The IMS as a Consolidation Tool
Typically, an IMS is constructed to establish logic links and share resources across related projects of a single program. However, nothing requires projects embedded in a master schedule to share links or resources or to relate to one another in the context of an overall program. An IMS can be a useful tool for consolidating multiple project files in a single master file, even if those projects are immaterially related. For example, aggregating individual files in a master schedule is useful for reporting purposes, particularly if the projects are under the purview of a single management organization or a single customer. In this case, the master schedule allows for a concise view of all projects for which the stakeholder is responsible or has an interest. A master schedule of this nature is often referred to as a consolidated schedule or a portfolio schedule, although these terms are often synonymous with IMS.
Case study 3 highlights the usefulness of creating an IMS from individual projects that are within the purview of a single client, share resources, and yet have no logic dependencies between them.
Under the Secure Border Initiative Network (SBInet), the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) deployed surveillance systems along 53 of the 387 miles of the Arizona border with Mexico. After DHS canceled further SBInet procurements, CBP developed the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan (the Plan), which includes a mix of radars, sensors, and cameras to help provide security for the remainder of Arizona’s border. GAO was asked to review the status of DHS’s efforts to implement the Plan, including the extent to which CBP had developed schedules in accordance with best practices.
DHS had not developed an IMS for scheduling, executing, and tracking the work to implement the Plan and its seven programs. Rather, DHS had used a separate schedule for each individual program to manage the implementation of the Plan. DHS officials stated that an IMS for the overarching Plan was not needed because the Plan contained individual acquisition programs as opposed to a plan consisting of seven integrated programs.
However, collectively, these programs were intended to provide CBP with a combination of surveillance capabilities to assist in achieving situational awareness along the Arizona border with Mexico, as referenced in CBP’s planning documents. Moreover, while the programs themselves may have been independent of one another, the Plan’s resources were being shared among the programs. DHS officials stated that when they developed schedules for the Plan’s programs, they assumed that personnel would be dedicated to work on individual programs and not be shared between programs. However, as DHS initiated and continued work on the Plan’s programs, it shared resources such as personnel among the programs, contributing, in part, to delays in the programs.
Further, DHS officials stated that because of resource constraints associated with the initiation of the Plan, the development of two acquisition documents was deferred. In addition, planning and deployment activities for some programs were delayed because of resource-constrained environments and the lack of dedicated contracting officers to plan and execute the programs’ source selection and environmental activities.
Developing and maintaining an IMS for the Plan could have allowed DHS insight into current or programmed allocation of resources for all programs as opposed to attempting to resolve resource constraints for each program individually. Because DHS did not have an IMS for the Plan, it was not well positioned to understand how schedule changes in each individual program affected implementation of the overall Plan.