Public Service Is Performance

hat's the message from Chris Wye, director of the National Academy of Public Administration's Center for Improving Government Performance. In October, Wye's book, Performance Management: A "Start Where You Are, Use What You Have" Guide, was released as part of the "Managing for Results" series by the IBM Endowment for the Business of Government.

The guide deftly deflates every excuse for not giving innovative management techniques a try, including the age-old refrains, "We're different" and "It's not my responsibility." Deriving theory from practice, Wye's guide offers a performance-based framework for managers. The fundamentals are few:

• Assume responsibility, even if you're not the sole owner.
• Strive for quality and efficiency.
• Use what data you have to improve operations.
• Promote change, in spite of the obstacles.
• Keep at it, and don't be discouraged.
• Remember the job is a public trust.

Aldridge's efforts embrace two critical components of performance-based management: leadership and communication. He has instituted both structural and policy changes to strengthen Defense's acquisition programs. And he's paying attention to progress.

Using an acquisition report card, Aldridge has been assessing the changes made over the last year and a half. Any performance-based approach requires staff accountability, consistency in purpose, and useful indicators to demonstrate results. One of Aldridge's first steps as undersecretary was to designate key deputies to oversee acquisition, technology and logistics-and to be held accountable for management in those areas. A former secretary of the Air Force, Aldridge recognizes the hazards of micromanagement from the Office of the Secretary of Defense. "Let the services manage," he says, while seeing to it that they develop solid acquisition plans for each new weapons system.

Stability is a constant concern in Aldridge's efforts to assess whether programs are likely to stay on schedule and within budget. A critical factor of that stability is whether agencies have accurately predicted the costs of their programs. Overly optimistic assumptions only sow suspicion as production declines and costs skyrocket. Aldridge uses independent estimates from Defense's Program Analysis and Evaluation Office to help him make good decisions.

The Air Force's early cost estimate for the F-22 fighter, for example, was $9 billion lower than the Program Analysis and Evaluation Office's estimate. As more data became available, the differences narrowed, but on balance, the Air Force had been overly optimistic about the extent to which innovative production methods would cut costs. Historically, the military services estimate program costs 17 percent to 19 percent lower than the end result. The program analysis office, on average, comes in only 2 percent lower than the actual cost. Aldridge sees the office as critical to improvements in acquisition.

Similarly, Aldridge has advocated the "spiral development" of new weapons systems. Many complain that it takes too long to get new weapons systems into the field because the services wait for the most advanced technology to become available. Under Aldridge's approach, systems are fielded quickly, and then mature technologies are introduced as they are tested.

The Energy Department also has aggressively instilled a Wye-type, performance-based discipline in managing multibillion-dollar projects. One mission is to create exotic new capabilities, such as particle accelerators that can delve into the basic properties of matter. Another is to clean up hazardous waste sites in Rocky Flats, Colo., Richland, Wash., and elsewhere. At Rocky Flats, for example, Energy has offered its cleanup contractor strong financial incentives to complete the job on schedule and restore the site for other uses.

In August, Energy released a draft of its Program and Project Management Manual, a blueprint for acquisition changes. It emphasizes accountability for decision-makers; planning; managing risks by anticipating potential problems, such as funding shortfalls, and developing contingency plans to deal with them; and independent reviews to determine if plans are feasible.

Energy's approach stresses the importance of communicating goals and status to stakeholders. In fact, its guide would be helpful to project managers anywhere in the federal marketplace. It promotes an earned-value management system to determine the status of work. Such a system tracks work performed against work budgeted to see whether contractors are staying within cost and working on schedule. The guide also lays out the characteristics of successful risk management. It includes a list of questions to help managers determine critical factors such as whether a technology has been tested or manufacturing capacity exists.

Performance-based management tools, such as the ones at Defense and Energy, drive mission results. After all, Wye says, "Public service is performance. They're interchangeable."