US Fish and Wildlife Service

778 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
778
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Before getting into our topic today – for those of you who are not familiar with the Fish and Wildlife Service – I would like to take a minute to tell you who we are: Our Mission is To Conserve, Protect and Enhance Fish, Wildlife, and Plants and their Habitats for the Continuing Benefit of the American People and that this mission can only be accomplished by working with our many partners. The Service has been around since 1871 and although it has been run by at least three departments and endured many changes, its mission has remained remarkably consistent for the last 132 years.
  • Mission Delivery -- through a wide range of federal legislation including responsibility for the protection and conservation of migratory birds, recovery of threatened and endangered species, protection of certain marine mammals and restoration of interjurisdictional fisheries. As Secretary Scarlett mentioned earlier – The Service manages nearly 550 National Wildlife Refuges encompassing 95 million acres that provide exception wildlife experience for the public and provide important habitat for hundreds of migratory birds, endangered species and native fisheries; operates 70 NF Hatcheries – focused on the restoration of declining fish populations; and Administers the Endangered Species Act - an important piece of legislation that asks the Service to identify species that are in danger of extinction and to pursue recovery of these species. We are a decentralized agency – of nearly 10,000 employees and $1.9 billion –
  • Denise – Opening Remarks ….. This Briefing will Cover: The FWS cost and performance framework Identify the Service’s objectives for transitioning to a culture of performance based decision-making & strategies focus on Create an Environment of Management Excellence, And How implementation of this Framework would lead to successful integration of Budget and Performance, And than - we would like to show you a strategic application and a more tatical application of cost and performance Cost and Performance in Action Strategic application: FY08 Priority Setting and Budgeting Tactical application: FY07 Program Budget Justification Like to Demo the Business Intelligence tools that are making cost and performance transparent and accessible to the field and managers Decision Support Tools Demonstration Cost analysis Cost & Performance Reporting Integrating Organization & Employee Performance Finally, the Lesson Learned & Best Practices NEXT SLIDE
  • Ok – lets get down to business…. To be results-oriented, managers must ask themselves if the programs they administer are achieving the desired result at an acceptable cost. being results-oriented is about delivering results AND also about our having an expectation that costs will be managed. This translated to four Key Objectives for the Service: We needed to: Understand the full Cost of Business Operations as a foundation for knowing “What Acceptable Costs Are”. Visibility of the Cost of Results -- have a clear line of sight between costs and performance/results. It is about having a systematic and deliberate approach to using resources to achieve intended goals . integrate this knowledge in our resource decision processes – through budget formulation and execution as well as our human resource management assessment. Finally – Using these tools to investigate opportunities to streamline business processes -- We did just that on the Adm Study and hope to use cost & performance information to support our FY ’07 HR line of business initiative for shared services. NEXT SLIDE
  • Complete alignment of program work to Service & DOI Performance The key to all of this work was our completion this year of the mapping of our performance metrics for all programs to cross-functional FWS-wide goals, then to the DOI goals, measures and mission areas. FWS Measurement Framework - is based on the performance prism (Kennerley & Neely) the strength is that it unifies existing measurement frameworks and builds upon their individual strengths. ABC is strong in that it explicitly recognizes the importance of activities and processes, but weak in that it does not link these processes back to strategies (FWS programs) or stakeholders (employees & external partners). Performance Prism -addresses these and other issues, by providing an integrated framework with which to view organizational performance. In addition, FWS has made use of performance success maps (or cause and effect diagrams ) - identified in our framework as critical success factors. This allows us to focus on few measures. Mapping of ABC Costs to Performance This performance mapping, combined with the mapping of the ABC costs to the same set of goals, enable us for the first time to create a view of both performance and costs from which to make decisions. Performance Based budgeting relies on two key factors – that we have developed an integrated and comprehensive set of program goals and measures and that we have aligned our ABC – work activities and tasks to them. Green Box – lower right side -- Costs (labor and non-labor) that are captured through our work activities are linked to specific sets of measures and goals (purple box) providing a full cost for goal achievement by program goal (gold box) and by Service goal (blue box) . Costs will be viewed by unit and in total. All of our costs and goals will be aligned to the Departments Goals – so ultimately the Department will be showing full cost for their goals as well as cost of each output. SES Performance Standards is shown here as directly – there have been questions concerning how we might deal with not only the SES performance level of accountability get the lofty goals to the field level of engagement. Because we have aligned and integrated programmatic level performance accountability including PART and MBOs into a single performance based system – it is much easier for field employees to see where they fit into the program level and how that program level relates to FWS mission and DOI mission. NEXT SLIDE
  • Complete alignment of program work to Service & DOI Performance The key to all of this work was our completion this year of the mapping of our performance metrics for all programs to cross-functional FWS-wide goals, then to the DOI goals, measures and mission areas. FWS Measurement Framework - is based on the performance prism (Kennerley & Neely) the strength is that it unifies existing measurement frameworks and builds upon their individual strengths. ABC is strong in that it explicitly recognizes the importance of activities and processes, but weak in that it does not link these processes back to strategies (FWS programs) or stakeholders (employees & external partners). Performance Prism -addresses these and other issues, by providing an integrated framework with which to view organizational performance. In addition, FWS has made use of performance success maps (or cause and effect diagrams ) - identified in our framework as critical success factors. This allows us to focus on few measures. Mapping of ABC Costs to Performance This performance mapping, combined with the mapping of the ABC costs to the same set of goals, enable us for the first time to create a view of both performance and costs from which to make decisions. Performance Based budgeting relies on two key factors – that we have developed an integrated and comprehensive set of program goals and measures and that we have aligned our ABC – work activities and tasks to them. Green Box – lower right side -- Costs (labor and non-labor) that are captured through our work activities are linked to specific sets of measures and goals (purple box) providing a full cost for goal achievement by program goal (gold box) and by Service goal (blue box) . Costs will be viewed by unit and in total. All of our costs and goals will be aligned to the Departments Goals – so ultimately the Department will be showing full cost for their goals as well as cost of each output. SES Performance Standards is shown here as directly – there have been questions concerning how we might deal with not only the SES performance level of accountability get the lofty goals to the field level of engagement. Because we have aligned and integrated programmatic level performance accountability including PART and MBOs into a single performance based system – it is much easier for field employees to see where they fit into the program level and how that program level relates to FWS mission and DOI mission. NEXT SLIDE
  • FWS focused on building a measurement system that: Easily communicated our strategy among ourselves, to our employees and to others Created a shared understanding of the strategy so that we could create alignment of resources – human and financial around it. Communicates direction and priorities – using the relationship of component programs to successfully achieve full agency performance. This strategy map provides a uniform and consistent way to describe our objectives and measures in relation to the Secretary’s end outcome measures. This complete alignment gets to the practical application – of strategy execution. Here is a picture of how FWS has completed its mapping of costs and performance: BOTTOM to TOP: From its lowest level program goals (NOT SHOWN) to Critical Success Factors (cross-functional/cross-program) to FWS Operational Plan Goals (cross-functional/cross-program) to DOI End Outcome Measures & Goals (cross-agency) to DOI Goals and Mission Components FWS can now drive both costs and performance from the CSF level to the DOI End Outcomes, Goals, and Mission Components. We will be tracing one goal from FWS Programs to FWS goals to DOI level. …. We have outlined the box in red – DOI 1 – Wetlands, to FWS Op1A to 3 separate Critical Success Factors.
  • This is the Strategy Map – in action – showing the relationship of multiple programs their respective work as it contributes to a our Critical Success Factors – Aligning goals and measures required identification of both "critical success factors" and workload indicators Critical Success Factors are those meaningful measures that are key indicators of success in deliver of the DOI and FWS Performance Goal This is a sample of the hierarchy of performance across the organization – with a complete integration of program measures – including all PART measures to a cross functional set of FWS Operational Goals ABC Costs are collected at the CSF level. This complete integration of FWS work is intended to convey the complementary diciplines used by FWS necessary to achieve any single operational performance goal. It is our intention to communicate that simply making resource decisions by functional budget activity without regard to the relationship of the pieces as strategies to accomplishing the whole can be shortsighted and detrimental to achievement of mission objectives of the agency or department. We consider this integration and alignment (Strategy Mapping) essential to Budget & Performance Integration for any organization.
  • Example of how Jane Fish's costs are mapped to the FWS Ops Plan Jane Fish is in the Partners program, her related costs in this example are $21,087. During the time period, she charged 421 hrs to activity J5 and 189 hrs to activity 3C. Her costs of $21,087 were assigned accordingly to the 2 activities she charged Next, her costs associated with activity J5 ($15,853) were mapped one-to-one to CSF 1.1, Wetlands acres restored . Her costs associated with activity 3C were mapped to CSF's 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3, evenly. Next, we will show how Jane Fish's and all FWS's costs roll-up beyond the CSF level, up to the DOI Mission Components. NEXT PAGE
  • This slide shows how costs roll up from an individual person all the way up to a DOI Mission Component. In this example, we show how costs for all ABC activities related to CSF's 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 roll up. In the yellow boxes, you can see the percent contribution of each CSF to FWS Op Goal 1A. At the FWS Op Goal level, you can see the percent contribution (22%) of this goal to DOI 1, Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Acres. There are other FWS Op Goals that contribute to DOI 1. The rest of the mapping up to the DOI Mission Component level is based on the DOI Strategic Plan
  • Let’s look at that on the NEXT SLIDE.
  • Let’s look at that on the NEXT SLIDE.
  • . FWS used this model for the FY 2008 budget formulation exercise With the mapping of costs and performance complete, we were able to look at the Service from a cross-functional, cross-program perspective. We are no longer limited to looking at our resources simply by program or subactivity. Rather than looking at the budget as a set of program-by-program “budget buckets” – we looked at Operational Goal “budget buckets” -- using performance trend data (FY 2005-2007) and the cost data (projected FY 2007 & 8 costs based on FY 2005 & 2006 ABC data). This was our second year of using performance-based budget view to focus our budget formulation decision process. Decision are made initially at the Operational Goals level – e.g., How much do we want to fund wetland restoration vs. species of management concern vs. protection of cultural properties Let’s see how that looks, beginning with an overview of where our resources rack up in the big DOI buckets. – NEXT PAGE – NEXT SLIDE
  • Prior to the National Leadership meeting, each member of the FWS directorate was asked to do some homework prior to the session. Each member was asked to determine Service priorities for FY’08 based on the FWS Operational Plan Performance goals – each member was asked to rank 35 performance goals – on what they thought was most important for the bureau in the next few years. . Remembering that this was a budget exercise – but in the context of performance and cost. - there was a hard budget planning target each directorate member needed to reach. considered the three-year (FY 2005-2006-2007) performance data, The FY07 PB – in relation to perfomrance is based on actual ABC cost data from FY2005 & annualized 2006 projected to FY 2007 & 2008. Directorate members were asked to indicate their priority by increase, decreasing or no-change in the purple column – This exerxas well as an initial cost per unit, i.e., cost per acre restored) and decided how to spread the target (in this case a cut of $50 million) against the range of 27 Operational Goals. Each decision was based on a change (cut or increase) by percentage to the expected performance targets and, therefore, to the dollars.
  • At the national meeting – directorate members were provided with the summary of results in rank order – votes to increase or decrease. Highest priority perfomrance goals in this instance Members could easily see the projected performance and the project cost of performance based on their consolidate ranking of performance goals.
  • Comparison data was provided to the directorate to focus their conversations on those perfomrance goals where there was a great disparity between members.. As you can see for Ops 4 Known Contaminate sites remediate – at least one member voted to increase that goal by 20% while another member eliminated funding altogether.
  • By focusing the dicussion on mission perfomrance at an enterprise level where program level inforamtion was not appararent – decision makers were asked to engage in a dialogue of reaching agreement on What Results were the Most important for FWS to delivery in 2008 –
  • Let’s look at that on the NEXT SLIDE.
  • NEXT SLIDE.
  • Lessons learned Successful BPI only with full engagement of senior management Increasing opportunities to use cost & performance where the result is important to managers and employees Next steps Work with senior management to incorporate FWS performance budget model at the program/regional level for the FY08 budget process Increase opportunities to identify least cost/best quality business operations – using cost/performance Best Practices Strategy mapping alignment to get full cost of performance Rethinking how PART review is structured – Basis should be at the cross functional performance results level. Closing Remarks Thank you for giving us this opportunity to share our work on cost and performance integration …..
  • US Fish and Wildlife Service

    1. 1. US Fish and Wildlife Service Managing for Results and Sustaining Excellence May 23, 2006 DOI Business Conference
    2. 2. Fish and Wildlife Service mission Working with Others -- To Conserve, Protect and Enhance Fish, Wildlife, and Plants and their Habitats for the Continuing Benefit of the American People
    3. 3. Fish and Wildlife Service: Some of the things we do Stewards of 545 National Wildlife Refuges – 95 million acres of public lands. Manage 70 National Fish Hatcheries –restore depleted native & recreational fish Administer the Recovery of Endangered & Threatened Species – over 1200 in the U.S. Promote & Support Voluntary Partnerships to Conserve Important Habitats . Provide fish & wildlife consultation services to partners. Our Customers : The Service works with diverse partners, including other federal agencies, state and local governments, tribes, international organizations, and private organizations and individuals.
    4. 4. Agenda <ul><li>Cost & Performance Framework </li></ul><ul><li>Linking Organizational Performance to Employee Performance </li></ul><ul><li>Web-Based Support Tools </li></ul>
    5. 5. FWS Cost & Performance Objectives <ul><li>Visibility of the cost of &quot;Results” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensure that the programs are achieving desired results at an acceptable cost </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tie Organizational Performance to Employee Performance </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Understand the full cost of business operations </li></ul><ul><li>Streamline business processes and develop a performance-based culture </li></ul>
    6. 6. FWS Performance Cost Management Framework DOI Strategic Plan End Outcomes Goals FWS Operational Plan Performance Goals & Measures Programs Critical Success Factors (CSF) Link to Performance Budget Program Performance Measures & Program Workload Measures PART OMB Reviews ABC Activities & Tasks cost to PM & Goals $ & Staff SES Performance Plans Mission Goals Process Goals & MBOs A comprehensive performance management solution --integrating budgeting, planning processes with financial and performance data systems. Framework introduces &quot;cascading&quot; measures from DOI to FWS Programs
    7. 7. FWS Performance Cost Management Framework DOI Strategic Plan End Outcomes Goals FWS Operational Plan Performance Goals & Measures Programs Critical Success Factors (CSF) Link to Performance Budget Program Performance Measures & Program Workload Measures PART OMB Reviews ABC Activities & Tasks cost to PM & Goals $ & Staff SES Performance Plans Mission Goals Process Goals & MBOs A comprehensive performance management solution --integrating budgeting, planning processes with financial and performance data systems. Framework introduces &quot;cascading&quot; measures from DOI to FWS Programs
    8. 8. FWS Performance Management and Accountability DOI Strategic Plan – FWS Accountability 52 FWS GPRA Goals PART Measures, Recommendations & Milestones President's Management Agenda (PMA) Scorecards <ul><li>FWS Operational Plan </li></ul><ul><li>Organizational Accountability </li></ul><ul><li>37 Operational Plan Goals </li></ul><ul><li>101 Critical Success Factors Program Performance Measures </li></ul><ul><li>PMA Scorecard Measures. </li></ul><ul><li>PART Measures </li></ul><ul><li>Assistant Directors </li></ul><ul><li>SES Performance Plan-Required: </li></ul><ul><li>Performance Element 1A </li></ul><ul><li>52 DOI GPRA Goals - Non Target - Oversight </li></ul><ul><li>Performance Element 1B </li></ul><ul><li>6 FWS Operational Plan Goals - LE, IA, AFA. </li></ul><ul><li>17 FWS Operational Plan PART Measures - oversight </li></ul><ul><li>Performance Element II </li></ul><ul><li>PMA </li></ul><ul><li>Regional Directors </li></ul><ul><li>SES Performance Plan-Required: </li></ul><ul><li>Performance Element 1A </li></ul><ul><li>52 DOI GPRA Goals-Target Specific </li></ul><ul><li>Performance Element 1B </li></ul><ul><li>17 FWS Operational Plan PART Measures </li></ul><ul><li>2 FWS Operational Plan Goals Endangered Species & Refuges (25 measures) </li></ul><ul><li>Performance Element II </li></ul><ul><li>PMA </li></ul>
    9. 9. SES template: Operational plan performance measures for Region 1
    10. 10. Alignment of Performance
    11. 12. Getting Costs to Performance ABC Costs Mapped to FWS Critical Success Factors <ul><li>ABC activities are assigned 1:1 to program goals or assigned by repeatable/consistent methodology </li></ul>Resources ($, FTE) ABC Activities J5: Restore Wetlands $15,853 Jane Fish - Partners $21,087 CSF 1.3 Riparian stream/shoreline miles restored/enhanced $1,745 CSF 1.1 Wetland acres restored $17,597 CSF 1.2 Uplands acres restored $1,745 Critical Success Factors 1:1 .33 .33 .33 3C: Conduct Intra-service Consultations on FWS Enhancement and Restoration Projects $5,234 421 hrs 139 hrs
    12. 13. Getting Costs to Performance
    13. 14. CSF costs flow up to DOI Mission Components
    14. 15. Cost & Performance In Action <ul><li>Demo of decision support tools </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Enterprise Cost & Performance Analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Field Station </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Linking Organization & Employee Performance </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Strategic application: FY08 Budget - Setting Priorities using Cost & Performance </li></ul>
    15. 16. Mission/support program view
    16. 17. Field Station view by subactivity and enterprise business processes
    17. 18. Program costs for D2: Implement Recovery Actions
    18. 19. Program costs by subactivity for D2: Implement Recovery Actions
    19. 20. Critical success factor costs by program
    20. 22. SES template: Operational plan performance measures for Region 1
    21. 23. Cost & Performance In Action <ul><li>Demo of decision support tools </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Enterprise Cost & Performance Analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Field Station </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Linking Organization & Employee Performance </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Strategic application: FY08 Budget - Setting Priorities using Cost & Performance </li></ul>
    22. 24. Lets Start from a Different Perspective
    23. 25. Overview of the Decision Process Budget & performance target changes for each operational goal <ul><li>Step 1 – FWS Operational Plan Costs - by Category </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Explanation of What’s Included in Costs to Reach Budget Target </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Step 2 – Priority Setting </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Doing the Homework prior to National Meeting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Results Summary </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reaching Agreement on Priorities - Directorate Exercise </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Step 3 – Crosswalk Priorities to Programs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify the % change in Performance and Costs for each Program - Directorate Exercise </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Step 4 – View Results – Ops Plan Performance & Costs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Show Results by Performance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Show Results by Budget Activity/Subactivity </li></ul></ul>
    24. 26. Step 1 -- FWS FY08 Baseline Costs by Performance Categories Goal Categories   $2,274,061 Tribes (1 item) $79,873,831 Recreation (4 items)                         $853,053,000 Total                       $4,140,100 Cultural Resources (3 items)     $41,702,167 Community Facilities ( 1 item)     $283,962,473 T&E (11 items)     $60,973,394 Fisheries (1 Ops goals)     $71,505,963 Birds and Indicator Species (3 Ops goals)     $308,621,011 Habitat ( 13 Ops goals)   FY07 Baseline – estimated RM costs                
    25. 27. Directorate Homework - Setting Priorities by FWS Ops Goal Using Performance & Cost Bank Account Target
    26. 28. Step 2 -- Results Summary Priority Order by Mission Category & Ops Plan Goals ( SAMPLE DATA)
    27. 29. Variation in Levels of Directorate Priority Setting Reduction Amount Habitat Goals -120% -100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% OP 1A OP 1B OP 2A OP 2B OP 3 OP 4 OP 5 OP 14 OP 15 OP 17 OP 24 OP 25 NFWF Max Vote Min Vote Dir Avg   Habitat NFWF NFWF Maintain unplanned wildland fires OP 25 Acres treated in WUI OP 24 Special Designation areas OP 17 Change in Invasive, aquatic, terrestrial populations OP 15 Reduce invasive plants OP 14 Protect, Manage, Restore ground waters OP 5 Known contaminated sites remediated OP 4 Non-WUI fuel reduction OP 3 Protect marine/coastal OP 2B Restore/enhance marine/coastal OP 2A Manage/protect acres OP 1B Restore/enhance acres OP 1A Goal Description OP Goal #
    28. 30. Reaching Agreement on Priorities
    29. 31. Step 2 -- Directorate - Reaching Agreement on Priorities % Increase, decrease, keep the same Bank Account Directorate Average
    30. 32. Step 3 - Looking Inside the Goals is what counts
    31. 33. Step 3 -- Decision -- Identify the Level of Program Contribution to Ops Plan Goal (within the constraints of overall Ops Goal Performance & Funding Decisions from Day 1) Program performance & costs
    32. 34. Step 4: View Results by Performance Goal (SAMPLE DATA) Output of exercise (cost & performance) by performance goal
    33. 35. Step 4: View Results by Budget Activity/sub-activity (SAMPLE DATA) Output of exercise by budget activity/subactivity
    34. 36. Cost & Performance In Action <ul><li>Demo of decision support tools </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Linking Organization & Employee Performance </li></ul></ul>
    35. 37. <ul><li>Thank You! </li></ul>
    36. 38. Cost & Performance In Action <ul><li>Demo of decision support tools </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Enterprise Cost & Performance Analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Field Station </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Linking Organization & Employee Performance </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Strategic application: FY08 Budget - Setting Priorities using Cost & Performance </li></ul><ul><li>Tactical application: FY07 Hatcheries Budget Justification </li></ul>
    37. 39. 2007 President’s Budget - Hatchery Operations Program Performance Narrative With the requested funds, the NFHS will implement 15 high-priority recovery projects, which will result in completion of tasks prescribed in Recovery Plans to accelerate the recovery of Gila and Apache trout, other listed cutthroat trout species, and Federally-listed native freshwater mussel species. At the end of FY 2007, the NFHS expects to have implemented 91 production tasks (+5%) and 80 applied science and technology tasks (+9%) prescribed in Recovery Plans. The NFHS expects to have implemented 254 NFHS-related captive production tasks (+3%) prescribed by fishery management plans at the end of FY 2007. Hatchery Operations +3,877 0 44,538 364 +3,241 0 +636* 40,661 364 38,181 364 Hatchery Operations $(000) FTE Budget Request Program Changes (+/-) Fixed Costs & Related Changes (+/-) Change From 2006 (+/-) FY 2007 FY 2006 Enacted FY 2005 Actual Hatchery Operations and Maintenance
    38. 40. Performance & Budget Integration FY’07 President’s Budget - Fish Hatchery Operations DOI - % of species of Management Concern that are managed to self-sustaining levels
    39. 41. FWS Quarterly Report on Cost/Performance
    40. 42. Lessons learned and Next Steps <ul><li>Performance & Cost Budgeting </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Provides Decision-makers with a different perspective </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Focus enterprise (FWS Ops Goal) level result </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Provides decision makers with a broader and less constrained view of tools available to achieve results performance view sees the result as broader than the program allowing multiple program contributions as solution. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Next Steps </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Improve performance measures sensitivity to cost </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify performance measures cost range </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conduct a specific business process analysis to improve efficiency; maintain effectiveness - if implemented would return savings to field delivery </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Best Practices </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Strategy mapping alignment to get full cost of performance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rethinking how PART review is structured – Basis should be at the portfolio level - FWS Ops Plan - and cross functional performance results level. </li></ul></ul>
    41. 43. Review of Refuges Annual Performance Plan (RAPP)
    42. 44. Lesson Learned (SAMPLE DATA) Reallocations within a goal can accomplish the desired result Performance-based view allows insight into how to use other “tools” (programs) to get results
    43. 45. Managing FWS Performance & Cost Data Planning & Reporting Accountability

    ×