FY02 ASA Presentation Lead and Manage ORS

1
FY02 ASA Presentation Lead and Manage ORS

• Presented by
• Shirl Eller, Director, Division of Intramural
  Research Services
• Office of Research Services
• National Institutes of Health
• 18 November 2002

2
(No Transcript)
3
Customer Segmentation

• ORS leaders have 3 primary customer segments
• ORS program staff
• NIH community at large
• NIH senior leaders/decision makers
• Groups surveyed/response rates
• ORS Leadership Group 66
• ORS Executive Committee 100
• NIH Senior Leaders 29
• NIH OD IC Scientific Directors, EOs, ORSAC,
  FARB

4
Unique Customer Measures

• ORS program managers/supervisors perception of
  involvement in decision making and business
  planning.
• Key external customers perception of the value
  ORS provides to the NIH.

5
Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Mean Ratings
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
6
Perceptions of Decision Making ORSEC FY01 and
FY02 Mean Ratings
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
7
Perceptions of Decision Making Leadership Group
FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
8
Conclusions of Decision Making

• EC members believe they have input into/authority
  to make decisions
• LG members believe they have input into/authority
  to make decisions in their own program areas
• LG members have lower perceptions of
  decision-making authority on improving ORS,
  ORS-wide initiatives, future direction of ORS
• FY01 FY02 ratings approximately the same for
  both groups
• Assumption Expect LG perceptions to change with
  new organizational structure governance model

9
Perceptions of Information AccessFY02 Mean
Ratings
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
10
Perceptions of Information AccessORSEC FY01 and
FY02 Mean Ratings
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
11
Perceptions of Information AccessLeadership
Group FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
12
Conclusions - Information Access

• EC members believe they have easy access to
  information needed and that program managers
  receive timely information.
• LG members rate access to timeliness
  information slightly lower
• FY02 ratings slightly lower than FY01 ratings for
  both groups indicating need to focus on better
  communication tools
• Assumption Expect LG perceptions to change with
  new organizational structure governance model

13
Perceptions of Understanding of ORS Business
Processes FY02 Mean Ratings
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
14
Conclusions - Understanding of Business Process

• LG members overall perceptions of their
  understanding of business processes slightly
  higher than EC members perceptions
• Most ratings near midpoint of scale indicating
  room for improvement
• Varied responses on 6 questions indicating
  respondents have very different perceptions of
  program manager understanding of business
  processes

15
Ratings of Satisfaction with Performance of ORS
Leadership during FY02
Unsatisfied
Outstanding
Mean Rating
16
Conclusions NIH Sr. Leader Survey

• Ratings of satisfaction with ORS leadership were
  all above the mid-point of the scale
• Most satisfied with how ORS advices NIH community
  on situations that impact daily activities
• Least satisfied with how ORS communicates with
  senior leaders about the determination of its
  fees
• Competence, handling of problems, reliability,
  responsiveness the highest rated dimensions that
  are important when considering ORS
  products/services
• Comments reinforced ratings data
• Positive about handling of campus and
  security-related matters
• Communicating methods for setting fees, managing
  facility issues needs improvement

17
Conclusions from Deployment Flowcharts

• Our Service Group completed 2 deployment
  flowcharts that cut across all 4 of our discrete
  services
• Budget Decision-making process
• Minimize number of iterations and provide more
  time for program mangers to accurately compile
  data
• Organizational Change Communications process
• Improve communications down and across ORS
• Apply lessons learned during successful DSFM
  realignment to current restructuring efforts

18
Process Measures

• Budget Decision-making
• Track lead time program managers have for initial
  development
• Track type number of questions at each stage
• Track number of iterations at each stage
• Study relationship between days allocated for
  development and number of iterations
• Assumption More development time more
  accuracy, fewer iterations

19
Process Measures

• Organizational Change Communications
• Track effectiveness of organizational change
  communications
• Use process flowchart to identify lessons learned
  from DSFM realignment communications and apply to
  current restructuring effort
• Track and classify questions received through ORS
  Employee Hotlines (e-mail and phone)
• Team developed automated web-based information
  management tool to collect and categorize data

20
Learning and Growth Perspective
No EEO complaints, ER or ADR cases
About 1 and 3/4 awards per employee
About 8 turnover
About 2 days sick leave per employee
All data within ORS mid to low range
21
Readiness Index

• Critically evaluate Managers and staff
  competencies and describe strategies for
  addressing gaps
• Critically evaluate tools and technology
  supporting discrete services and describe
  strategies for meeting deficits
• Forecast ability to meet future demands on
  service group with and without specific
  intervention
• Report on training infrastructure

22
Proposed Approach to Readiness Index Part
1Managers Competencies
23
Proposed Approach to Readiness Index Part 2
Staff Competencies
24
Proposed Approach to Readiness Index Part 3
Tools and Technology
25
Proposed Approach to Readiness Index Part 4
Capacity
26
Readiness IndexPart 5 Training infrastructure

• Is there a training plan for staff supporting
  this service group? Yes No
• Is the cost of the training plan within approved
  operating levels? Yes No
• What is the total budget for training? ______
• What is the average and range of planned
  expenditure per person? Total _______ Average
  ________ Range

27
Asset Utilization Measures

• ORS leaders attention is focused in three areas
• Program activities 64
• Corporate activities 34
• Professional development 2
• ORS leaders time is spent in three areas
• Management and service delivery 89
• Supervision 9
• Professional development 2

28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30
Unique Financial Measures

• Various views of overhead as a percent of program
  budget
• ORS Services Management Support - percent of
  overhead to total program
• Division support as a percentage of Division
  budget
• Division support as a percentage of program staff
• ORS Senior Leader Compensation

31
ORS OD Division Support as a of Total
Operations
Direct Program Activities in 000s
Total Operations in 000s
ORS OD as of Total Operations
Division Support as of Direct Operations
32
(No Transcript)
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
Recommendations

• Develop tools to collect and analyze readiness
  information
• Identify competencies
• Evaluate tools and technology
• Develop strategies to address gaps
• Develop and implement IDPs
• Develop and implement corporate communications
  strategy
• Information management tools
• Processes for information collection and
  dissemination
• Use data to guide implementation of restructuring
  plan and new governance model

36
Appendices

• Process maps
• Analysis of Lead and Manage Survey data

37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39
(No Transcript)
40
FY02 ORS Customer Survey Data for the Annual
Self Assessments Service Group 39 Lead and
Manage ORS ORSEC and Leadership Group
Surveys 11 November 2002 Condensed version
41
Summary of Survey Results

• Survey distribution
• Customer segmentation
• FY02 results, comments, and comparisons with FY01
  
• Decision making
• Information access
• ORS processes
• Resources
• Conclusions
• Appendices
• Individual question results
• Training detail

42
Lead and Manage ORSFY02 Survey Distribution
Number of Surveys Distributed 161 ORSEC
16 Leadership Group 145 NIH Sr.
Leaders 109 Number of Surveys
Returned 111 ORSEC 15 Leadership
Group 96 NIH Sr. Leaders
32 Response Rate 69 ORSEC 100 Leadershi
p Group 66 NIH Sr. Leaders 29
43
Lead and Manage ORSFY02 Customer Segmentation
44
Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Mean Ratings
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
45
Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Comments

• ORS needs to implement some information
  management strategies, processes and
  applications. Better communications up and down
  the line can lead to better decision making.
• Need to improve communication education across
  the organization. Overall, the staff doesnt
  have an understanding of what many of the
  divisions do. Had talked about tours of
  divisions would be a good start.
  Additionally, need to solicit input from
  stakeholders and then move to make a decision
  quickly too many things hang out there for too
  long. BUT, need to communicate the final
  decision to all appropriate parties sometimes
  this loop isnt closed making staff appear
  incompetent.
• Include Program level folks, aka branch chief in
  more information and decisions processes. Some
  division directors keep ORS management much too
  close to their chests. They prevent critical
  information from flowing up and down the
  organization. Hold leaders accountable for
  action and acting on decisions made. Clarify
  what decisions will be made by whom. Some should
  be executive Steves, some by the senior
  leaders for all of ORS, some by Division
  directors for their organizations, some by the
  branch chiefs for all of ORS, some by branch
  chiefs for their own organizations.
• Make decisions concerning A-76 and FAIR act and
  not evaluate to Nth degree and hold up
  recruitment/promotion actions.
• What is the Process?
• Seldom are the rank and file involved with
  decision making getting them involved prior to
  decisions been made may prove to be beneficial.

46
Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Comments
(cont.)

• Keep ORS employees apprised of important issues
  affecting ORS through a web newsletter and always
  solicit comments.
• Let employees have inputs as much as possible.
  This would be a more fair system in the decision
  making process and possibly meet the needs of
  both management and the customers.
• Better communication needs to be maintained.
  Often decisions are made which when taken at face
  value have no impact on this Division but when
  implemented in fact do. This happens because
  there is a general lack of understanding of the
  total services provided.
• Embrace diversity at all levels.
• To improve the decision making process, ORS must
  function as a corporation. ORS must truly
  understand the service groups and what they do to
  make proper decisions relating to all ORS
  services.
• Decisions should be mission-driven and rooted in
  delegation of authority, with more emphasis on
  preservation and viability of assets and less
  emphasis on political expediency.
• Information needs to flow down. Utilize the web
  more.
• It seems to me that the decisions have already
  been made up in ORS upper management and then
  they attempt to "sell" the decisions down the
  line, or give the rest of the ORS the illusion of
  having real input into the decisions.
• Transparency and accountability

47
Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Comments
(cont.)

• When making decisions consult with the
  individuals, who are closest to the effects or
  execution, of the decision. They may share
  potential outcomes of the final decision, that
  may yield better results, as opposed to decisions
  made by individual layers.
• Have decision making individuals understand the
  impact of their decisions in relation to the
  employees they affect. Keep employees informed
  and reduce time it takes to change process
• Continue in the direction you are currently
  heading.
• Understand better the services needed and the
  services provided. There is a lot of talent here
  and we can change to provide the most up to date
  service required by the occupants we serve.
• At this time I feel that I have sufficient
  opportunity to make decisions about the program
  that allow it to function and meet the needs of
  the ORS. My only suggestion is to continue to
  allow the existing structure to remain in effect
  since it works very well.
• Solicit more information from people before
  actually making a decision.
• Solicit feedback from your front line people to
  see if the decision made is workable, before
  going public with the idea.
• I recommend a section on the ORS web site
  dedicated to posting of employee suggestions and
  good ideas. Managers could periodically scan the
  entries not only for inspiration, but to gauge
  the overall attitudes of the workforce.

48
Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Comments
(cont.)

• Create the One-ORS which is not working. A lot
  of decisions are made "behind closed doors" and
  do not include everyone it should.
• Improve communication, with consistent message.
• Limit micromanaging, actually delegate
  authority/responsibility.
• Use the "chain of command" concept. Have branch
  or section chiefs consult with next line of
  supervision before implementing policy. Hire and
  promote on basis of job qualifications only.
• Good headway is being made toward providing
  decision making authority at the lowest possible
  level. Simply continue with this concept.
• When information is requested that is needed in
  order to make appropriate decisions, ORS needs to
  allow an appropriate length of time to provide
  the information. Too many times, the information
  is rushed and used out of context.

49
Perceptions of Decision Making ORSEC FY01 and
FY02 Mean Ratings
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
50
Perceptions of Decision Making Leadership Group
FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
51
Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Comparison
to FY01 (Mean Ratings)
Input into Resource Allocation
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
52
Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Comparison
to FY01 (Mean Ratings)
Input into Future Direction of ORS
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
53
Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Comparison
to FY01 (Mean Ratings)
Input into Improving ORS Business Processes
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
54
Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Comparison
to FY01 (Mean Ratings)
Authority to Make Decisions
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
55
Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Comparison
to FY01 (Mean Ratings)
Program Manager Input into Program Area
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
56
Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Comparison
to FY01 (Mean Ratings)
Program Manager Input into ORS Initiatives
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
57
Perceptions of Information AccessFY02 Mean
Ratings
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
58
Perceptions of Information AccessORSEC FY01 and
FY02 Mean Ratings
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
59
Perceptions of Information AccessLeadership
Group FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
60
Perceptions of Information Access FY02
Comparison to FY01 (Mean Ratings)
Easy Access to Information
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
61
Perceptions of Information Access FY02
Comparison to FY01 (Mean Ratings)
Timely Receipt of Information by Program Managers
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
62
Perceptions of ORS Processes FY02 Mean Ratings
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
63
Perceptions of ORS ProcessesFY02 Comments

• I think we need to revisit the principles,
  concepts and structures of our business planning
  process because recent meetings have revealed
  that there is either insufficient buy-in or
  resistance to the current process.
• Program managers should be more involved in the
  actual planning of the business process, not just
  the execution. As with decision making,
  implementation of information management
  strategies, processes and applications and better
  communications can lead to better business
  planning.
• A business plan should be developed for every
  service group, and should include more than the
  budget. A business plan should include the ASA
  template (i.e., value proposition, business
  strategy, objectives, performance measures and
  targets, and operational initiatives for the
  coming FY) and the budget. So, it should convey
  what the service group is planning to accomplish
  (i.e., value proposition, objectives), how it is
  planning to accomplish it (i.e., strategy,
  initiatives, resource allocation), and how they
  will know the degree to which they were
  successful (i.e. performance measures, targets).
  We should be careful to not give the impression
  that the budget is the business plan.
• Internally, need to continue education of budget
  analysts get them more involved in the planning
  cycle past just collection of data. Also, need
  better data collection tools (more user friendly
  distinct lack of systems capability across the
  ORS), more intuitive structure in the model and
  much better reporting back to orgs (new tools
  web page should help in dynamic report production
  and distribution ..fingers crossed).
  Externally, need to handle change management
  better. Do not have buy-in on process across
  ORS. Need to also improve communication in terms
  of feedback of changes, how the data given is
  utilized, and good analytical, meaningful
  reporting.

64
Perceptions of ORS Processes FY02 Comments
(cont.)

• Financial decisions are being made less and less
  at the Division level. It appears that decisions
  are sometimes backed into rather than consulting
  and deciding together.
• Include front line managers in business planning
  process.
• Please let's allow the ORS components to do their
  functions and service their customers rather than
  spending humongous amounts of time analyzing and
  reporting how they are (i.e. the ASAs).
• Suggest we ask for our budget by direct
  appropriation rather than by including the ICs
  into our management responsibilities by charging
  them rent.
• Listen to your own staff as to whether a new
  initiative is worth investing massive amounts of
  time.
• Make some assessment of which offices are best
  candidates for ASA and not apply across the
  board. Some functions just do not lend themselves
  to ASA practices.
• I do not believe that the ASA is cost-effective,
  nor does it result in improved products/services.
  At least in our case, we didn't find out
  anything we didn't already know. For years we
  have had an ongoing improvement program--one that
  makes sense.
• What is the Process?
• Explain it to your providers in its simplest form
  before you sell it to your customers. An educated
  provider can help sell your plan in a most
  excellent way. An educated provider is like
  having a full tank of gasoline in your car it
  will take you a long way.

65
Perceptions of ORS Processes FY02 Comments
(cont.)

• The program data and information required to
  fulfill business planning requirements must exist
  and be available. Making guesses, developing data
  and creating databases is a time consuming and
  oftentimes unproductive exercise.
• Hire more Budget analysts. Too few and they are
  too busy. I wasn't able to get much help on
  IAG's or get simple questions answered.
• Better understanding of what the customer is
  asking for and whether or not that is the most
  appropriate response to provide. More focus is
  needed on how the customer perceives the ORS
  response.
• I truly believe in the ASA project and its goals.
  It seems very tedious and demanding but
  everything good has its price. However, I have
  heard many people complain about the negative
  impact that this project has at this time of the
  year.
• The ASA is a good tool for business planning and
  monitoring. However, my experience with the ASA
  process this year wasn't pleasant. Direction
  from upper management and the facilitators
  appeared to be confused and inconsistent.
• Again ORS, as part of the business planning
  process, must have a better understanding of the
  ORS customer services to make good business
  planning decisions.
• ORS should receive all maintenance and operations
  funds from direct congressional appropriations to
  the NIH Director and eliminate the taps to IC.
  This may help to ease the IC out of co-management
  of ORS responsibilities.
• The ability to add, modify and inactivate
  services hierarchy information in OROS and ASA
  needs to be developed and de-conflicted.

66
Perceptions of ORS Processes FY02 Comments
(cont.)

• ORS needs to spend less time wasted with doing
  ASA studies and business studies and get down to
  the job of actually providing the services that
  it needs to provide to its customers.
• Come up with a better system for developing the
  annual budgets. Reduce the number of discrete
  services we are trying to track.
• Financial Planning - ORS should develop a cost
  accounting budget that relies heavily on actual
  man hours worked and a CAN structure that
  directly relates to each ORS DS.
• The ASA model does not fit every service
  category. Alternative mechanisms should be
  considered for evaluating the quality of our
  programs and identifying ways to improve and/or
  reduce cost.
• Eliminate redundancies.
• Continue with the performance measures and
  strategic planning currently in place.
• The business plan is very important but once
  again we must know exactly what is needed and how
  to challenge the current work force to fill those
  roles.
• I think there is a carriage before the horse
  issue. It would seem to me that the bus.
  planning process should support the various ORS
  activities, but it often seems that the reverse
  is true.
• Spend less time on business planning and more
  time on tracking actual expenditures.
• Build the business around the core services that
  the customer needs - not around what the
  customers want. The business should provide the
  services the customer needs in a timely fashion
  and at a competitive price with value added.

67
Perceptions of ORS Processes FY02 Comments
(cont.)

• MAPB would be better equipped to develop business
  strategy if its previous and current market share
  could be ascertained. Please provide financial
  reports for FY01 and FY02 representing the total
  market within NIH for products and services.
• Get the OQM and the OBSF to work together. It is
  very frustrating to have one office tell you it
  is not their problem, go talk to the other, and
  then the other says it is not theirs either.
  Quit giving us such short deadlines.
• Less meetings and more substance. We have had 3
  different consultants, none of which was
  prepared.
• Clarify the role of ASA process, and how it will
  be used in ORS' decision making processes.
  Rework the ASA process as a collaboration between
  ORS and its offices and divisions, as opposed to
  a top down directive w/ no allowance for feedback
  from below.
• Get more individuals with diverse backgrounds and
  experience-sets involved in the process. Through
  a broader-based concept, new initiatives may
  emerge that could help streamline and improve the
  way we do business.
• Provide consistent information and focus on
  finding solutions rather than finger pointing. A
  good example of this is the ASA process. The
  information provided by the training is not
  consistent with the follow on information
  provided by OQM and consultant.
• I believe the ASAs are driving people buggy. I
  know that there is a timetable but the schedule
  is aggressive and not all areas can finish on
  schedule. It's very difficult to conduct
  business as usual when you have multiple tasks
  and not enough resources, something will fall
  short.

68
Perceptions of ORS ProcessesFY02 Comments (cont.)

• I think the ASA exercise can be a wonderful tool
  for describing, modifying, and justifying our
  current processes and organization, or designing
  new ones. I feel that perhaps too much pressure
  has been placed on the presentations.
• While it is "nice" to think of ORS as a
  "business" the extension of many of the business
  practices do not apply to a government activity.
  Lets stop studying ORS and its components to
  death.
• The ASA process should be a tool for the manager
  to improve his/her organization and should not be
  driven by the budget folks.
• ASA Process In addition to the consultants, OQM
  staff, what is the indirect cost (e.g. ORS staff
  hrs. of non-OQM) used to produce this?
• The ASAs are forced down our throat without any
  buy-in from those of us who have to perform them.
  If the ORS wanted them to go successfully and
  smoothly, then the OQM needed to meet and talk
  with the service areas and find out what they
  needed and wanted.
• Consider how all time consuming evaluations can
  be utilized if ORS is totally "restructured"
  through de-layering and A-76?
• Do ASAs, etc. really improve ORS and ORS
  services? Are they busy work? How are they
  translated to rank and file?

69
Perceptions of Resources FY02 Mean Ratings
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
70
Perceptions of ResourcesFY02 Comments

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

71
Other PerceptionsFY02 Comments

• We (EC) should spend most of our time between
  managing service performance at the service group
  level and proactively managing the ORS (e.g.,
  improving its management infrastructure
  performance management systems, finance, human
  capital). Currently, it looks to me like we are
  managing crises on an on-going basis. Crises
  will always happen and they must be addressed
  effectively, but they shouldnt keep us from
  managing operations and the future of the ORS
  business.
• The EC works well, though occasionally it appears
  to be little more than a rubber stamp that needs
  to be worked on.
• Remember that we are here to protect NIH as an
  asset for the future as well to service the ICs.
• I sure do, stop using double talk in these
  surveys. Start listening to your employees, and
  follow up on the listening. Many examples of
  employees request are ignored. I have proof that
  survey data is not fully analyzed by OQM.
• Get the Personnel Office to service our needs.
• Requiring all ORS employees to complete Customer
  Service training cannot possibly be
  cost-effective. My group's customer service
  feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. Why
  don't you target people and programs that have
  had problems in that area?
• Encourage better communication between service
  provider and the customers and allow more
  meaningful surveys rather than a global one that
  may not be applicable to some service groups.

72
Other Perceptions FY02 Comments (cont.)

• View program areas as your customers. Ask "What
  can I provide of value to you
• Work to change policies and regulations that
  impact favorably on program initiatives.
• The leadership and management of ORS is performed
  with an extremely high level of professionalism,
  insight and dedication. Over the past few years
  I have come to understand more about the
  difficulty of this task and to appreciate how
  fortunate we all are to have such excellent
  leadership.
• ORS should have a central scheduling function
  with information on projects and operational
  activities (e.g., construction, environmental or
  building inspections, changes in traffic
  patterns, changes in access to the campus,
  parking resurface, moves of large number of
  people) that may impact the research,
  maintenance, operation and administration
  activities on campus. The purpose of this
  function would be to improve inter service
  coordination to minimize the disruption or
  inconvenience to researches and other service
  providers.
• Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
• It's always a surprise how ORS management are
  continually changing evaluation programs over the
  years. Is this to assure our continued
  confusion? This is 6th survey completed for the
  ASA by this customer.
• I believe it will be very difficult for the
  Executive Committee to respond effectively or
  innovatively to the requirement for de-layering
  or reorganizing ORS. They will be affected so
  personally by the final outcome they will find it
  difficult.

73
Other Perceptions FY02 Comments (cont.)

• Filling vacancies takes forever. In the meantime
  we overload existing staff. By the time we hire
  someone, existing staff has burned out and leave,
  and we are back to square 1. Review of
  manuscripts/publications also takes way too long,
  e.g., 2 months.
• I feel fortunate to work in an ORS Division that
  provides resources and support, however, I don't
  think all Divisions work this way. We have a ways
  to go with one ORS.
• The Overtime ceiling with alternative Comp.
  Time solution is counter-productive in terms of
  keeping staff available to provide business
  services and products.
• We are all so busy, so pushed for time, and work
  is strictly work and no time to get to know
  people outside of your immediate area. What
  happened to social functions in ORS?
• We must keep in mind that ORS work is often
  driven by the needs and desires of the customer
  yet at the same time we are required to maintain
  certain requirements which may be counter to the
  customers need.
• ORS needs to understand that the people at lower
  levels were hired for their expertise and do know
  how to do their jobs and all the upper level
  managements micromanaging needs to stop.
• The ORS web site is poorly designed.
• Our contractor chronically has difficulty getting
  invoices paid due to a dysfunctional Acquisition
  Management Branch.
• Our organization has benefited greatly by ORS
  management and has made good headway in improving
  operations and reputation in comparison to our
  previous management organization.

74
Other Perceptions FY02 Comments (cont.)

• Please keep all employees informed of the A-76
  process. Employee morale dropped 100. I know
  ORS will do everything they can to be sure the
  process is fair to the government employee.
• I think that ORS senior management needs to be
  aware of and address lower echelon concerns. For
  example, what does the "de-layering" issue mean
  to individuals who are currently first line
  supervisors?
• Don't make the awards process so complicated,
  with lengthy applications that deter a supervisor
  from the initiative in the first place. Also,
  get the Division level out of the process for
  granting awards at the local (Branch) level.
• Incompetence is rampant within ORS.
• Get everyone in ORS onboard with change
  initiatives to improve our performance across the
  board.
• The ORS-IC Occupancy Agreement is poorly
  designed, and falls short of good customer
  service. Our customers require more than a warm,
  dry, lighted shell. Our customers need quick
  response to their needs, and solutions to their
  problems.
• Concerning the proposed restructuring of ORS, the
  position of MAPB should be reconsidered for the
  following reasons. MAPB is involved with many
  high profile projects across the NIH. As
  currently depicted in the proposed
  reorganization, MAPB is buried.

75
Other Perceptions FY02 Comments (cont.)

• Stress "Teamwork" and the "One ORS/NIH" Concept
  and define expectations and how we are all
  accountable for this. This could go as far as
  including a "Teamwork Element" in each persons
  Performance Plan. This is crucial to our success
  as an organization.
• More effort needs to be made in understanding
  specifically the day to day role of the lower
  level managers and the service they provide to
  the customers.

76
ConclusionsCustomer Segmentation

• About 65 of ORSEC time spent on ORS activities.
• About 15 of ORSEC time spent on issues external
  to NIH.
• Only 1 of ORSEC time spent on professional
  enrichment and formal training.
• The Other category comprises about 8 of ORSEC
  time and includes
• collaborative research
• journal editing
• miscellaneous meetings

77
ConclusionsPerceptions of Decision Making

• Executive Committee members believe they have
  input into, and the authority to make, decisions
  concerning ORS.
• Leadership Group members believe they have input
  into decisions involving their own program areas
  and the authority to make them.
• Leadership Group members rate their input lower -
  especially for decisions on future direction of
  ORS, on improving ORS, and on ORS-wide
  initiatives.
• Leadership Group members believe they have input
  into decisions involving their own program areas
  and the authority to make them.

78
ConclusionsPerceptions of Decision Making (cont.)

• In almost all cases, FY02 ratings are about the
  same as FY01 ratings.
• One exception is program manager input into
  decisions affecting their own program areas.
  Mean ratings for both Executive Committee members
  and Leadership Group members are considerably
  higher in FY02.
• Another exception is Leadership Group input on
  ORS-wide initiatives. Members perceive they have
  considerably less input into decisions on
  ORS-wide initiatives.

79
ConclusionsPerceptions of Information Access

• Executive Committee members believe they have
  easy access to the information they need and that
  program managers receive timely information.
• Leadership Group members rate both their access
  to information and the timeliness of the
  information slightly lower than Executive
  Committee members.
• FY02 ratings are about the same or slightly lower
  than FY01 ratings.

80
ConclusionsPerceptions of ORS Processes

• In all cases, Leadership Group member ratings of
  program manager understanding of ORS processes
  are slightly higher than Executive Committee
  member ratings.
• Most of the ratings hover around the midpoint of
  the scale indicating there is room for
  improvement - especially in the areas of business
  planning and the ABC cost accounting model.

81
ConclusionsPerceptions of ORS Processes (cont.)

• One exception is that Leadership Group members
  believe program managers understand their
  programs relationship to ORS as a whole.
• Ratings on these questions vary widely which
  indicates that respondents have very different
  perceptions on program manager understanding.

82
ConclusionsPerceptions of Resources

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

83
Appendix

• FY02 Individual Question Results

84
Q1 Input into Resource Allocation Decisions
FY02 Response Breakout
85
Q2 Input into Future Direction of ORS FY02
Response Breakout
86
Q3 Input into Improving ORS FY02 Response
Breakout
87
Q4 Authority to Make DecisionsFY02 Response
Breakout
88
Q5 Easy Access to InformationFY02 Response
Breakout
89
Q6 Input into Program AreaFY02 Response
Breakout
90
Q7 Input into ORS InitiativesFY02 Response
Breakout
91
Q8 Timely Receipt of InformationFY02 Response
Breakout
92
Q9 Understand Program Relationship to ORS as a
WholeFY02 Response Breakout
93
Q10 Understand ORS Business Planning
ProcessFY02 Response Breakout
94
Q10 Understand ORS Business Planning
ProcessFY02 Response Breakout
95
Q11 Understand ORS Service HierarchyFY02
Response Breakout
96
Q12 Understand ABC Cost Accounting ModelFY02
Response Breakout
97
Q13 Understand ASA Relationship to Business
PlanningFY02 Response Breakout
98
Q14 Received Needed ResourcesFY02 Response
Breakout
99
Appendix

• FY02 Training Detail

100
Lead and Manage ORSFY02 Formal Training
Note Formal Training accounts for about 1 of
ORSEC members time.