Re: On the Bubble

["John Constantine" <thesfg1@cox.net>]

Myron asks a fair question:

“What would you have had the Congress do differently in order to keep
itself informed?”

The question then is how best to stay informed. I do not know the answer.
How many laws does Congress need to keep itself informed?

How could they know? The easy answer is to say that they did the best they
could with what they knew.

1990 - CFO Act: (Emphasizing OMB’s strong centralized leadership role)
*	“Gives OMB broad, new authority and responsibility for directing federal
financial management, modernizing the government’s financial management
systems, and strengthening financial reporting. The act also creates a new
position in OMB – the Deputy Director for Management, who is to be the
government ‘s chief official responsible for financial management.” Deputy
Director for Management and the Comptroller were both appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

*	“…it also charges OMB’s Deputy Director for Management with overseeing
many of the federal government’s general management functions. These
functions include information policy, procurement policy, property
management, and productivity improvement.”

Who knows what productivity improvement meant to OMB in 1990?

1993 – GPRA Purposes (in brief):

*	“improve the confidence of the American people in the capability of the
Federal Government, by systematically holding Federal agencies accountable
for achieving program results;

*	“initiate program performance reform with a series of pilot projects in
setting program goals…”


*	“help Federal managers improve service delivery by requiring that they
plan for meeting program objectives and by providing them with information
about program results and service quality;”

Who knows what information will be provided, by whom, and having what to do
with quality?

*	“improve Federal decisionmaking by providing more objective information on
achieving statutory objectives, and on the relative effectiveness and
efficiency of Federal programs and spending;”

Double-speak for “did you meet the specs or not, and did you overspend your
budget authorization?” What if the statutory objectives were outside the
capability of the agency to perform? That is a downer.

*	“improve internal management of the Federal Government.”

To whom else must the agency in question report?

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave…”

I have no knowledge of the training capability of OPM (Office of Personnel
Management) in those days, but I would hazard a guess that in 1993 OPM was
incapable of providing coherent training in systems theory and variation,
use and abuse of performance appraisals, rating, ranking, SPC and the
benefits of continuous improvement. How many senior agency managers had ever
read OOTC or TNE, or attended a Four-Day seminar?

“The Government Management Reform Act of 1994 extended to all twenty-four
CFO Act agencies the requirement, beginning with fiscal year 1996, to
prepare and have audited financial statements for their entire operations.
While the CFO Act established the foundation for improving management and
financial accountability among the agencies, GPRA is aimed more directly at
improving their program performance.” First, “…agencies consult with
Congress and other stakeholders to clearly define their missions.”

Where did their missions go? Do they now turn left when they were turning
right? It is a big battleship and I’m not certain if it a lighthouse ahead
or just a tugboat.

I could go on, but I think that Myron’s question is a valid one. If I were a
congressman, I would not know any better than to think this was a right and
proper way to proceed. This after all, is the crux of the problem. How could
they have known?

Where did everyone go who had responsibility and accountability? CFO Act,
1990. GMR Act, 1994. Reporting requirements began in 1997. This is 2002.
Where are the pilot programs expressed in the CFO Act? Where is the Deputy
Director for Management? How is productivity doing?

Results and outcomes – MBO and MBR smell the same to a government employee.

A reading of the various agencies will indicate that the same language
applies now as applied in 1990…”we have made progress…. however, we can’t
say why, we don’t have the data, we can’t depend on the information, or the
systems, or the details, but we have made progress compared to this time
last year.“

No wonder Deming expressed his concern.

There is plenty of information out there to keep Congress informed any time
they wish. The worry by agency management is how Congress, GAO and OMB will
use the information, for good or ill.

I would ask first, who is steering the ship? Is it Congress, the Executive
branch, or the federal agencies? What does Congress know about system
variation? What does the Executive branch know about SOPK? What do the
agencies know about the costs of not training senior managers in continuous
improvement concepts?

1.      Until they get together on the AIM, the purposes and the results
they are looking for will tend to be scattered.
2.      If they do get together on the AIM, how long is it likely to last?
3.      What are the operational definitions for such things as service
quality, customer satisfaction, results and performance?
4.      What should happen when government creates a new department?
_______________
John Constantine
Phoenix, AZ
thesfg1@cox.net