NSF Business & Operations Advisory Committee Meeting NSF Business Analysis Project Status

1

NSF BUSINESS ANALYSIS

NSF Business & Operations Advisory Committee Meeting

NSF Business Analysis Project Status

Arlington, VAOctober 22, 2003

This document is confidential and has been developed by Booz Allen Hamilton solely for the use and information of the client to whom it is addressed

2


Table of Contents

Project Overview

Organizational Context and Case for Change

Key Findings and Recommendations

– Business Processes

– Tools and Technologies

– Human Capital

– Business Framework Assessment

Next Steps

3


The Business Analysis project is designed to enhance NSF’s position in leading the advancement of U.S. science and engineering research and education

The Business Analysis project is driving improvements in key areas*

– Business Processes – effective, efficient, strategically aligned business processes that integrate and capitalize on the agency’s human capital and technology resources

– Tools and Technologies – flexible, reliable, state-of-the-art tools and technologies designed to support the agency’s mission, business processes, staff and customers

– Human Capital – a diverse, agile, results-oriented team of NSF knowledge workers committed to enabling the agency’s mission and to expanding their capabilities

The Business Analysis project is addressing NSF’s growing requirements and is determining if NSF should …

– Maintain status quo

– Make incremental improvements

– Fundamentally change its core and supporting business processes

* Identified in the NSF Administration and Management (A&M) Strategic Plan, April, 2002

4


The approach will result in an integrated “roadmap” for NSF’s future success

Inputs:-FTE’s-Funding-Strategic Direction

- Outputs: >>10,000 grants managed ($10B +) -Outcomes: results of research

Reviewing/ awarding

increasingly complex, multi-

disciplinary grants (against Process

Scenarios)

Task 4: NSF Business Process Analysis/ Plan

Task 5: Human Capital Management Plan

Task 6: Technologies and Tools Enterprise Architecture & Plan

Business Process Scenarios

Task 1: Project Plan

Task 2: Business Framework Assessment

Recommended Actions

Inputs:-1,300 FTEs-$4.8B Funding-Strategic Direction

Task 3: NSF Current Environment AssessmentOverall Performance

Business Process Human Capital Technologies and Tools

- Outputs: 10,000 grants managed -Outcomes: results of research

Gap Analysis

-Business Context-Stakeholder Analysis-Visioning Sessions-Evaluation Criteria

Review/Award Grants,

Manage Awards, Oversee Large Infrastructure

Projects

Completed Ongoing

5


The Business Analysis project is providing findings and recommendations to NSF senior leadership

Human CapitalSubject Matter Experts

Business ProcessesSubject Matter Experts

Information TechnologySubject Matter Experts

InformationTechnology Team

Matt NewmanTeam Lead

Human Capital TeamDr. Lori Zukin

Team Lead

Business Processes Team

David BeaupreTeam Lead

Human CapitalSubject Matter Experts

Business ProcessesSubject Matter Experts

Technologies & ToolsSubject Matter Experts

Technologies& Tools TeamBill DeSalvoTeam Lead

Human Capital TeamDr. Lori Zukin

Team Lead

Business Processes Team

Tim KochTeam Lead

Business Analysis Steering Committee

(BASC)

NSFTools and Technology

TeamAndrea Norris

NSFBusiness Process Team

Altie Metcalf

NSFHuman Capital Team

Marilyn Dickman

NSF Senior Leadership

Joe Burt (COTR)

NSF Senior Leadership: Director/Deputy Director Assistant Directors NSB Committee on Strategy and Budget Business & Operations Advisory Committee

(BOAC) Senior Management Integration Group (SMIG) Advisory Committee for GPRA Performance

Assessment (ACGPRA) Management Control Committee

Business Analysis Steering Committee (BASC):

Machi Dilworth (BIO/DBI) Andrea Norris (IRM/DIS) Altie Metcalf (OPP/OD) Craig Robinson (BFA/BD) Martha Rubenstein (BFA/BD) Debbie Crawford (CISE/OAD) George Strawn (IRM/DIS) Marilyn Dickman (IRM/HRM) John Yellen (SBE/BCS) Deborah Young (ENG)

Booz Allen Project Team Includes: Technical Team Project Management Quality Assurance Review Board

Tom Miller (PM)

Quality AssuranceReview Board

Quality AssuranceReview Board

Jack Mayer

Kathleen DyerHerbert MacArthur

Cheryl Thorpe

Abe Zwany

6


Projected Task Deliverables through September 2003

Task Outcome

Project Plan Project schedule that clearly outlines the work to be performed during the 39 month effort to include project controls, coordination mechanisms and risk management strategies

Jointly agreed upon project management approach that illustrates how the results will be implemented

Business Framework Assessment

Review of NSF’s context for business processes and evaluation criteria for business process redesign effort and identified alternative business frameworks

Agreement on NSF’s overall business process framework and direction

Current Environment Assessment

Documentation of current processes, human capital baseline (workforce competencies, workload, supply analysis, human capital management review), and Technologies and Tools environment

Identification of strategic opportunities in business process, human capital management, and information technology for improving NSF’s ability to achieve administrative and management excellence and mission success

Business Process Analysis and Plan

Prioritized process improvement scenarios based on objective evaluation criteria that include detailed process maps/descriptions, implementation plans, technology requirements, human capital requirements, performance measures, and business cases for each scenario

Human Capital Management Plan

A strategic Human Capital Management Plan for NSF that provides an actionable “roadmap” and direction for improving human capital management within NSF and within the HRM Division

Technologies and Tools Implementation Plan & Enterprise Architecture

A Tools and Technologies Implementation plan that includes a target enterprise architecture, a clear migration strategy, and an investment prioritization plan

Final Report A single document for implementing selected business cases that combines the business process, human capital management, and information technology implementation plans and integrates with the GPRA strategic plan

Task Outcome

Project Plan Project schedule that clearly outlines the work to be performed during the 39 month effort to include project controls, coordination mechanisms and risk management strategies

Jointly agreed upon project management approach that illustrates how the results will be implemented

Business Framework Assessment

Review of NSF’s context for business processes and evaluation criteria for business process redesign effort and identified alternative business frameworks

Agreement on NSF’s overall business process framework and direction

Current Environment Assessment

Documentation of current processes, human capital baseline (workforce competencies, workload, supply analysis, human capital management review), and Technologies and Tools environment

Identification of strategic opportunities in business process, human capital management, and information technology for improving NSF’s ability to achieve administrative and management excellence and mission success

Business Process Analysis and Plan

Prioritized process improvement scenarios based on objective evaluation criteria that include detailed process maps/descriptions, implementation plans, technology requirements, human capital requirements, performance measures, and business cases for each scenario

Human Capital Management Plan

A strategic Human Capital Management Plan for NSF that provides an actionable “roadmap” and direction for improving human capital management within NSF and within the HRM Division

Technologies and Tools Implementation Plan & Enterprise Architecture

A Tools and Technologies Implementation plan that includes a target enterprise architecture, a clear migration strategy, and an investment prioritization plan

Final Report A single document for implementing selected business cases that combines the business process, human capital management, and information technology implementation plans and integrates with the GPRA strategic plan

Sep 03

Sep 03

Sep 03

Deliverables

Delivered Early

Delivered Early

• Project Plan• Communications Plan

• Business Framework Assessment

• Current (Baseline) Environment

• Business Process and Plan

• Human Capital Mgt Plan

• IT Implementation Plan & Enterprise Architecture

• Initial and Final Report

7


NSF Business Analysis is transitioning from documenting the current environment to developing future scenarios based on findings and recommendations contained in this report

Monthly Status Reports and Project Management Controls

Final Report

4. Business Analysis

5. Human Capital Management Plan

6. IT Implementation & Enterprise Architecture

7. Final Report

4. Business Process Analysis and Plan

5. Human Capital Management Plan

6. IT Implementation & Enterprise Architecture

2. Business Framework

3. CurrentEnvironment

1. Project Plan1. Project Plan (Quarterly or as needed updates)

FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005

Monthly Status Reports, Interim Analysis, and Business Integration

Start Date:6/26/02

End Date:9/30/05

09/30/03

8


Table of Contents

Project Background





– Human Capital


Next Steps

9


NSF interacts within a complex environment consisting of public, private and non-profit sector partners

Award Recipients & Program Beneficiaries

Academic Institutions

State & Local Agents

Nonprofit Organizations

International Researchers

Congress

OMB

OIG

GAO

Oversight

NSB

OSTP

Federal Government

Broader Society

Private Funding Groups

Science Interest Groups

International ScienceOrganizations

Federal ResearchAgencies

Collaborators

NSF’s STAKEHOLDERS

Researchers & Educators

Research&Education Fellows

Research&Education Centers

Small Businesses

School Districts

Review PanelsReview Panels

NSF Advisory CommitteesNSF Advisory Committees

Policy and Advisory

Societal Partners

State & Local Agents

Source: Booz Allen Hamilton and Business Framework working group analysis

10


NSF faces several key administration and management challenges

Source: Booz Allen Hamilton analysis. See appendices for additional detail.

Summary of Key Challenges

Increased Federal Oversight

Shifts in Strategic Direction Towards More Collaboration

Demands for Funds Continue to

Increase

Expanded Use of Technology

Changes in Workforce

Composition

11


Several attributes of the organization distinguish NSF from other agencies

NSF KEY ATTRIBUTES DESCRIPTION

Forward-thinking and proactive NSF deliberately takes the “long view” in its actions and seeks to mute the unintended consequences of being unaware of environmental evolution by being progressive in its management practices, institutional culture and integration of external input. NSF actively seeks ideas, technologies, and practices to better position itself for serving the Nation’s scientific and engineering welfare and in continuing its mission to promote the progress of science.

Embraces diversity in thinking NSF encourages diversity in thinking and organizational actions and recognizes the value and impact of including a variety of viewpoints in cultivating organizational excellence. Core to NSF’s values are continued commitment to building a nationally diverse scientific and engineering workforce for the 21st century and an equally diverse internal workforce.

Highly regarded by the research community

Compared to other grant-making institutions, NSF is highly regarded by the research community for its fairness of process and as an organization that continues to lead the frontiers of science and engineering.

Provides managers closest to the work the ability to make decisions

Program Directors and Division Directors are able to make the critical investment decisions at the lowest level possible for the Merit Review process. Program Directors are empowered and encouraged to constantly listen, analyze and respond to the most promising ideas that contribute to the progression of science.

Encourages flexibility NSF has positioned itself to deliver on the commitment of strengthening the nation’s scientific, engineering and research potential that constantly integrates the ideas and connects the leaders of the core and cross-disciplines. This commitment is evident through NSF’s inter-disciplinary activities.

Highly collaborative NSF recognizes that the scientific and engineering advancements of tomorrow cannot be achieved alone but through a multi-faceted network of people and institutions.

NSF KEY ATTRIBUTES DESCRIPTION

Forward-thinking and proactive NSF deliberately takes the “long view” in its actions and seeks to mute the unintended consequences of being unaware of environmental evolution by being progressive in its management practices, institutional culture and integration of external input. NSF actively seeks ideas, technologies, and practices to better position itself for serving the Nation’s scientific and engineering welfare and in continuing its mission to promote the progress of science.

Embraces diversity in thinking NSF encourages diversity in thinking and organizational actions and recognizes the value and impact of including a variety of viewpoints in cultivating organizational excellence. Core to NSF’s values are continued commitment to building a nationally diverse scientific and engineering workforce for the 21st century and an equally diverse internal workforce.

Highly regarded by the research community

Compared to other grant-making institutions, NSF is highly regarded by the research community for its fairness of process and as an organization that continues to lead the frontiers of science and engineering.

Provides managers closest to the work the ability to make decisions

Program Directors and Division Directors are able to make the critical investment decisions at the lowest level possible for the Merit Review process. Program Directors are empowered and encouraged to constantly listen, analyze and respond to the most promising ideas that contribute to the progression of science.

Encourages flexibility NSF has positioned itself to deliver on the commitment of strengthening the nation’s scientific, engineering and research potential that constantly integrates the ideas and connects the leaders of the core and cross-disciplines. This commitment is evident through NSF’s inter-disciplinary activities.

Highly collaborative NSF recognizes that the scientific and engineering advancements of tomorrow cannot be achieved alone but through a multi-faceted network of people and institutions.

Source: Booz Allen Hamilton Analysis. See appendices for additional analysis

12


Based on NSF’s key challenges, some of NSF’s organizational attributes will require attention as the agency continues to grow

Attributes that Require Attention as NSF grows

Rationale

Degree of decentralization

Processes that utilize ‘shared services’ (e.g., award processing, conference rooms, IT support, etc.) require more proactive management and coordination within and across Directorates. Additionally, NSF is filled with “pockets of excellence” that are not visible or shared across the organization due to this decentralization.

Degree of flexibility Often Directorate and Division-level process and management flexibility comes at the expense of the NSF as a greater whole. Externally-facing processes, those requiring increased collaboration, and those impacting shared services require a higher degree of structure to ensure efficiency.

Degree of integration between “administration” and “science”

NSF’s central management and administration tend to operate semi-independently of the “science” or scientific programs. As a result, the administration is reactive in areas requiring Directorate “buy-in”, such as organization-wide process changes and joint processing (e.g. human resource management, etc.).

Management approach NSF’s “consensus-driven” approach to management and problem-solving increases coordination costs and creates a “bottleneck” in decision-making. NSF requires pushing key decision-making authority to lower levels in the organization to make this approach effective.

Attributes that Require Attention as NSF grows

Rationale

Degree of decentralization

Processes that utilize ‘shared services’ (e.g., award processing, conference rooms, IT support, etc.) require more proactive management and coordination within and across Directorates. Additionally, NSF is filled with “pockets of excellence” that are not visible or shared across the organization due to this decentralization.

Degree of flexibility Often Directorate and Division-level process and management flexibility comes at the expense of the NSF as a greater whole. Externally-facing processes, those requiring increased collaboration, and those impacting shared services require a higher degree of structure to ensure efficiency.

Degree of integration between “administration” and “science”

NSF’s central management and administration tend to operate semi-independently of the “science” or scientific programs. As a result, the administration is reactive in areas requiring Directorate “buy-in”, such as organization-wide process changes and joint processing (e.g. human resource management, etc.).

Management approach NSF’s “consensus-driven” approach to management and problem-solving increases coordination costs and creates a “bottleneck” in decision-making. NSF requires pushing key decision-making authority to lower levels in the organization to make this approach effective.


13


NSF is effective in managing its business; however, the baseline analysis identified significant opportunities for improvement to help manage future growth

Areas Examined Summary Description of Opportunities

Business Process

NSF performs its core processes effectively in merit review, resource allocation and performance assessment, however, in order to address future workload demands, NSF should rethink how these processes will be performed in the future.

Additionally, growth will require that NSF formalize processes for managing technical risk of awards, actively monitor the quality of their processes, and pro-actively manage their operational performance.

Tools & Technologies NSF is ahead of its peers in e-processing of grants, supporting e-government initiatives and is capable of going completely paperless at any time. However, IT staff capacity is at its maximum. Additionally, NSF’s computing environment is highly fragmented which exacerbates capacity issues, complicates IT management and impedes gains in efficiency.

Human Capital NSF has recognized that it must more effectively manage its human capital, and must identify and address human capital needs, if the agency is to respond to workforce impacts stemming from business practices changes, increased automation, and workload growth.

Business Framework Assessment NSF should supplement its current core processes by adding strategic planning and program planning. Knowledge Management should be listed as a supporting process. NSF should also adopt a hybrid business framework model that will meet its evaluation criteria of: increase responsiveness, drive excellence, promote agility, build workforce, foster innovation, and reinforce core values.

Areas Examined Summary Description of Opportunities

Business Process

NSF performs its core processes effectively in merit review, resource allocation and performance assessment, however, in order to address future workload demands, NSF should rethink how these processes will be performed in the future.

Additionally, growth will require that NSF formalize processes for managing technical risk of awards, actively monitor the quality of their processes, and pro-actively manage their operational performance.

Tools & Technologies NSF is ahead of its peers in e-processing of grants, supporting e-government initiatives and is capable of going completely paperless at any time. However, IT staff capacity is at its maximum. Additionally, NSF’s computing environment is highly fragmented which exacerbates capacity issues, complicates IT management and impedes gains in efficiency.

Human Capital NSF has recognized that it must more effectively manage its human capital, and must identify and address human capital needs, if the agency is to respond to workforce impacts stemming from business practices changes, increased automation, and workload growth.

Business Framework Assessment NSF should supplement its current core processes by adding strategic planning and program planning. Knowledge Management should be listed as a supporting process. NSF should also adopt a hybrid business framework model that will meet its evaluation criteria of: increase responsiveness, drive excellence, promote agility, build workforce, foster innovation, and reinforce core values.


14


Table of Contents

Project Background





– Human Capital


Next Steps

15


Integrated Process Teams examined (5) of NSF’s core processes

NSF Value Chain

Processes Examined

Data Collection Activities

Analysis

Initial Interviews

Initial Interviews

Internal Doc

Reviews

Internal Doc

Reviews

External Reports

External Reports

Data MiningData

Mining

Focus GroupsFocus Groups

1-on-1 Interviews1-on-1

Interviews

Process BaselineProcess Baseline Community RequirementsCommunity Requirements

Areas for Improvement

Stakeholder Interviews

Stakeholder Interviews

Applicant Survey

Applicant Survey

“Quick” Wins“Quick” Wins

Can the opportunity area be addressed in the short-term?

Will the opportunity positively impact the scientific community or internal business operations?

Can the opportunity area be addressed in the short-term?


Long-Term OpportunitiesLong-Term Opportunities

Can the opportunity be addressed in the long-term?

Does the opportunity have strategic value?


Can the opportunity be addressed in the long-term?

Does the opportunity have strategic value?


Strategic Planning Resource Allocation

Program Development

Merit Review

Award Management & Oversight

Performance Assessment

Knowledge Management

: Business Analysis Processes Examined

Team Exercises

Team Exercises

16


With an understanding of NSF’s current environment, several opportunity areas emerged in the analysis of the core processes

Merit ReviewMerit Review

Increase in Demand for FundsIncrease in Demand for Funds

Developing a Capability for

NSF-Level Coordination & Collaboration

Developing a Capability for

NSF-Level Coordination & Collaboration

Greater Internal Performance Management Required for

Growth

Greater Internal Performance Management Required for

Growth

Improving Reviewer

Community Management

Improving Reviewer

Community Management

Areas of Opportunity

Future Scenario Drivers

Processes Examined

Process Improvements

to Reduce Workload

Process Improvements

to Reduce Workload

Performance Assessment & Accountability


Increase in Multidisciplinary Research

Increase in Multidisciplinary Research

Further Automation of Processes

Further Automation of Processes

Increased Federal Oversight and Emphasis on Performance

Management

Increased Federal Oversight and Emphasis on Performance

Management

Resource Allocation

Resource Allocation

Knowledge ManagementKnowledge

Management

Addressing the Timing of

Commitments and Obligations

Addressing the Timing of

Commitments and Obligations

Facilitating Achieving

Organizational Excellence

Goals

Facilitating Achieving

Organizational Excellence

Goals

Award Management &

Oversight

Award Management &

Oversight

17


In merit review, the increasing volume and complexity of proposals requires NSF to re-think how it conducts this core process


Findings Recommendations

Increases in the volume and complexity of proposals impacts the effectiveness of Program Directors in performing their merit review and award management responsibilities.

In Task 4, NSF should explore alternative methods for conducting reviews that maintain the integrity of the process while seeking to reduce the workload of NSF staff and to minimize the impact on the research community (i.e., virtual panels, etc.)

Additionally, the increase in volume of proposals is making recruiting and attracting reviewers more difficult.

In Task 4, NSF should explore ways to increase the available pool of reviewers to accommodate potential increases in proposal volume.

Compounding the workload issue is the lack of formalized processes for programs that require cross-directorate coordination.

In Task 4, NSF should develop scenario models that can be applied across the foundation for collaborative/cross-directorate programs and/or initiatives.


Increases in the volume and complexity of proposals impacts the effectiveness of Program Directors in performing their merit review and award management responsibilities.

In Task 4, NSF should explore alternative methods for conducting reviews that maintain the integrity of the process while seeking to reduce the workload of NSF staff and to minimize the impact on the research community (i.e., virtual panels, etc.)

Additionally, the increase in volume of proposals is making recruiting and attracting reviewers more difficult.

In Task 4, NSF should explore ways to increase the available pool of reviewers to accommodate potential increases in proposal volume.

Compounding the workload issue is the lack of formalized processes for programs that require cross-directorate coordination.

In Task 4, NSF should develop scenario models that can be applied across the foundation for collaborative/cross-directorate programs and/or initiatives.



Resource AllocationResource

Allocation

Award Management &

Oversight

Award Management &

Oversight


Management

18


In the future, NSF must formalize the criteria for how awards are managed and decide how best to leverage the project reporting system

Award Management &

Oversight

Award Management &

Oversight




Allocation


Management



At the Program level, NSF requires more formal procedures for how to manage the technical risk of an award and how to assess the contribution that individual projects are making to the scientific community.

In Task 4, NSF should develop more formal procedures at the program level for how to manage and assess the contribution that individual projects are making to the advancement of science. Greater emphasis on award management will require additional resources.

Fundamental to how awards are managed is determining how to better use NSF’s project reporting system and provide guidelines for the types of awards that require greater technical management.

NSF needs to determine how to better use its project reporting system (PRS) and provide guidelines for the types of awards that require greater technical management.


At the Program level, NSF requires more formal procedures for how to manage the technical risk of an award and how to assess the contribution that individual projects are making to the scientific community.

In Task 4, NSF should develop more formal procedures at the program level for how to manage and assess the contribution that individual projects are making to the advancement of science. Greater emphasis on award management will require additional resources.

Fundamental to how awards are managed is determining how to better use NSF’s project reporting system and provide guidelines for the types of awards that require greater technical management.

NSF needs to determine how to better use its project reporting system (PRS) and provide guidelines for the types of awards that require greater technical management.

19


In order to effectively grow, NSF must more pro-actively manage its administration and management

Award Management &

Oversight

Award Management &

Oversight




Allocation


Management



Due to NSF’s decentralized management structure, operational planning and execution is often delegated to the Directorates without a mechanism or body to address systemic (i.e., day-to-day) management issues of the Foundation.

NSF should consider chartering a team of senior-level managers representing each of the Directorates and appropriate functional areas (e.g., OIA, DIS, DAS, etc.) for the purpose of addressing systemic issues of the Foundation (e.g., eJackets implementation, operational performance management, etc.)

NSF has sound business practices in place for measuring performance; however, NSF requires additional metrics in order to effectively manage growth.

NSF requires additional metrics in order to effectively manage growth. Specifically, NSF needs to include metrics that focus on its people, the impact on the community, and the “bottom line”.

Currently, few Directorates develop Directorate or Division-level goals and plans to support the achievement of NSF’s strategic and operational goals.

In Task 4, NSF should consider establishing Directorate- and Division-level operational goals that are subordinated to the NSF-level goals and that consider the unique operational characteristics of each Directorate.


Due to NSF’s decentralized management structure, operational planning and execution is often delegated to the Directorates without a mechanism or body to address systemic (i.e., day-to-day) management issues of the Foundation.

NSF should consider chartering a team of senior-level managers representing each of the Directorates and appropriate functional areas (e.g., OIA, DIS, DAS, etc.) for the purpose of addressing systemic issues of the Foundation (e.g., eJackets implementation, operational performance management, etc.)

NSF has sound business practices in place for measuring performance; however, NSF requires additional metrics in order to effectively manage growth.

NSF requires additional metrics in order to effectively manage growth. Specifically, NSF needs to include metrics that focus on its people, the impact on the community, and the “bottom line”.

Currently, few Directorates develop Directorate or Division-level goals and plans to support the achievement of NSF’s strategic and operational goals.

In Task 4, NSF should consider establishing Directorate- and Division-level operational goals that are subordinated to the NSF-level goals and that consider the unique operational characteristics of each Directorate.

20


The resource allocation process can be improved by formalizing the priority setting process, exploring alternative technologies for budget formulation, and better managing the timing of its commitments


Each Directorate or Office follows a different process for ‘setting priorities’ creating the perception that priorities are ‘top-down’ driven.

In Task 4, NSF should consider developing priority setting guidance based on both internal and external best practices that can be promulgated among the Directorates.

While the budget execution and reconciliation activities are highly automated, the front-end budget formulation activities are manually intensive.

In Task 4, NSF should explore other budget formulation and execution tools.

Currently NSF commits a significant portion of its budget in the last quarter of the fiscal year resulting in additional demand on limited staff resources.

NSF should explore setting program deadlines based on award size, community needs and impacts on Foundations operations.

NSF should explore establishing Directorate/Office goals for committing funds throughout the year.


Each Directorate or Office follows a different process for ‘setting priorities’ creating the perception that priorities are ‘top-down’ driven.

In Task 4, NSF should consider developing priority setting guidance based on both internal and external best practices that can be promulgated among the Directorates.

While the budget execution and reconciliation activities are highly automated, the front-end budget formulation activities are manually intensive.

In Task 4, NSF should explore other budget formulation and execution tools.

Currently NSF commits a significant portion of its budget in the last quarter of the fiscal year resulting in additional demand on limited staff resources.

NSF should explore setting program deadlines based on award size, community needs and impacts on Foundations operations.

NSF should explore establishing Directorate/Office goals for committing funds throughout the year.

Award Management &

Oversight

Award Management &

Oversight




Allocation


Management


21


Table of Contents

Project Background





– Human Capital


Next Steps

22


Enterprise Architecture (EA) practices take a holistic view of an organization’s business processes, human capital and technology

A common misconception is that EAs just describe an organization’s technology

Strategy &Business Processes

Human Capital

Technology Infrastructure

The mission, vision, goals & objectives. Identification of all business processes, information flows, and data required to support the business requirements

The applications, data and technical infrastructure that support the Agency’s business areas through the creation and manipulation of information or data

The internal and external people and institutions that interact with the organization through the business functions and the applications, data and

infrastructure that support them

23


An Enterprise Architecture typically consists of a baseline architecture, a target architecture and an implementation plan

Baseline: a snapshot of an organization’s current business processes, human capital and technology

Target: a vision and description of the organization at some future point (in NSF’s case, 2 to 5 years) based on:– Business Analysis scenario design

– Human Capital Management Plan

– IT Target Architecture

Implementation Plan: the probable path from the baseline to the target that can include any number of “convergence architectures”

– Convergence architecture: points in the implementation plan at which significant baseline features are converted/transitioned to target features

24


Analysis of NSF’s baseline and target architecture has revealed several possible improvements in the areas of computing environment, strategic information assets and IT Operations


The computing environment within NSF is highly fragmented. 199 non-major and 20 major applications have been identified of which only 23 are well known and monitored. As these applications expand to affect the enterprise, more must be known about them so as not to preclude the use of any particular enterprise technology.

NSF should explore how to improve budgetary controls, enterprise management, change control and policies that can be consistently applied across the organization

NSF Strategic Information Assets are not currently managed at the enterprise level although they are used as such. Instead, data is managed locally by each application resulting in data that is difficult to find, understand, use and trust

NSF should consider instituting a Strategic Information Management Plan (and people and resources to support it) as well as transforming the existing data architecture into a more flexible configuration (e.g., data warehouse). This will produce an architecture that can support future decision management tools, security, business, and application requirements.

IT Operations support a wide range of IT services and functionalities. Trends indicate that the range of services will continue to grow along with the Foundation. IT budget has remained relatively flat compared to the overall budget; IT headcount has remained relatively flat in keeping with staffing trends within the NSF.

NSF should explore ways to increase IT budget and headcount and skills in order to meet current and future IT challenges and responsibilities


The computing environment within NSF is highly fragmented. 199 non-major and 20 major applications have been identified of which only 23 are well known and monitored. As these applications expand to affect the enterprise, more must be known about them so as not to preclude the use of any particular enterprise technology.

NSF should explore how to improve budgetary controls, enterprise management, change control and policies that can be consistently applied across the organization

NSF Strategic Information Assets are not currently managed at the enterprise level although they are used as such. Instead, data is managed locally by each application resulting in data that is difficult to find, understand, use and trust

NSF should consider instituting a Strategic Information Management Plan (and people and resources to support it) as well as transforming the existing data architecture into a more flexible configuration (e.g., data warehouse). This will produce an architecture that can support future decision management tools, security, business, and application requirements.

IT Operations support a wide range of IT services and functionalities. Trends indicate that the range of services will continue to grow along with the Foundation. IT budget has remained relatively flat compared to the overall budget; IT headcount has remained relatively flat in keeping with staffing trends within the NSF.

NSF should explore ways to increase IT budget and headcount and skills in order to meet current and future IT challenges and responsibilities

Applications & TechnologyApplications &

Technology

IT InfrastructureIT

Infrastructure

IT Operations and Staff

IT Operations and Staff

Computing EnvironmentComputing

Environment

Strategic Information

Assets


Assets

25


Analysis of NSF’s baseline and target architecture has revealed several possible improvements in the area of IT Infrastructure and Applications & Technology


Configuration and change management are inconsistently applied across the organization. While, change control and configuration management structures are being established in DIS, these functions have not been adopted to any significant extent outside of DIS.

NSF should consider establishing a change control group with binding decision-making authority for IT projects across the organization

Standard application development methods and supporting technologies could be uniformly applied and used across NSF

NSF could continue to emphasize information and application consolidation as well as directory

NSF could continue to expand standards to involve application development across the entire Foundation, thereby reducing costs and increasing probability of integration across Directorates

NSF should continue to secure its computing environment by increasing the use of security services and requiring them across the Foundation

Given the fragmented nature of NSF’s computing environment, more attention should be given to the security risks posed by non-major systems. Additionally, Security services in all software development should be required within the organization


Configuration and change management are inconsistently applied across the organization. While, change control and configuration management structures are being established in DIS, these functions have not been adopted to any significant extent outside of DIS.

NSF should consider establishing a change control group with binding decision-making authority for IT projects across the organization

Standard application development methods and supporting technologies could be uniformly applied and used across NSF

NSF could continue to emphasize information and application consolidation as well as directory

NSF could continue to expand standards to involve application development across the entire Foundation, thereby reducing costs and increasing probability of integration across Directorates

NSF should continue to secure its computing environment by increasing the use of security services and requiring them across the Foundation

Given the fragmented nature of NSF’s computing environment, more attention should be given to the security risks posed by non-major systems. Additionally, Security services in all software development should be required within the organization

Applications &

Technology

Applications &

Technology

IT InfrastructureIT

Infrastructure

IT Operations and StaffIT Operations

and Staff

Computing EnvironmentComputing

Environment


Assets


Assets

NSF Progress

NSF Progress

NSF Progress

26


Table of Contents

Project Background





– Human Capital


Next Steps

27


Workforce Supply

Workforce Supply

Workload AnalysisWorkload Analysis

• What are the characteristics of NSF’s workforce?

• What types of work is NSF doing?

• How is this work distributed?

• What types of competencies are required to do this work?

• How are we selecting, developing, evaluating, compensating, and rewarding those people who do the work?

The Human Capital baseline included four work streams

• Evaluation of NSF human capital management at both the organizational and HRM levels. Uses the Human Capital (HC) Lifecycle as a guide

CompetencyModeling

CompetencyModeling

Human Capital Management

Review

Human Capital Management

Review

• Assessment of volume and distribution of workload based on organization-wide workload survey

• Identification and definition of the general and technical competencies required for NSF positions/job families

Description

• Assessment of current workforce size, composition, and characteristics

• Identification of historical trends to help project future workforce characteristics

NSF’s Human Capital Baseline

28


The information from the baseline served as input into an additional human capital work stream, NSF’s Human Capital Management Plan (HCMP)

The NSF Human Capital Management Plan is a strategic plan for NSF that provides an actionable “roadmap” and direction for improving human capital management within NSF and within the HRM Division

The Draft HCMP, Version 1.0 was informed by the most recent available data on NSF’s baseline

A working group with broad NSF representation developed the HCMP between May and September 2003

– The working group was composed of Administrative Officers, Division Directors, Program Managers, a Deputy Assistant Director, representatives of the Division of Human Resource Management, the union, and multiple Directorates/Offices including: CISE, BFA, IRM, EHR, BIO, MPS, and OD

– Booz Allen developed the HCMP concurrently with the Baseline HC Review in order to complete an initial draft by September 30, 2003 (originally the HCMP was scheduled to be developed after the Baseline HC Review)

– As available, findings from the HC review were presented during relevant HCMP team meetings to inform the team on the “current state” of human capital

– Findings were validated and refined as necessary, and were used to guide the development of corresponding action strategies

29


HR Practices: Operational

Issues


Issues

NSF should explore using the workforce supply analysis to informthe development of future target workforce objectives, and to identify gaps between current supply and future workforce requirements

Competency ModelingCompetency

Modeling

HR Practices: Foundational

Issues


Issues

Workforce SupplyWorkforce

Supply


NSF’s workforce (approximately 1490 personnel) comprises 27 percent non-permanent staff (e.g., temporary, intermittent, VSEE, and IPA), and reflects a mix of program type (45 percent Science and Engineering, 32 percent Business Operations, 20 percent Program Support, and 3 percent Other). NSF also uses approximately 200 on-site contractors who perform commercial administrative duties.

NSF should consider using baseline workforce supply findings to help inform the development of future target workforce objectives including size, composition, and mix

As future workforce requirements are determined, NSF should explore comparisons of future workforce requirements against current workforce supply to identify key gaps, and to inform the development of strategies (e.g., recruiting, selection, training) to close or mitigate identified gaps


NSF’s workforce (approximately 1490 personnel) comprises 27 percent non-permanent staff (e.g., temporary, intermittent, VSEE, and IPA), and reflects a mix of program type (45 percent Science and Engineering, 32 percent Business Operations, 20 percent Program Support, and 3 percent Other). NSF also uses approximately 200 on-site contractors who perform commercial administrative duties.

NSF should consider using baseline workforce supply findings to help inform the development of future target workforce objectives including size, composition, and mix

As future workforce requirements are determined, NSF should explore comparisons of future workforce requirements against current workforce supply to identify key gaps, and to inform the development of strategies (e.g., recruiting, selection, training) to close or mitigate identified gaps

30



Issues


Issues

NSF is working to improve the strategic and operational management of its human capital by developing a competency-based HR system that links business strategy to individual performance


Modeling


Issues


Issues


Supply


NSF recognizes that the lack of a competency-based HR system inhibits the organization from aligning its business strategy with individual performance

NSF should consider taking a proactive role in driving employee performance and achieving organizational outcomes by developing a competency-based HR system

Through Task 5, NSF should consider defining “to-be” competencies that support expected changes to business strategy and processes and assessing current proficiency levels

41 job families exist that encompass NSF’s 288 unique position titles among its 1,500 employees and rotator personnel. Incumbent employees identify a total of 33 general competencies and 70 technical competencies that are currently required for successful performance.

In Task 5, NSF should consider evaluating the eight “core” competencies to assess whether they reflect the organization’s future needs and direction, and identifying additional “core” competencies as required

While “to-be” competencies are identified and modeled, NSF should explore using the current “core” competencies and existing competency models in ongoing recruiting, selecting, and training activities


NSF recognizes that the lack of a competency-based HR system inhibits the organization from aligning its business strategy with individual performance

NSF should consider taking a proactive role in driving employee performance and achieving organizational outcomes by developing a competency-based HR system

Through Task 5, NSF should consider defining “to-be” competencies that support expected changes to business strategy and processes and assessing current proficiency levels

41 job families exist that encompass NSF’s 288 unique position titles among its 1,500 employees and rotator personnel. Incumbent employees identify a total of 33 general competencies and 70 technical competencies that are currently required for successful performance.

In Task 5, NSF should consider evaluating the eight “core” competencies to assess whether they reflect the organization’s future needs and direction, and identifying additional “core” competencies as required

While “to-be” competencies are identified and modeled, NSF should explore using the current “core” competencies and existing competency models in ongoing recruiting, selecting, and training activities

31



Issues


Issues

NSF should continue to align its business strategies with human capital improvements and clarify and communicate HC management strategy and responsibilities


Modeling


Issues


Issues


Supply


Historically, NSF has not aligned business strategies with human capital and therefore has struggled to prepare for the impacts on its workforce stemming from changes in business practices, increased automation and growth in workload

NSF should ensure that a human capital management expert is identified and included in strategic business and operational decisions

Develop a Human Capital Management Plan in Task 5 to provide an actionable “roadmap” and direction for improving human capital management within NSF and within the HRM Division

NSF should clarify and communicate HCM responsibilities and develop accountability mechanisms; develop approaches to better recruit and train individuals who will hold HC management positions

While HRM currently provides both strategic and operational support to NSF, HRM could provide a more consultative role to help guide management of human capital issues and may need to improve its competencies in order to do so

Identify and define HRM’s strategic roles and responsibilities and associated competencies; consider restructuring HRM to optimize the balance between new strategic roles and ongoing operational responsibilities; assess needs and identify training opportunities to build critical competencies for HR professionals


Historically, NSF has not aligned business strategies with human capital and therefore has struggled to prepare for the impacts on its workforce stemming from changes in business practices, increased automation and growth in workload

NSF should ensure that a human capital management expert is identified and included in strategic business and operational decisions

Develop a Human Capital Management Plan in Task 5 to provide an actionable “roadmap” and direction for improving human capital management within NSF and within the HRM Division

NSF should clarify and communicate HCM responsibilities and develop accountability mechanisms; develop approaches to better recruit and train individuals who will hold HC management positions

While HRM currently provides both strategic and operational support to NSF, HRM could provide a more consultative role to help guide management of human capital issues and may need to improve its competencies in order to do so

Identify and define HRM’s strategic roles and responsibilities and associated competencies; consider restructuring HRM to optimize the balance between new strategic roles and ongoing operational responsibilities; assess needs and identify training opportunities to build critical competencies for HR professionals

NSF Progress

NSF Progress

HCMP Action

NSF Progress

32



Issues


Issues

NSF should explore creating a workforce plan / blueprint to determine future workforce size, composition, and mix


Modeling


Issues


Issues


Supply


Workforce requirement data compiled in support of budget requests does not currently support the development of organization-wide workforce plans. Aside from a specific diversity-in-hiring goal and an identified need for 150 additional FTE, NSF has few stated workforce goals.

NSF should consider establishing a blueprint or model of NSF’s future workforce that incorporates key workforce elements including workforce size, composition, structure, and mix and that supports expected future business needs

Employee time spent in training and corresponding budgetary support have consistently grown since FY2000. NSF’s training and development opportunities, including NSF Academy curricula, are not yet tied to specific positions, job families, or competencies.

NSF should consider using current competency models to assess and identify immediate training and development needs and should explore revising training course content accordingly

NSF’s employee performance management system does not clearly distinguish between high and low performers

NSF should consider devising the requirements for a competency-based or other performance management system


Workforce requirement data compiled in support of budget requests does not currently support the development of organization-wide workforce plans. Aside from a specific diversity-in-hiring goal and an identified need for 150 additional FTE, NSF has few stated workforce goals.

NSF should consider establishing a blueprint or model of NSF’s future workforce that incorporates key workforce elements including workforce size, composition, structure, and mix and that supports expected future business needs

Employee time spent in training and corresponding budgetary support have consistently grown since FY2000. NSF’s training and development opportunities, including NSF Academy curricula, are not yet tied to specific positions, job families, or competencies.

NSF should consider using current competency models to assess and identify immediate training and development needs and should explore revising training course content accordingly

NSF’s employee performance management system does not clearly distinguish between high and low performers

NSF should consider devising the requirements for a competency-based or other performance management system

HCMP Action

HCMP Action

HCMP Action

33


Table of Contents

Project Background





– Human Capital


Next Steps

34


Evaluation Criteria

Increase responsiveness

Drive excellence

Promote agility

Build workforce

Foster innovation

Reinforce core values

By developing evaluation criteria and ranking NSF against these criteria, the Business Framework Assessment working group found areas for improvement in future business models

Evaluation Criteria Description

Provide effective and responsible stewardship of the public trust

Current Position

Weak Strong

Foster excellence and innovation in S&ER&E

1 2 3 4 5

Explore and promote high risk forefront S&ER&E

Attract, develop, retain and maximize the impact of a talented workforce

Meet changing needs and requirements through agility and innovation

Instill and continually reinforce NSF core values

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

NA 2 3 4 5

?

Source: Generated by Business Framework Assessment working group, September 9, 2003

35


NSF highlighted key areas where current business processes do not meet future needs – linking planning to resource allocation and performance was listed as critical

StrategicLeadership

StrategicLeadership

Critical Capabilities

Critical Capabilities

Identityand Values

Identityand Values

BudgetAllocation

BudgetAllocation

Processes & Systems

Processes & Systems

HoldingCo.

HoldingCo.

Strat.Oversight

Strat.Oversight

ActiveMgmt

ActiveMgmt

Op.Involved

Op.Involved

PerformanceManagement

PerformanceManagement

Source: Generated by Business Framework Assessment working group, September 23, 2003 and Booz Allen Analysis

FindingsFindings

NSF does not have a core values statement (NSF has mission statement)

The currently PA&A process is retrospective and is not linked to RA process

NSF currently has training through academy but no developmental planning

Lack critical linkage between RA, PA&A and planning processes

NSF does not have a unified IT standard

Lacking critical linkage between planning, RA and PA&A processes

N/AN/A Implications for DesignImplications for Design

With greater oversight and accountability NSF will have the difficult task of justifying how it has chosen to spend its budget based upon its strategic goals, performance and budget allocation targets. NSF should have a core business process which links RA, PA&A and strategic goals. As NSF grows it will have in place a set of guiding principles in the form of its core values that will allow NSF to never loose sight of its most important attributes. It will also provide a vehicle for ensuring organizational integrity . NSF should have a core values statement shared across organization

With increased oversight and accountability NSF needs to have a system by which PA&A will feedback directly into the strategic planning, program planning and RA decision making process

As NSF continues to grow it will become increasing more dependent upon optimizing human capital potential and given this need NSF should have a developmental plan for each employee and employee category

Without a well defined linkage between RA,PA&A and strategic goals how will NSF decide how to best direct limited resources in the face of greater monetary demands by the S&ER&E community. NSF should have a strategic planning and program planning core business process that links all of the above factors to RA.

In an environment of increased demand and complexity there will be a need to exploit opportunities to improve organizational efficiency in terms of devising better strategies for shared services in particular NSF should have a unified IT platform

CriticalFocus

Required

36


Source: Business Framework Assessment (e.g., Visioning Sessions and Stakeholder Analysis) Booz Allen analysis and Administration & Management Strategic Plan

Strategic and program planning should be the core business processes that link RA, MR, AM&O and PA&A into a robust performance management cycle

“Mission Direct”(Core) Processes“Mission Direct”(Core) Processes

StrategicPlanningStrategicPlanning

ProgramPlanningProgramPlanning

Resource AllocationResource Allocation


Award Management

and Oversight

Award Management

and Oversight


and Accountability


and Accountability

New Core ProcessesNew Core Processes

“Mission Support”Processes*

“Mission Support”Processes*

Administrative MgmtAdministrative MgmtFinancial MgmtFinancial Mgmt

Human Resource MgmtHuman Resource MgmtInternal Risk MgmtInternal Risk MgmtKnowledge MgmtKnowledge Mgmt

Legislative CreationLegislative CreationPublic AffairsPublic Affairs

Regulatory CreationRegulatory CreationSupply Chain MgmtSupply Chain MgmtTechnology MgmtTechnology Mgmt

* These processes are in compliance with OMB Business Reference Model

37


Table of Contents

Project Background





– Human Capital


Next Steps

38


Where are we going from here?

Preparation for Director/AD briefing on October 28

Business ProcessBest practice research, scenario development, and preliminary business case development– Merit Review (MR)– Award Management & Oversight (AMO)– Resource Allocation (RA)– Performance Assessment and Accountability (PA&A)

Human Capital– Workload Survey– Prioritized Human Capital Management Plan (HCMP)– “As Is” Competencies– Finalize HCMP v1– Task 4 integration– Human Resource Management (HRM) Business Process Reengineering (BPR)

Tools and Technologies– Develop initial “Integrated IT Implementation Plan”– Update Enterprise Architecture– Develop IT Business Cases– Task 4 Integration

Documents

NSF Business & Operations Advisory Committee Meeting NSF Business Analysis Project Status