The federal government has been moving a long time toward a more results-oriented, performance-based mission approach—developing a strategic plan, setting clear objectives, defining necessary resources, precisely assessing progress, and accurate results measurement.

 

The goal has been establishing a clear connection between agency priorities, strategic goals, and operational plans. The Office of Management and Budget, over several administrations, has led various management initiatives while developing all manner of guidance, tools, and resources for governmental use in reaching these goals. The President's Management Agenda is built on four pillars:

 

  • Effective delivery of world-class service;
  • Efficiency-enhancing productivity and cost savings;
  • Economic growth–opening data and research that spurs innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth; and
  • Unlocking the full potential of the federal workforce.

A lengthy list of Office of Federal Procurement Policy memoranda going back to 1997 outlines continuing guidance toward improvement of government performance.

In a study titled, "Putting Together the Performance Pieces," released by the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service and Grant Thornton LLP, respondents rated their agencies’ performance efforts an average of "C," with 13 percent giving failing grades. Agencies promote data-based performance, linking programs to mission, and return on investment, but less than half of performance officers said their agency heads use that data in decision-making. The report outlined five practices that performance staff cite most frequently:

  • Connecting program activities to agency priorities,
  • Getting the right analytical (technical) talent needed to make proper decisions,
  • Building effective relationships throughout the agency (such as between program and performance staff),
  • Getting the right data wherever it exists to make good decisions, and
  • Knowing how to properly evaluate program effectiveness.

The Government Accountability Office has published their High Risk List since 1990 to focus attention on government operations it identifies as vulnerable, including mismanagement. It’s most recent update reports steady progress in the majority of high-risk areas, with most meeting at least part of the criteria for removal from their list. Traditionally overrepresented within these areas (either specifically mentioned or implied in virtually all) are acquisition, contract management, and program/project management. Clearly, all areas require solid management principles to drive improvement, which ultimately includes program/project and contract management skills to oversee today’s outsourced government.

Government managers can expect continued oversight from leadership, internal inspector general, GAO, or congressional committees. These oversight recommendations usually address issues such as insufficient funding, staffing, poor planning, ill-defined requirements, lack of support, etc. The be removed from the high risk list, a program has to show GAO:

  • Leadership commitment,
  • Capacity,
  • Action plans,
  • Monitoring, and
  • Demonstrated progress.

These issues easily translate to addressing agency program management skills and processes.Problems can be predicted, understood, and addressed when they are "projectized." Wikipedia defines a

projectized organization

to be that which organizes its activity in programs, implemented through projects, and that intends to empower a project team to act with autonomous discretion in project management. This means the organization aims to delegate power to responsible people for task outcomes. Agency leadership must thus empower and train subordinate project teams, a different approach from that taken by hierarchical organizations where leaders command followers, who are expected to do what they are told without questioning.

The Program Management Improvement Accountability Act (S. 1550), introduced June 10, is intended to introduce a program management discipline and culture into agency operations. Although legislation is not typically an automatic solution, this could be a catalyst.

Today’s government must embrace proven business disciplines to meet business objectives. Missions often exceed the resources allocated to accomplish them. Success or failure can usually be measured in terms of program failure.

Every problem has a solution, but the problem (i.e., the program) must be properly defined in order for the solution (i.e., program management) to be subsequently implemented in agency programs that almost always include contracting. Create a program management culture that includes qualified staff and various proven processes of initiating, defining, planning, budgeting, scheduling, executing, monitoring, and controlling (including managing constant risk and change), and contracting success will follow.

Share:
In Other News
Load More