Return to Article: Managers share frustrations over linking performance, budgets

By Amelia Gruber agruber@govexec.com February 27, 2003
  • 272

    As your article has highlighted, the GPRA has been around and requires this linking of performnce and budgets. If the process is flawed where were these agencies ala their representatives for the last several years? I would have thought that there would have been weeping and gnashing of teeth along the way. The GPRA, FARA, FASA and the entire objective to make the government agencies much more business like in terms of getting things done effectively, efficiently with real outcomes, is and should stay as a good thing. Especially to better handle the things necessary to do the very important functions of the many and varied agencies of the government in the best interests of all stakeholders. The stakeholders include the users, the taxpayers, the suppliers, the customers, the employees, the mangers, the unions, etc.

    In my tenure with the government it has been hypothesised in my mind "that it takes five years to accomplish something in the government". The GPRA was set up to have real results I believe in 6 years. In other words thos agencies falling in the lower classifications of the OMB evaluations would be adversely affected in accordance with real needs, etc. I think these must be published and acted on accordingly.

    David Lewis Posted April 6, 2003 4:29 PM

Post a Comment

To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.

Managers share frustrations over linking performance, budgets
*
*
*
Vendors Solutions Center