1 FY02 ASA Presentation Lead and Manage ORS Presented by: Shirl Eller, Director, Division of Intramural Research Services Office of Research Services National

1

FY02 ASA Presentation

Lead and Manage ORS

Presented by: Shirl Eller, Director, Division of Intramural Research Services

Office of Research ServicesNational Institutes of Health

18 November 2002

2

Team Members

Stephen Ficca, Shirl Eller, George Mendez, Robert Ostrowski

DS1: Lead and Manage ORS

DS2: Support ORS Advisory and Executive Committees

DS3: Direct and Support ORS communication and outreach initiatives and activities

DS4: Provide Division Support

Product Leadership Harvest

Leonard Taylor, Pam Dressell

Operational Excellence Growth

ASA Template - 2002

Customer Value Proposition

Team Leaders

Lead and Manage ORS

Discrete Services

Service Group

Customer Intimacy Sustain

Set strategic direction, garner needed resources, and foster organizational climate so ORS can successfully meet NIH's changing need for administrative, research support, and capital project planning and execution services.

x

3

ORS leaders have 3 primary customer segments: ORS program staff

NIH community at large

NIH senior leaders/decision makers

Groups surveyed/response rates:ORS Leadership Group = 66%

ORS Executive Committee = 100%

NIH Senior Leaders = 29%

NIH OD; IC & Scientific Directors, EOs, ORSAC, FARB

Customer Segmentation

4

• ORS program managers’/supervisors’ perception of involvement in decision making and business planning.

• Key external customers perception of the value ORS provides to the NIH.

Unique Customer Measures

5

Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Mean Ratings

4.34.2 4.2

4.34.2

3.7

3.4

2.82.9

3.9

3.6

2.5

1

2

3

4

5

I have input intoresource

allocation

I Have input intofuture direction of

ORS

I have input intoimproving ORS

I have authorityto make decisions

Programmanagers have

input intoprogram area

Programmanagers haveinput into ORS-wide initiatives

ORSEC

Leadership GroupStrongly Agree

Neither

Strongly Disagree

6

Perceptions of Decision Making ORSEC FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings

44.2 4.2

4.5

3.23.4

4.34.2 4.2

4.34.2

3.7

1

2

3

4

5


allocation

I have input intofuture direction of

ORS


I have authority tomake decisions




FY01

FY02Strongly Agree

Neither

Strongly Disagree

7

Perceptions of Decision Making Leadership Group FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings

3.5

2.93

4.1

3

3.33.4

2.82.9

3.9

3.6

2.5

1

2

3

4

5


allocation


ORS






FY01

FY02Strongly Agree

Neither

Strongly Disagree

8

Conclusions of Decision Making

• EC members believe they have input into/authority to make decisions

• LG members believe they have input into/authority to make decisions in their own program areas

• LG members have lower perceptions of decision-making authority on improving ORS, ORS-wide initiatives, & future direction of ORS

• FY01 & FY02 ratings approximately the same for both groups

• Assumption: Expect LG perceptions to change with new organizational structure & governance model

9

Perceptions of Information AccessFY02 Mean Ratings

3.9

3.63.4

3.1

1

2

3

4

5

I have easy access toinformation

Program managers receivetimely information on

decisions faced by ORS

ORSEC

Leadership group

Strongly Agree

Neither

Strongly Disagree

10

Perceptions of Information AccessORSEC FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings

4.2

3.4

3.9

3.6

1

2

3

4

5




FY01

FY02

Strongly Agree

Neither

Strongly Disagree

11

Perceptions of Information AccessLeadership Group FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings

3.7

3.33.43.1

1

2

3

4

5




FY01

FY02

Strongly Agree

Neither

Strongly Disagree

12

Conclusions - Information Access

• EC members believe they have easy access to information needed and that program managers receive timely information.

• LG members rate access to & timeliness information slightly lower

• FY02 ratings slightly lower than FY01 ratings for both groups indicating need to focus on better communication tools

• Assumption: Expect LG perceptions to change with new organizational structure & governance model

13

Perceptions of Understanding of ORS Business Processes FY02 Mean Ratings

3.5

2.9

3.3

2.9

3.2

4.1

3

3.6

3.1

3.4

1

2

3

4

5

Programmanagers

understandprogram

relationship toORS as whole

Programmanagers

understand ORSbusiness planning

process

Programmanagers

understand ORSservice hierarchy

Programmanagers

understand ABCcost accounting

model

Programmanagers

understand ASAprocess

relationship tobusiness planning

ORSEC

Leadership Group

Strongly Agree

Neither

Strongly Disagree

14

Conclusions - Understanding of Business Process

• LG members’ overall perceptions of their understanding of business processes slightly higher than EC members’ perceptions

• Most ratings near midpoint of scale indicating room for improvement

• Varied responses on 6 questions indicating respondents have very different perceptions of program manager understanding of business processes

15

Ratings of Satisfaction with Performance of ORS Leadership during FY02

5.67

7.00

7.18

7.36

7.76

8.66

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Communicating how determine fees

Responding to changing needs for facilities

Responding to changing needs for researchsupport services

Managing overall business operations

Communicating with senior leaders aboutORS services

Advising NIH community on situationsimpacting daily activities

Unsatisfied Outstanding

Mean Rating

16

Conclusions – NIH Sr. Leader Survey• Ratings of satisfaction with ORS leadership were all

above the mid-point of the scale• Most satisfied with how ORS advices NIH community on

situations that impact daily activities• Least satisfied with how ORS communicates with senior

leaders about the determination of its fees

• Competence, handling of problems, reliability, responsiveness the highest rated dimensions that are important when considering ORS products/services

• Comments reinforced ratings data• Positive about handling of campus and security-related

matters• Communicating methods for setting fees, managing facility

issues needs improvement

17

• Our Service Group completed 2 deployment flowcharts that cut across all 4 of our discrete services• Budget Decision-making process

• Minimize number of iterations and provide more time for program mangers to accurately compile data

• Organizational Change Communications process• Improve communications down and across

ORS• Apply lessons learned during successful DSFM

realignment to current restructuring efforts

Conclusions from Deployment Flowcharts

18

Process Measures

• Budget Decision-making• Track lead time program managers have for initial

development• Track type & number of questions at each stage• Track number of iterations at each stage• Study relationship between days allocated for

development and number of iterations

• Assumption: More development time = more accuracy, fewer iterations

19

Process Measures

• Organizational Change Communications• Track effectiveness of organizational change

communications• Use process flowchart to identify lessons learned

from DSFM realignment communications and apply to current restructuring effort

• Track and classify questions received through ORS Employee Hotlines (e-mail and phone)

• Team developed automated web-based information management tool to collect and categorize data

20

Learning and Growth Perspective

About 2 days sick leave per employee

About 1 and 3/4 awards per employeeAbout 8% turnover

No EEO complaints, ER or ADR cases

Pop

ulat

ion

Est

imat

e

No.

of S

epar

atio

nsTu

rnov

er R

ate

Tota

l Hou

rs o

f Sic

k

Leav

e U

sed

Ave

rage

Hou

rs o

f

Sic

k Le

ave

Use

d

Num

ber

of A

war

ds

Rec

eive

dA

vera

ge N

umbe

r of

Aw

ards

Rec

eive

d

Num

ber

of E

EO

Com

plai

nts

Ave

rage

Num

ber

of

EE

O C

ompl

aint

sN

umbe

r of

ER

Cas

es

Ave

rage

Num

ber

of

ER

Cas

esN

umbe

r of

AD

R

Cas

esA

vera

ge N

umbe

r of

AD

R C

ases

Leadership Team Total

13 1 0.08 212 16 23 1.77 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

All data within ORS mid to low range

21

Readiness Index

• Critically evaluate Managers and staff competencies and describe strategies for addressing gaps

• Critically evaluate tools and technology supporting discrete services and describe strategies for meeting deficits

• Forecast ability to meet future demands on service group with and without specific intervention

• Report on training infrastructure

22

Proposed Approach to Readiness Index Part 1:Manager’s Competencies

Com petency Lac

kin

g

Wea

k

Ad

equ

ate

Go

od

Exc

elle

nt

Strategic thinkingPeople managementProgram administrationCommunicationsDecision makingForest and trees

23

Proposed Approach to Readiness Index Part 2: Staff Competencies

Com petency Lac

kin

g

Wea

k

Ad

equ

ate

Go

od

Exc

elle

nt

Customer serviceDesktop applicationsData management and reportingTeamworkQualitative and quantitative analysisKnowledge of ORS

24

Proposed Approach to Readiness Index Part 3: Tools and Technology

State of Tools and Technology Supporting B

roke

n

Ou

tmo

ded

Ad

equ

ate

Go

od

Sta

te o

f th

e ar

t

Lead and Manage ORSSupport ORSEC & ORSACCorporate communicationsProvide Division SupportNew service (specify)New service (specify)

25

Proposed Approach to Readiness Index Part 4: Capacity

Capacity to m eet dem and w ithout intervention for: W

ay u

nd

er

cap

acit

y

Man

agea

bl

e sh

ort

age

Go

od

m

atch

Ext

ra

cap

acit

y

Way

ove

r ca

pac

ity

Lead and Manage ORSSupport ORSEC & ORSACCorporate communicationsProvide Division SupportNew service (specify)New service (specify)

26

Readiness IndexPart 5: Training infrastructure

Is there a training plan for staff supporting this service group? Yes No

Is the cost of the training plan within approved operating levels? Yes No

What is the total budget for training? ______

What is the average and range of planned expenditure per person? Total _______ Average ________ Range

27

ORS leaders attention is focused in three areas: Program activities = 64%

Corporate activities = 34%

Professional development = 2%

ORS leaders time is spent in three areas:Management and service delivery = 89%

Supervision = 9%

Professional development = 2%

Asset Utilization Measures

28

Where Our Attention is Focused

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 Average

I ndiv idua l and Avera ge Data

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f T

ota

l T

ime

Program activ ity "Co rp orate activity" Develop men t

29

How We Spend Our Time

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 Average

I ndiv idua l and Avera ge Data

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f T

ota

l T

ime

Manag ement a nd Serv ice Delivery Superv is ion Develo pment

30

• Various views of overhead as a percent of program budget

• ORS Services Management & Support - percent of overhead to total program

• Division support as a percentage of Division budget• Division support as a percentage of program staff• ORS Senior Leader Compensation

Unique Financial Measures

31

ORS Services Management and Support

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03

Fiscal Year

Pro

gra

m B

ud

get

Lev

el

(000

's)

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

% o

f B

ud

get

Lev

el

ORS OD & Division Support as a % of Total Operations

Direct Program Activities in 000’s

Total Operations in 000’s

ORS OD as % of Total Operations

Division Support as % of Direct Operations

32

D ivisio n Su pp o rt as % o f D ivisio n B u dg e t

0 .0 %

2 .0 %

4 .0 %

6 .0 %

8 .0 %

10 .0 %

12 .0 %

14 .0 %

16 .0 %

18 .0 %

20 .0 %

1 997 1 998 1 999 2 000 2 001 2 002 2 003

Ye a r

% D

ivis

ion

Bu

dg

et

D B E P S $0 .8M

D S $1 .9M

D E S $6 .6M

D S S $1 .5M

D P S $1 .0M

D IR S $1 .2M

33

D ivisio n Su p po r t Exp e nd it ure p er Prog ram Staff

-

5, 00 0

10, 00 0

15, 00 0

20, 00 0

25, 00 0

30, 00 0

35, 00 0

1 99 7 1 99 8 19 99 20 00 20 01 2 002 2 003

Ye a r

Exp

end

itu

re i

n $

D B E P S 37D S 10 1

D E S 6 49

D S S 4 8

D P S 1 88D IR S 282

34

ORS Senior Leader Compensation

$100,000

$105,000

$110,000

$115,000

$120,000

$125,000

$130,000

$135,000

$140,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

Av

era

ge

co

mp

en

sati

on

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

Pe

rso

n Y

ea

rs

Total average compensation

Total person years

35

• Develop tools to collect and analyze readiness information

• Identify competencies • Evaluate tools and technology• Develop strategies to address gaps• Develop and implement IDPs

• Develop and implement corporate communications strategy

• Information management tools• Processes for information collection and dissemination

• Use data to guide implementation of restructuring plan and new governance model

Recommendations

36

Appendices

• Process maps• Analysis of Lead and Manage Survey data

37

Deployment Flowchart for Discrete Service - Budget Decision-Making Process

OBSF Program ManagersFARB NIH DirectorORSAC ORSECADRS & DeputyORSAC BudgetSubcommittee

Issue guidance andtimeline

Develop ORStimeline and

guidance

Provide direction toprogram element

Develop budgetrequirements

Acceptrequirements?

Reviserequirements

Consolidate andsubmit

requirements

Yes

Prepare response

Prepare 1st draft ofconsolidated ORS

budget

Yes

No

A

Appoint ORSACBudget

Subcommittee

Acceptrequirements?

No

B

38

Deployment Flowchart for Discrete Service Budget Decision - Making Process

ADRS & Deputy Program ManagersNIH DirectorORSAC ORSECORSAC BudgetSubcommittee

OBSFFARB

Accept budgetdraft?

Review/ commentquestions budget

Prepare answerNo

Review andendorsebudget?

Review andsubmit

recommendations?

Yes

Yes

Approve budget

Yes

Agree withbudget?

ConsultORSACappeal?

Develop and issueapproved

operational budget

No

page 2 of 2

A

Yes

Yes

Approvebudget?

NoYes

No

Review andaccept?

Yes

No

YesFinal review

approval

No

Revised: 09.09.2002 NIH/ORS

B

39

Deployment Flowchart for Discrete Services 1,3 & 4: Organizational Change Process (Communications)

NIH DirectorORS Management

Support ComponentsORS Employees ICsADDS & Deputy

Task Team (Cross-Divisional) *

ORS ACORS

SubcommitteeORS EC

Revised: 09.12.2002 NIH/ORS/ODpage 1 of 1

Receive consultantreport or directive

Discuss anddesignate task

teams

Developcommunication

concept

Accept concept?

* Task teams includes Budget, Personnel, Space, Organizational and UnionIssues

Developimplementation

plans

Yes

Review & developapproach

Receivenotification of re-

alignment

Preparerealignmentmodification

Communicateprocess

Develop &implement

communicationplan

Accept plan?Yes No

These tasks are repeatedcontinuously throughout the

process

No

40

FY02 ORS Customer Survey Data for the Annual Self Assessments

Service Group 39:

Lead and Manage ORSORSEC and Leadership Group Surveys

11 November 2002

Condensed version

41

Summary of Survey Results

• Survey distribution• Customer segmentation • FY02 results, comments, and comparisons with FY01

• Decision making• Information access• ORS processes • Resources

• Conclusions• Appendices

• Individual question results• Training detail

42

Lead and Manage ORSFY02 Survey Distribution

Number of Surveys Distributed 161

ORSEC 16

Leadership Group 145

NIH Sr. Leaders 109

Number of Surveys Returned 111

ORSEC 15

Leadership Group 96

NIH Sr. Leaders 32

Response Rate 69%

ORSEC 100%

Leadership Group 66%

NIH Sr. Leaders 29%

43

Lead and Manage ORSFY02 Customer Segmentation

Internal (ORS)

Programmatic Activities

33%

Training2%

NIH Initiatives10%

External (NIH) Programmatic

Activities15%

ORS-wide Initiatives

22%

Internal (ORS)

Staffing Issues

10%

Other8%

44

Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Mean Ratings

4.34.2 4.2

4.34.2

3.7

3.4

2.82.9

3.9

3.6

2.5

1

2

3

4

5


allocation

I Have input intofuture direction of

ORS






ORSEC


Neither

Strongly Disagree

45

Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Comments

• ORS needs to implement some information management strategies, processes and applications. Better communications up and down the line can lead to better decision making.

• Need to improve communication & education across the organization. Overall, the staff doesn’t have an understanding of what many of the divisions do. Had talked about tours of divisions – would be a good start. Additionally, need to solicit input from stakeholders and then move to make a decision quickly – too many things hang out there for too long. BUT, need to communicate the final decision to all appropriate parties; sometimes this loop isn’t closed making staff appear incompetent.

• Include Program level folks, aka branch chief in more information and decisions processes. Some division directors keep ORS management much too close to their chests. They prevent critical information from flowing up and down the organization. Hold leaders accountable for action and acting on decisions made. Clarify what decisions will be made by whom. Some should be executive – Steve’s, some by the senior leaders for all of ORS, some by Division directors for their organizations, some by the branch chiefs for all of ORS, some by branch chiefs for their own organizations.

• Make decisions concerning A-76 and FAIR act and not evaluate to Nth degree and hold up recruitment/promotion actions.

• What is the Process?• Seldom are the rank and file involved with decision making; getting them involved prior to

decisions been made may prove to be beneficial.

46

Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Comments (cont.)

• Keep ORS employees apprised of important issues affecting ORS through a web newsletter and always solicit comments.

• Let employees have inputs as much as possible. This would be a more fair system in the decision making process and possibly meet the needs of both management and the customers.

• Better communication needs to be maintained. Often decisions are made which when taken at face value have no impact on this Division but when implemented in fact do. This happens because there is a general lack of understanding of the total services provided.

• Embrace diversity at all levels.• To improve the decision making process, ORS must function as a corporation. ORS must

truly understand the service groups and what they do to make proper decisions relating to all ORS services.

• Decisions should be mission-driven and rooted in delegation of authority, with more emphasis on preservation and viability of assets and less emphasis on political expediency.

• Information needs to flow down. Utilize the web more.• It seems to me that the decisions have already been made up in ORS upper management

and then they attempt to "sell" the decisions down the line, or give the rest of the ORS the illusion of having real input into the decisions.

• Transparency and accountability

47


• When making decisions consult with the individuals, who are closest to the effects or execution, of the decision. They may share potential outcomes of the final decision, that may yield better results, as opposed to decisions made by individual layers.

• Have decision making individuals understand the impact of their decisions in relation to the employees they affect. Keep employees informed and reduce time it takes to change process

• Continue in the direction you are currently heading.• Understand better the services needed and the services provided. There is a lot of talent

here and we can change to provide the most up to date service required by the occupants we serve.

• At this time I feel that I have sufficient opportunity to make decisions about the program that allow it to function and meet the needs of the ORS. My only suggestion is to continue to allow the existing structure to remain in effect since it works very well.

• Solicit more information from people before actually making a decision.• Solicit feedback from your front line people to see if the decision made is workable, before

going public with the idea.• I recommend a section on the ORS web site dedicated to posting of employee suggestions

and good ideas. Managers could periodically scan the entries not only for inspiration, but to gauge the overall attitudes of the workforce.

48


• Create the One-ORS which is not working. A lot of decisions are made "behind closed doors" and do not include everyone it should.

Improve communication, with consistent message. Limit micromanaging, actually delegate authority/responsibility. Use the "chain of command" concept. Have branch or section chiefs consult with next line

of supervision before implementing policy. Hire and promote on basis of job qualifications only.

• Good headway is being made toward providing decision making authority at the lowest possible level. Simply continue with this concept.

• When information is requested that is needed in order to make appropriate decisions, ORS needs to allow an appropriate length of time to provide the information. Too many times, the information is rushed and used out of context.

49

Perceptions of Decision Making ORSEC FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings

44.2 4.2

4.5

3.23.4

4.34.2 4.2

4.34.2

3.7

1

2

3

4

5


allocation


ORS






FY01

FY02Strongly Agree

Neither

Strongly Disagree

50

Perceptions of Decision Making Leadership Group FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings

3.5

2.93

4.1

3

3.33.4

2.82.9

3.9

3.6

2.5

1

2

3

4

5


allocation


ORS






FY01

FY02Strongly Agree

Neither

Strongly Disagree

51

Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Comparison to FY01 (Mean Ratings)

4

3.5

4.3

3.4

1

2

3

4

5

ORSEC Leadership Group

FY01

FY02

Input into Resource AllocationStrongly Agree

Neither

Strongly Disagree

52


4.2

2.9

4.2

2.8

1

2

3

4

5


FY01

FY02

Input into Future Direction of ORSStrongly Agree

Neither

Strongly Disagree

53


4.2

3

4.2

2.9

1

2

3

4

5


FY01

FY02

Input into Improving ORS Business ProcessesStrongly Agree

Neither

Strongly Disagree

54


4.5

4.14.3

3.9

1

2

3

4

5


FY01

FY02

Authority to Make DecisionsStrongly Agree

Neither

Strongly Disagree

55


3.23

4.2

3.6

1

2

3

4

5


FY01

FY02

Program Manager Input into Program AreaStrongly Agree

Neither

Strongly Disagree

56


3.4 3.3

3.7

2.5

1

2

3

4

5


FY01

FY02

Program Manager Input into ORS InitiativesStrongly Agree

Neither

Strongly Disagree

57

Perceptions of Information AccessFY02 Mean Ratings

3.9

3.63.4

3.1

1

2

3

4

5




ORSEC

Leadership group

Strongly Agree

Neither

Strongly Disagree

58

Perceptions of Information AccessORSEC FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings

4.2

3.4

3.9

3.6

1

2

3

4

5




FY01

FY02

Strongly Agree

Neither

Strongly Disagree

59

Perceptions of Information AccessLeadership Group FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings

3.7

3.33.43.1

1

2

3

4

5




FY01

FY02

Strongly Agree

Neither

Strongly Disagree

60

Perceptions of Information Access FY02 Comparison to FY01 (Mean Ratings)

4.2

3.73.9

3.4

1

2

3

4

5


FY01

FY02

Easy Access to InformationStrongly Agree

Neither

Strongly Disagree

61

Perceptions of Information Access FY02 Comparison to FY01 (Mean Ratings)

3.4 3.3

3.6

3.1

1

2

3

4

5


FY01

FY02

Timely Receipt of Information by Program ManagersStrongly Agree

Neither

Strongly Disagree

62

Perceptions of ORS Processes FY02 Mean Ratings

3.5

2.9

3.3

2.9

3.2

4.1

3

3.6

3.1

3.4

1

2

3

4

5

Programmanagers

understandprogram

relationship toORS as whole

Programmanagers

understand ORSbusiness planning

process

Programmanagers

understand ORSservice hierarchy

Programmanagers

understand ABCcost accounting

model

Programmanagers

understand ASAprocess

relationship tobsuiness planning

ORSEC


Neither

Strongly Disagree

63

Perceptions of ORS ProcessesFY02 Comments

• I think we need to revisit the principles, concepts and structures of our business planning process because recent meetings have revealed that there is either insufficient buy-in or resistance to the current process.

• Program managers should be more involved in the actual planning of the business process, not just the execution. As with decision making, implementation of information management strategies, processes and applications and better communications can lead to better business planning.

• A business plan should be developed for every service group, and should include more than the budget. A business plan should include the ASA template (i.e., value proposition, business strategy, objectives, performance measures and targets, and operational initiatives for the coming FY) and the budget. So, it should convey what the service group is planning to accomplish (i.e., value proposition, objectives), how it is planning to accomplish it (i.e., strategy, initiatives, resource allocation), and how they will know the degree to which they were successful (i.e. performance measures, targets). We should be careful to not give the impression that the budget is the business plan.

• Internally, need to continue education of budget analysts & get them more involved in the planning cycle past just collection of data. Also, need better data collection tools (more user friendly; distinct lack of systems capability across the ORS), more intuitive structure in the model and much better reporting back to orgs (new tools & web page should help in dynamic report production and distribution …..fingers crossed). Externally, need to handle change management better. Do not have buy-in on process across ORS. Need to also improve communication in terms of feedback of changes, how the data given is utilized, and good analytical, meaningful reporting.

64

Perceptions of ORS Processes FY02 Comments (cont.)

• Financial decisions are being made less and less at the Division level. It appears that decisions are sometimes backed into rather than consulting and deciding together.

• Include front line managers in business planning process.• Please let's allow the ORS components to do their functions and service their customers

rather than spending humongous amounts of time analyzing and reporting how they are (i.e. the ASA’s).

• Suggest we ask for our budget by direct appropriation rather than by including the ICs into our management responsibilities by charging them rent.

• Listen to your own staff as to whether a new initiative is worth investing massive amounts of time.

• Make some assessment of which offices are best candidates for ASA and not apply across the board. Some functions just do not lend themselves to ASA practices.

• I do not believe that the ASA is cost-effective, nor does it result in improved products/services. At least in our case, we didn't find out anything we didn't already know. For years we have had an ongoing improvement program--one that makes sense.

• What is the Process?• Explain it to your providers in its simplest form before you sell it to your customers. An

educated provider can help sell your plan in a most excellent way. An educated provider is like having a full tank of gasoline in your car; it will take you a long way.

65


• The program data and information required to fulfill business planning requirements must exist and be available. Making guesses, developing data and creating databases is a time consuming and oftentimes unproductive exercise.

• Hire more Budget analysts. Too few and they are too busy. I wasn't able to get much help on IAG's or get simple questions answered.

• Better understanding of what the customer is asking for and whether or not that is the most appropriate response to provide. More focus is needed on how the customer perceives the ORS response.

• I truly believe in the ASA project and its goals. It seems very tedious and demanding but everything good has its price. However, I have heard many people complain about the negative impact that this project has at this time of the year.

• The ASA is a good tool for business planning and monitoring. However, my experience with the ASA process this year wasn't pleasant. Direction from upper management and the facilitators appeared to be confused and inconsistent.

• Again ORS, as part of the business planning process, must have a better understanding of the ORS customer services to make good business planning decisions.

• ORS should receive all maintenance and operations funds from direct congressional appropriations to the NIH Director and eliminate the taps to IC. This may help to ease the IC out of co-management of ORS responsibilities.

• The ability to add, modify and inactivate services hierarchy information in OROS and ASA needs to be developed and de-conflicted.

66


• ORS needs to spend less time wasted with doing ASA studies and business studies and get down to the job of actually providing the services that it needs to provide to its customers.

• Come up with a better system for developing the annual budgets. Reduce the number of discrete services we are trying to track.

• Financial Planning - ORS should develop a cost accounting budget that relies heavily on actual man hours worked and a CAN # structure that directly relates to each ORS DS.

• The ASA model does not fit every service category. Alternative mechanisms should be considered for evaluating the quality of our programs and identifying ways to improve and/or reduce cost.

• Eliminate redundancies.• Continue with the performance measures and strategic planning currently in place.• The business plan is very important but once again we must know exactly what is needed

and how to challenge the current work force to fill those roles.• I think there is a carriage before the horse issue. It would seem to me that the bus.

planning process should support the various ORS activities, but it often seems that the reverse is true.

• Spend less time on business planning and more time on tracking actual expenditures.• Build the business around the core services that the customer needs - not around what the

customers want. The business should provide the services the customer needs in a timely fashion and at a competitive price with value added.

67


• MAPB would be better equipped to develop business strategy if its previous and current market share could be ascertained. Please provide financial reports for FY01 and FY02 representing the total market within NIH for products and services.

• Get the OQM and the OBSF to work together. It is very frustrating to have one office tell you it is not their problem, go talk to the other, and then the other says it is not theirs either. Quit giving us such short deadlines.

• Less meetings and more substance. We have had 3 different consultants, none of which was prepared.

• Clarify the role of ASA process, and how it will be used in ORS' decision making processes. Rework the ASA process as a collaboration between ORS and its offices and divisions, as opposed to a top down directive w/ no allowance for feedback from below.

• Get more individuals with diverse backgrounds and experience-sets involved in the process. Through a broader-based concept, new initiatives may emerge that could help streamline and improve the way we do business.

• Provide consistent information and focus on finding solutions rather than finger pointing. A good example of this is the ASA process. The information provided by the training is not consistent with the follow on information provided by OQM and consultant.

• I believe the ASAs are driving people buggy. I know that there is a timetable but the schedule is aggressive and not all areas can finish on schedule. It's very difficult to conduct business as usual when you have multiple tasks and not enough resources, something will fall short.

68

Perceptions of ORS ProcessesFY02 Comments (cont.)

• I think the ASA exercise can be a wonderful tool for describing, modifying, and justifying our current processes and organization, or designing new ones. I feel that perhaps too much pressure has been placed on the presentations.

• While it is "nice" to think of ORS as a "business" the extension of many of the business practices do not apply to a government activity. Lets stop studying ORS and its components to death.

• The ASA process should be a tool for the manager to improve his/her organization and should not be driven by the budget folks.

• ASA Process: In addition to the consultants, OQM staff, what is the indirect cost (e.g.; ORS staff hrs. of non-OQM) used to produce this?

• The ASAs are forced down our throat without any buy-in from those of us who have to perform them. If the ORS wanted them to go successfully and smoothly, then the OQM needed to meet and talk with the service areas and find out what they needed and wanted.

• Consider how all time consuming evaluations can be utilized if ORS is totally "restructured" through de-layering and A-76?

• Do ASAs, etc. really improve ORS and ORS services? Are they busy work? How are they translated to rank and file?

•

69

Perceptions of Resources FY02 Mean Ratings

3.2 3.3

1

2

3

4

5

Program managers receivedneeded resources

ORSEC

Leadership groupStrongly Agree

Neither

Strongly Disagree

70

Perceptions of ResourcesFY02 Comments

• Affected mostly by the increased spending on security in FY 2002 that adversely impacted the levels of resources available for other business activities.

71

Other PerceptionsFY02 Comments

• We (EC) should spend most of our time between managing service performance at the service group level and proactively managing the ORS (e.g., improving its management infrastructure – performance management systems, finance, human capital). Currently, it looks to me like we are managing crises on an on-going basis. Crises will always happen and they must be addressed effectively, but they shouldn’t keep us from managing operations and the future of the ORS business.

• The EC works well, though occasionally it appears to be little more than a rubber stamp that needs to be worked on.

• Remember that we are here to protect NIH as an asset for the future as well to service the ICs.

• I sure do, stop using double talk in these surveys. Start listening to your employees, and follow up on the listening. Many examples of employees request are ignored. I have proof that survey data is not fully analyzed by OQM.

• Get the Personnel Office to service our needs.• Requiring all ORS employees to complete Customer Service training cannot possibly be

cost-effective. My group's customer service feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. Why don't you target people and programs that have had problems in that area?

• Encourage better communication between service provider and the customers and allow more meaningful surveys rather than a global one that may not be applicable to some service groups.

72

Other Perceptions FY02 Comments (cont.)

• View program areas as your customers. Ask "What can I provide of value to you”• Work to change policies and regulations that impact favorably on program initiatives.• The leadership and management of ORS is performed with an extremely high level of

professionalism, insight and dedication. Over the past few years I have come to understand more about the difficulty of this task and to appreciate how fortunate we all are to have such excellent leadership.

• ORS should have a central scheduling function with information on projects and operational activities (e.g., construction, environmental or building inspections, changes in traffic patterns, changes in access to the campus, parking resurface, moves of large number of people) that may impact the research, maintenance, operation and administration activities on campus. The purpose of this function would be to improve inter service coordination to minimize the disruption or inconvenience to researches and other service providers.

• Thanks for the opportunity to comment.• It's always a surprise how ORS management are continually changing evaluation programs

over the years. Is this to assure our continued confusion? This is 6th survey completed for the ASA by this customer.

• I believe it will be very difficult for the Executive Committee to respond effectively or innovatively to the requirement for de-layering or reorganizing ORS. They will be affected so personally by the final outcome they will find it difficult.

73


• Filling vacancies takes forever. In the meantime we overload existing staff. By the time we hire someone, existing staff has burned out and leave, and we are back to square 1. Review of manuscripts/publications also takes way too long, e.g., 2 months.

• I feel fortunate to work in an ORS Division that provides resources and support, however, I don't think all Divisions work this way. We have a ways to go with one ORS.

• The Overtime $ ceiling with alternative Comp. Time solution is counter-productive in terms of keeping staff available to provide business services and products.

• We are all so busy, so pushed for time, and work is strictly work and no time to get to know people outside of your immediate area. What happened to social functions in ORS?

• We must keep in mind that ORS work is often driven by the needs and desires of the customer yet at the same time we are required to maintain certain requirements which may be counter to the customers’ need.

• ORS needs to understand that the people at lower levels were hired for their expertise and do know how to do their jobs and all the upper level management’s micromanaging needs to stop.

• The ORS web site is poorly designed.• Our contractor chronically has difficulty getting invoices paid due to a dysfunctional

Acquisition Management Branch.

• Our organization has benefited greatly by ORS management and has made good headway in improving operations and reputation in comparison to our previous management

organization.

74


• Please keep all employees informed of the A-76 process. Employee morale dropped 100%. I know ORS will do everything they can to be sure the process is fair to the government employee.

• I think that ORS senior management needs to be aware of and address lower echelon concerns. For example, what does the "de-layering" issue mean to individuals who are currently first line supervisors?

• Don't make the awards process so complicated, with lengthy applications that deter a supervisor from the initiative in the first place. Also, get the Division level out of the process for granting awards at the local (Branch) level.

• Incompetence is rampant within ORS.• Get everyone in ORS onboard with change initiatives to improve our performance across

the board.• The ORS-IC Occupancy Agreement is poorly designed, and falls short of good customer

service. Our customers require more than a warm, dry, lighted shell. Our customers need quick response to their needs, and solutions to their problems.

• Concerning the proposed restructuring of ORS, the position of MAPB should be reconsidered for the following reasons. MAPB is involved with many high profile projects across the NIH. As currently depicted in the proposed reorganization, MAPB is buried.

75


• Stress "Teamwork" and the "One ORS/NIH" Concept and define expectations and how we are all accountable for this. This could go as far as including a "Teamwork Element" in each person’s Performance Plan. This is crucial to our success as an organization.

• More effort needs to be made in understanding specifically the day to day role of the lower level managers and the service they provide to the customers.

76

ConclusionsCustomer Segmentation

• About 65% of ORSEC time spent on ORS activities.

• About 15% of ORSEC time spent on issues external to NIH.

• Only 1% of ORSEC time spent on professional enrichment and formal training.

• The “Other” category comprises about 8% of ORSEC time and includes• collaborative research• journal editing• miscellaneous meetings

77

ConclusionsPerceptions of Decision Making

• Executive Committee members believe they have input into, and the authority to make, decisions concerning ORS.

• Leadership Group members believe they have input into decisions involving their own program areas and the authority to make them.

Leadership Group members rate their input lower - especially for decisions on future direction of ORS, on improving ORS, and on ORS-wide initiatives.

• Leadership Group members believe they have input into decisions involving their own program areas and the authority to make them.

78

ConclusionsPerceptions of Decision Making (cont.)

• In almost all cases, FY02 ratings are about the same as FY01 ratings.

• One exception is program manager input into decisions affecting their own program areas. Mean ratings for both Executive Committee members and Leadership Group members are considerably higher in FY02.

• Another exception is Leadership Group input on ORS-wide initiatives. Members perceive they have considerably less input into decisions on ORS-wide initiatives.

79

ConclusionsPerceptions of Information Access

• Executive Committee members believe they have easy access to the information they need and that program managers receive timely information.

• Leadership Group members rate both their access to information and the timeliness of the information slightly lower than Executive Committee members.

• FY02 ratings are about the same or slightly lower than FY01 ratings.

80

ConclusionsPerceptions of ORS Processes

• In all cases, Leadership Group member ratings of program manager understanding of ORS processes are slightly higher than Executive Committee member ratings.

• Most of the ratings hover around the midpoint of the scale indicating there is room for improvement - especially in the areas of business planning and the ABC cost accounting model.

81

ConclusionsPerceptions of ORS Processes (cont.)

• One exception is that Leadership Group members believe program managers understand their program’s relationship to ORS as a whole.

• Ratings on these questions vary widely which indicates that respondents have very different perceptions on program manager understanding.

82

ConclusionsPerceptions of Resources

• Both Executive Committee and Leadership Group member ratings hover near the midpoint of the scale indicating that not all program managers received needed resources to meet customer service level expectations.

83

Appendix

FY02 Individual Question Results

84

Q1: Input into Resource Allocation Decisions FY02 Response Breakout

0%

13%

87%

0%

26%

11%

58%

5%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

StronglyDisagree,Disagree

Neither Agree NorDisagree

Strongly Agree,Agree

Don't Know

ORSEC

Leadership group

85

Q2: Input into Future Direction of ORS FY02 Response Breakout

7% 7%

87%

0%

49%

15%

30%

6%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%




Don't Know

ORSEC

Leadership group

86

Q3: Input into Improving ORS FY02 Response Breakout

7% 7%

87%

0%

38%

17%

40%

5%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%




Don't Know

ORSEC

Leadership group

87

Q4: Authority to Make DecisionsFY02 Response Breakout

0%

13%

87%

0%

13%8%

78%

0%0%

25%

50%

75%

100%




Don't Know

ORSEC

Leadership group

88

Q5: Easy Access to InformationFY02 Response Breakout

7%13%

80%

0%

25%

18%

55%

1%0%

25%

50%

75%

100%




Don't Know

ORSEC

Leadership group

89

Q6: Input into Program AreaFY02 Response Breakout

0%

20%

67%

13%19%

15%

65%

0%0%

25%

50%

75%

100%




Don't Know

ORSEC

Leadership group

90

Q7: Input into ORS InitiativesFY02 Response Breakout

7%

33%

60%

0%

51%

28%

18%

4%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%




Don't Know

ORSEC

Leadership group

91

Q8: Timely Receipt of InformationFY02 Response Breakout

7%

33%

60%

0%

35%

18%

46%

1%0%

25%

50%

75%

100%




Don't Know

ORSEC

Leadership group

92

Q9: Understand Program Relationship to ORS as a WholeFY02 Response Breakout

27%

7%

67%

0%6%

12%

81%

1%0%

25%

50%

75%

100%




Don't Know

ORSEC

Leadership group

93

Q10: Understand ORS Business Planning ProcessFY02 Response Breakout

40%

33%27%

0%

35% 33% 31%

1%0%

25%

50%

75%

100%




Don't Know

ORSEC

Leadership group

94

Q10: Understand ORS Business Planning ProcessFY02 Response Breakout

40%

33%27%

0%

35% 33% 31%

1%0%

25%

50%

75%

100%




Don't Know

ORSEC

Leadership group

95

Q11: Understand ORS Service HierarchyFY02 Response Breakout

20%

27%

53%

0%

14%

22%

64%

0%0%

25%

50%

75%

100%




Don't Know

ORSEC

Leadership group

96

Q12: Understand ABC Cost Accounting ModelFY02 Response Breakout

40%

33%27%

0%

32%28%

39%

1%0%

25%

50%

75%

100%




Don't Know

ORSEC

Leadership group

97

Q13: Understand ASA Relationship to Business PlanningFY02 Response Breakout

20%

40%

33%

7%

26%21%

52%

0%0%

25%

50%

75%

100%




Don't Know

ORSEC

Leadership group

98

Q14: Received Needed ResourcesFY02 Response Breakout

43%

21%

36%

0%

28%

20%

51%

1%0%

25%

50%

75%

100%




Don't Know

ORSEC

Leadership group

99

Appendix

FY02 Training Detail

100

Lead and Manage ORSFY02 Formal Training

Formal Training HoursABC CAM-1 Summit Conference 24IT Acquisition for the CIO 40Driving Organizational Performance: Harvard University JFK School of Govt. 24Real Estate Leasing Principles 40GPRA Overview 8Measuring Results of Organizational Performance 40President's Management Agenda Workshop 16Real Estate Costing 40Real Estate Law 40Facility Accessibility Training 16Financial Management Training 8Project Delivery Strategy 6Miscellaneous Seminars 8Total 310

Note: Formal Training accounts for about 1% of ORSEC members’ time.

Documents

1 FY02 ASA Presentation Lead and Manage ORS Presented by: Shirl Eller, Director, Division of Intramural Research Services Office of Research Services National