Observations on the Department of Defenses Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan
Abstract
DODs fiscal year 2000 annual performance provides a limited picture of intended performance across the Department, a general discussion of strategies and resources that will be used to achieve performance goals, and limited confidence that performance information will be credible.1 For example, while the plan clearly states DODs performance goals, it does not clearly explain how key output measures such as having ten active Army Divisions will be used along with other information to assess the outcomes that result from using DODs resources. The plan does not explain the limitations of DODs performance measure on infrastructure spending. As another example, the plan states that there are no known deficiencies in data to be used for some performance measures such as the disposal of unneeded property held by contractors, although DOD recently reported systemic problems in maintaining adequate control and management accountability over this property. DODs corporate-level (strategic) goals are to (1) shape the international environment and respond to crises and (2) prepare now for an uncertain future. The following figure highlights the plans major strengths and key weaknesses.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Jul 20, 1999
- Accession Number
- AD1173744
Entities
People
- Alan S. Goldberg
- Charles I. Jr Patton
- David R. Warren
- Elizabeth G. Mead
- F. E. Morrison
- Geoffrey B. Frank
- Kenneth R. Jr Knouse
- Laura E. Castro
Organizations
- United States Government Accountability Office