
and implementing CTI within the House. Specifically, the user
needs analysis should focus on those areas that receive a large
number of calls, in particular, the House/Senate operators and
HIR.
Management Response
On January 16, 1997, the Acting CAO concurred with this finding
and recommendation (see Appendix). According
to the response, the Acting CAO intends to ensure that the Communications
Group follows an SDLC methodology in implementing CTI within the
House. They also intend to hire a contractor to conduct a user
needs analysis and develop recommendations for CTI implementation
for the House/Senate operators and HIR. Pending the availability
of FY 1997 funds to do this, the Communications Group anticipates
being able to develop recommendations by the end of Calendar Year
1997.
Office of Inspector General Comments
The Acting CAO's actions are responsive to the issues we identified
and, when fully implemented, should satisfy the intent of our
recommendation. The milestone date provided appears reasonable.
Page 1 of 3
APPENDIX
Page 2 of 3
APPENDIX
Page 3 of 3