Department Of Commerce
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Department Of Commerce

on

  • 773 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
773
Views on SlideShare
772
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
18
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Department Of Commerce Department Of Commerce Presentation Transcript

  • Department of Commerce President’s Management Agenda
  • PMA Scorecard March 31, 2007 Of the 26 agencies included in the Scorecard (23 CFO Act agencies plus 3 others), DOC is 1 of 8 maintaining a “ Green ” rating in Financial Performance from March 31, 2006 to March 31, 2007.
  • PMA Scorecard DOC Current Status Scores – Q4/FY06 and Qs1&2 FY07
  • Department of Commerce PMA Human Capital Initiative Overview, Results, & Planned Actions
    • Janice L. Guinyard
    • Director, Office of Corporate Human Capital Strategy and Workforce Initiatives
  • Department of Commerce PMA Human Capital Initiative Overview, Results, & Planned Actions
    • Executive Scorecard Overview
    • Actions Taken To Produce Results
    • Strengths, Weaknesses, & Vulnerabilities
    • Leadership Priorities for Improvement
    • Questions & Answers
  • Executive Scorecard Overview
    • Human Capital Plan
    • Organizational Structures
    • Succession Strategies
    • Performance Appraisal and Awards Systems
    • Under Representation
    • Competency Gaps
    • 45-day Time to Hire Standard
    • SES Hiring Timelines
    • Accountability Reviews
  • Actions Taken to Produce Results
    • Launched the Career Assistance Program
    • Closed Skill Gaps with Leadership Development and Certificate Programs for GS-4 through SES
    • Conducted Commerce-wide Training Sessions
    • - Tools and Techniques for Finding the Best Talent
    • - How to Deal with Poor Performers
    • - Supervisory Training open to Team Leaders
    • - Building IDPs
    • - Conflict Management
    • Launching new Commerce Learning Center
  • Actions Taken to Produce Results
    • Conducted Commerce HR Summits
    • Conducted HR 4 U Sessions with Newsletters
    • Launched Commerce HR Performance Measurement Survey
    • Reduced non-SES Hiring Cycle Time from 146 days to 31 days
    • Implemented Commerce-wide Multi-tier Performance Management System
    • Conducted Performance Management Training Sessions at the Bureau-level
    • Received full certification for the Commerce SES Performance Appraisal System for FY 2007-2008
  • Actions Taken to Produce Results
    • Implemented Commerce-wide SES All Hands Sessions
    • Implemented Bureau-level Employee All Hands Sessions
    • Implemented Deputy Secretary Quarterly Organizational Performance Reviews with PMA Executive Scorecard Scoring for Bureaus
  • Department of Commerce 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey Results
    • Strengths
      • Creating continuous learning environment where employees are given opportunities to improve skills
      • Promoting teamwork as a means of working with others to get the job done
    • Weaknesses
      • Lack of communication regarding accomplishments, challenges, and issues in the organization
      • Need to improve performance management, specifically holding employees accountable for producing results and dealing with poor performers
    • Vulnerabilities
      • Implementing strategies to attract and retain a high performing workforce
      • Effectively communicating the vision for the future
  • Department of Commerce Leadership Priorities
    • Ensure effective and ongoing communication at the bureau-level from the top to line managers to entire workforce
    • Effective performance management that includes holding employees accountable for producing results appropriate to their level of responsibility, differentiating between various levels of performance, and providing consequences based on performance
    • Create continuous learning environment to equip employees with skills to perform jobs now and in the future based on organizational priorities
  • Competitive Sourcing Program at DoC - Highlights Mr. Al Sligh, Jr. 2007 Finance Conference
  • What is Competitive Sourcing
    • Competitive Sourcing is the method for competing “commercial in nature” activities
    • It is based on:
      • The revised A-76 circular competition process
      • The FAIR Act inventory process
        • Annual statutory requirement to review and publish a list of our commercial functions
          • The Act does not make it mandatory to compete or outsource our commercial functions
  • DoC’s Vision for Competitive Sourcing
    • Effective management tool to provide better, more efficient government programs and services that:
      • Support DOC’s mission
      • Provide best value to taxpayers
      • Occur in a way that is fair to employees
  • DoC Budget at a Glance Internal DoC Financial Assistance IAA/ MOU Procurement
  • DOC Approach: Feasibility Studies
    • Use inventory as tool to identify feasibility study opportunities each year
    • Conduct feasibility studies to determine:
      • Is workload data readily available/quantifiable?
      • Is there a commercial market available and interested?
      • Is there a good return on investment?
      • Are there high risks that cannot be mitigated?
    • If study results are favorable, recommend move to competition pre-planning phase
  • DOC Competitive Sourcing Six-Step Model Goal Accomplishments To Date and Ongoing Strategy Expected Results Carefully consider commercial functions and determine which are appropriate for competition (through feasibility studies) Thoughtfully pursue competition with appropriate planning and analysis so that standard and streamlined competitions are completed in a timely fashion and few publicly announced competitions are cancelled Use past experiences to improve future competitions, resulting in further success Develop long-term plans for continued, routine use of competitive sourcing as a management tool to improve mission effectiveness Monitor feasibility study and FAIR Act inventory progress Continue to monitor feasibility study progress; Submit inventory to OMB by 6/30 In August, operating units nominate studies to the CFO Council for review based on feasibility study results CFO Council selects which studies will be conducted to the greatest benefit of the agency CS program staff provide guidance and coordinate resources (e.g., Tiger Teams) Monitors status until complete, ensures data collection and capturing of best practices / lessons learned 1 2 3 4 5 6
    • Conduct June site visits with operating units:
    • Review and discuss any challenges, issues with inventory; gather info to improve future inventory collections, guidance and training needed (including POC for communications strategy development)
    • Obtain information on feasibility study progress
    • Conduct analysis of inventory (benchmark against like agencies and work with operating units to answer questions elaborate on inventory) before final submission to OMB by June 30.
    • Identify best candidates for potential competition (ROI) through the feasibility study approach
    • The inclusion of the CFO Council in the process will provide the following efficiencies / benefits:
    • Endorsement from a high-level steering group means greater accountability, visibility and consistency
    • Individual CFOs view nominations as a group to discuss “big hit” potential (e.g., 10 operating units have IT positions coded as commercial, for competition. Council can suggest one large study.
    Ongoing Data collection: Study status Cost and savings Best practices / lessons learned CS program office ensures data is collected frequently (for various reporting requirements) CS program office evolves into one that provides guidance and resources to help operating units conduct meaningful studies (Tiger Team concept) Audits program to continually improve
  • OAMFA’s Role
    • OAMFA is the central policy and oversight office
      • CFO Council has charter responsibility to foster competitive sourcing activities across bureaus
    • OAMFA program office provides assistance to the bureau CS POCs by:
      • Choosing feasibility study / competition targets
      • Training on key elements
      • Providing support to studies / competitions
      • Answering questions and providing guidance as needed
      • Ensuring milestones are met
      • Acting as liaison between bureaus and OMB
  • Current Status/Initiatives
    • Our President’s Management Agenda (PMA) implementation scores:
      • yellow in status
        • Potential for upgrade to green in status based on identifying additional competitions out of the 07 feasibility studies
      • green in progress for last six quarters
        • Much of this success is due to feasibility study approach
    • OS Photoshop competition is ongoing
      • Expect decision by 3 rd quarter, FY07
  • Results to Date
    • $7.9 million in savings from prior years’ competitions
    • Over $4M in savings ($22M over 5 years) from Census Bowie Computer Services Center competition
      • 30% operational savings
      • 65% per FTE savings
  • Current Challenges
    • Lack of “low hanging fruit” for competitions
    • OMB pressure to set specific target dates for new competition announcement and/or feasibility study completion targets
  • The Near Future
    • Develop our 08 Green Plan in coordination with the bureaus
      • Identify hard 08 and 09 feasibility study targets
    • Finalize our current 07 feasibility studies
      • Move to pre-planning depending on study outcome
    • Develop a program for post-accountability reviews
  • Department of Commerce Finance Conference PMA Scorecard – e-Gov Initiative Barry C. West Chief Information Officer May 30, 2007
  • 25 OMB E-Government Initiatives
    • Government to Government
    • Grants.gov
    • Geospatial One-Stop
    • Disaster Management
    • SAFECOM
    • E-Vital
    • Government to Business
    • E-Rulemaking
    • Expanding Electronic Tax Products For Businesses
    • Federal Asset Sales
    • International Trade Process Streamlining
    • Business Gateway
    • Consolidated Health Informatics
    • Government to Citizen
    • Recreation One-Stop
    • GovBenefits.gov
    • E-Loans
    • IRS Free File
    • USA Services
    • Internal Efficiency & Effectiveness
    • E-Training
    • Recruitment One-Stop
    • Enterprise Human Resources Integration
    • E-Clearance
    • E-Payroll
    • E-Gov Travel
    • Integrated Acquisition Environment
    • E-Records Management
    • Cross-Cutting
    • E-Authentication
  • Commerce Involvement in E-Government
    • Government to Government
    • Grants.gov
    • Geospatial One-Stop
    • Disaster Management
    • SAFECOM
    • E-Vital
    • Government to Business
    • E-Rulemaking
    • Expanding Electronic Tax Products For Businesses
    • Federal Asset Sales
    • International Trade Process Streamlining
    • Business Gateway
    • Consolidated Health Informatics
    • Government to Citizen
    • Recreation One-Stop
    • GovBenefits.gov
    • E-Loans
    • IRS Free File
    • USA Services
    • Internal Efficiency & Effectiveness
    • E-Training
    • Recruitment One-Stop
    • Enterprise Human Resources Integration
    • E-Clearance
    • E-Payroll
    • E-Gov Travel*
    • Integrated Acquisition Environment
    • E-Records Management
    • Cross-Cutting
    • E-Authentication
    * E-Gov Travel receives both Funding/In-Kind and Fee-For-Service Contributions Funding or In-Kind Contributions Fee-For-Service Commerce participates
  • Lines of Business: Overview The Lines of Business (LoBs) take an architecture-based approach to identifying, developing, and providing common solutions and components across the government.
    • Current Lines Of Business
    • Financial Management
    • Human Resources Management
    • Grants Management
    • Case Management
    • Federal Health Architecture
    • Information Systems Security
    • Geospatial
    • IT Infrastructure Optimization
    • Budget Formulation & Execution
    Denotes Funding or In-Kind Contributions
  • E-Government Initiatives: Adoption Focus FY 2006 - 2007 Focus FY 2006 and Prior LoB Framework Established E-Gov Initiatives Federal Enterprise Architecture President’s Management Agenda LoB Migrations Utilization and Adoption of E-Gov Initiatives Development of Self-Sustaining Business Models (e.g., Fee For Service) Cost-savings Improved Mission Performance Government-wide Adoption/Implementation In progress Not Started Complete FY 2007 - Beyond Focus
  • President’s Management Agenda DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    • Commerce remains Yellow for status and Green for progress.
    • DOC is not on target to meet its PTB4 goal of green for status in June primarily due to security and Earned Value Management (EVM) criteria.
    • DOC had a material weakness in IT security for FY06, with the goal of removing the basis for the material weakness in FY07. OMB staff met with DOC to discuss the status of the security weakness, and DOC is now anticipating a FY08 Q1 timeframe for completion.
    • For EVM, DOC must demonstrate in a meeting with the E-Gov Administrator that it uses EVM data to manage its major IT investments and that actual performance is within 10% of goals. Based on staff level conversations, this will not happen before the end of the PTB4 rating cycle, due to EVM compliance issues at the Patent & Trademark Office (PTO).
    • DOC has one business case on the Management Watch List (Patent Automation Program). All systems on the MWL will be published on April 16 th per this quarter’s Management Procedures Memo.
    • To get to green in status, Commerce must provide evidence for all “maintaining green” items in the quarterly FISMA Plan of Action & Milestones by June 15th.
    • Actions taken this quarter:
    • Revised Exhibit 300s and cleared all but 1 from the Management Watch List (MWL).
    • Posted redacted Exhibit 300s on Commerce’s Web site.
    • Met Q2 FY07 E-Gov Implementation Plan milestones and provided evidence of completion.
    • Submitted reports on high-risk systems, E-Gov investment non-duplication, and quarterly FISMA security and privacy reports.
    • Submitted annual Enterprise Architecture (EA).
    • Included benefits of E-Gov initiatives and Lines of Business in Commerce’s Congressional Budget Justification.
    • Selected a product suite for Department-wide e-mail consolidation.
    • Planned actions for next quarter:
    • By June 15, submit quarterly reports on: E-Gov Implementation Plan, high-risk systems, E-Gov investment non-duplication, FISMA security and privacy reports, and EA.
    • Demonstrate use of EVM data to manage the major IT portfolio; show actual performance to be within 10% of goals in a meeting with the E-Gov Administrator.
    • Receive clearance from Congress to fund Commerce’s participation in the E-Gov initiatives and Lines of Business.
    • Reach concurrence with OMB’s Office of E-Gov & IT on agency’s baseline cost estimates submitted in accordance with M-06-22, by the end of Q3FY07.
    Green Enterprise Architecture _ Has 4 in Completion and 3 Use or Results (Y) X Has 4 in Completion and 3 in both Use and Results (G) Q2 2007 Acceptable business cases for major Systems X for more than 50% (Y) Q2 2007 _ for all (G) Cost/schedule/performance adherence for major IT X overruns/shortfalls < 30% ( Q1 FY 2006 ) _ EVMS shows overruns/ shortfalls <10% (G) Security of all IT systems X 80% secured or IG verifies effectiveness (Y) Q2 2007 _ 90% secured (G) IG or Agency head verifies effective & rates certification as Satisfactory (G) E-Gov implementation X has current plan in place (Y) Q2 07 X adheres to agency-accepted and OMB approved implementation plan (G) Q2 2007 MAINTAINING GREEN all IT systems secure IT systems installed in accordance with security configurations X Privacy Impact Statements for 90% of applicable systems Q3 2006 X 90% of systems w/personally ID info have system of records Q2 2006 Yellow Next  est. by FY07 Q4 Initiative: E-GOVERNMENT DOC Lead: Barry West Lead RMO Examiner: David Connolly Lead IT/E-Gov Analyst: Wendy Liberante Jasmeet Seehra COMMENTS PROGRESS Second Quarter FY 2007 CURRENT STATUS (As of March 31, 2007)  
  • Moving to Green Current Status Progress FY07 Q2
    • Planned actions for next quarter:
    • Submit quarterly reports on: E-Gov Implementation Plan, high-risk systems, E-Gov investment non-duplication, FISMA security and privacy reports, and Enterprise Architecture (EA).
    • Demonstrate use of EVM data to manage the major IT portfolio; show actual performance to be within 10% of goals in a meeting with the E-Gov Administrator.
    • Receive clearance from Congress to fund Commerce’s participation in the E-Gov initiatives and Lines of Business.
    • Reach concurrence with OMB’s Office of E-Gov & IT on agency’s baseline E-Gov and LOB cost estimates by the end of Q3FY07.
  • Nearing Closure
    • FY 2007 E-Gov MOUs are staged for signing pending reprogramming approval
      • Reprogramming letters sent to the Hill April 5, 2007
      • Received request for additional information April 9, 2007; responded April 24, 2007
      • Status will go to “red” if reprogramming not approved by June 30, 2007
    • Approved Commerce E-gov Implementation Plan dated April 24, 2007
    • 15 non-MOU third quarter milestones; on track to complete by June 30, 2007
  • Questions? Barry C. West Chief Information Officer
  • BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE INTEGRATION INITIATIVE AND THE BUDGET FORMULATION AND EXECUTION LINE OF BUSINESS Steve Shapiro Chief, Systems, Policy, and Performance Division Office of Budget
  • BPI Scorecard
    • Six of the Department’s programs are currently undergoing PART review:
    • Decennial Census
    • Hydrology
    • Import Administration
    • Market Access & Compliance
    • Minority Business Development
    • National Marine Fisheries
    • DOC provided detailed responses to OMB’s questionnaire on splitting performance information from the current Performance and Accountability Reports (PAR).
    • Moving PART review earlier in the year to influence budget development and splitting performance information from the PAR were two of the recommendations of the BPI task force, on which DOC was an active participant.
    • Actions taken this quarter:
    • Ensured that performance information was included in Congressional Budget Justifications.
    • Submitted the performance-based FY 2008 President’s budget request to Congress.
    • Made the draft FY 2007-2012 DOC Strategic Plan available to Congress & stakeholders for review.
    • Reviewed first quarter program performance with the Deputy Secretary.
    • Completed first draft of all 2007 PARTs in PARTWeb for OMB review by March 30, 2007.
    • Conducted workshop for performance/BPI staffs in the DOC bureaus.
    • Planned actions for next quarter:
    • Work with OMB as they review and finalize PARTs and determine scores.
    • Review second quarter program performance with the Deputy Secretary.
    • Provide guidance to bureaus on developing and submitting FY 2009 budget requests.
    • Finalize and issue the final FY 2007-2012 DOC Strategic Plan after considering any input received from Congress or other stakeholders.
    • Update performance data and improvement plans to program entries in PARTWeb, ensuring that improvement plans are aggressive and the responsible managers are identified.
    Green Improved results/use of performance info _ X _ uses perf information to improve perf (Sep 2004) (Y) Strategic and annual plans _ X _ limited # of goals & use PART measures (Sep 2003) (Y) _ X _ AND focus on info used in senior mgmt. report (Jun 2004) (G) Cost of achieving performance goals _ X _ full cost reported (Sep 2003) (Y) _ X _ AND marginal cost reported (Jul 2006) (G) __ uses marginal cost analysis to inform resource allocations (G+) At least one efficiency measure per PARTed program _ X _ for all (Jul 2006) (G) _ X _ at least 50% (Sep 2004) (Y) Use of PART ratings _ X _ to justify requests, etc. and hold program managers accountable (Sep 2004) (G) _ X _ direct improvements justify requests, etc. (Sep 2004) (Y) % of PARTed programs rated Results Not Demonstrated for 2 yrs in a row _ X _ less than 10% (Mar 2006) (G) _ X _ no more than 50% (Sep 2003) (Y) [3% based on Budget Authority] Green Initiative : BUDGET & PERFORMANCE INTEGRATION DOC Lead : Otto Wolff Barbara Retzlaff Lead RMO Examiner: Robert Alderfer Lead BPI Analyst: James Hurban COMMENTS PROGRESS Second Quarter, FY 2007 CURRENT STATUS (As of March 31, 2007)  
  • Quarterly Performance Reviews President’s Management Agenda
    • Budget and Performance Integration
      • BPI Green Plan requirements were deleted and removed from BPI Scorecards as of Q2.
      • Stand-alone efficiency measure reports have been discontinued. OMB will likely require this information in another format.
      • OMB is giving agencies the option to split the PAR into separate performance and financial management reports for FY 2007. Much of the performance information could move to the APP.
      • OMB plans to revise Audit Bulletin 06-03 to clarify the scope of external financial audits with respect to performance data. These will be limited, consistent with current A-136 language.
      • OMB views Quarterly Performance discussions with the Deputy Secretary as key to improvement and accountability.
      • OMB is still considering the possible use of marginal cost measures in developing and submitting FY 2008 budgets.
  • PART Review History No DoC programs received an ineffective
  • Budget Formulation and Execution Line of Business (BFELoB)
    • An e-Gov interagency group formed to address Federal budget community issues and to:
      • Seek IT solutions for integrated, automated systems to support budget activities common to all agencies.
      • Help agencies consolidate budget system acquisitions and share service providers.
      • Improve and streamline budget processes by identifying best practices.
  • The Budget Execution and Financial Management (BE&FM) Workgroup
    • Budget Execution and Financial Management workgroup (BE&FM) is a sub-group of the BFELoB, chaired by Treasury FMS.
    • BE&FM coordinates with OMB (BRD), the Treasury FMS and Budget Formulation and Execution Management (BFEM) system team, and the FMLoB.
  • The Budget Execution and Financial Management (BE&FM) Workgroup
    • The BE&FM oversees an effort to help Federal agencies detect and improve reporting differences and variances between budget and financial reports before submitting quarterly and year-end reports.
    • The workgoup will also foster information flow between agencies, Treasury, and OMB, as well as creation of data exchange requirements concerning:
        • Apportionments
        • Allotments, Suballotments, Allowances
        • Commitments
        • Obligations
        • Reprogramming
        • Accounting
        • Funds Control
  • DoC Participation with BFELoB
    • Annual contribution:
      • $0 in FY 2007
      • $75,000 in FY 2008 passback
      • Use of systems such as Treasury’s BFEM represents an additional cost
    • OB Staff attend bi-weekly meetings of full BFELoB
    • Workgroups:
      • BE&FM: OB/BCRD and OFM staff
      • Earmarks: OB/TEP staff
      • Human Capital