GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: OMB sets new targets for management agenda

• 723
  

  I am writing to correct assertions made in a recent article posted on GovExec.com about the President's Management Agenda ("OMB sets new targets for management agenda, by Jason Peckenpaugh, May 21, 2003). There is no major shift in the targets the Administration has set to advance the President's Management Agenda. It has been almost two years since the launch of the Agenda, and we are taking stock of where we are and where we'd be proud to be in another year.

  To clarify, we have asked the leads for the management initiatives, as well as the agencies, to estimate what they expect to have achieved by July 2004. Despite the contention of your May 21 article, July 2004 is not a deadline for anything. We haven't moved the date by which agencies are expected to complete 15 percent of their commercial activities, as the article states. Nor are we adjusting the goals of the Agenda as a result of this exercise.

  The President's Management Agenda targets the government's greatest management challenges. We use the Executive Branch Management Scorecard to measure agency success in achieving the Agenda's ambitious standards. Only now, with the agenda launched and agency expectations gelled, can we legitimately ask ourselves what we will be proud to have achieved by July of 2004. OMB is helping initiative leads and agencies accomplish these objectives. It will be the greatest improvement in the management of the Federal government in its history.

  Sincerely,
  Robert J. Shea
  Counselor to
  the Deputy director for Management

  GovExec.com reader Posted June 12, 2003 1:05 PM
• 586
  

  Competitive sourcing: When some citizens hear the term they think "smaller Government" means lower taxes and fewer politicians. When jobs are privatized the work is still being done and the taxpayers are still paying for it, so taxes are not likely to decline. Plus, now the taxpayers are paying profit to the private sector for public services. The private sector may be able to deploy public services more economically (and that's what the public sector needs to emulate), but are they able to deploy public services effectively, particularly if profits are declining? This should be surfaced in the dialogue with citizens.

  What if public administrators were given the framework, resources, latitude and incentives to develop strategic plans that address the need for privatization as appropriate for each task and in collaboration with other agencies? OMB A-76 increases competition between public sector agencies as opposed to encouraging collaboration and sharing infrastructures where appropriate. The strategic planners who are able to propose the "most efficient organization" (MEO) are the ones who will be given the work. Even with a 12-month limit, the A-76 process takes time and resources for the Commercial Activities (CA) Study. This is a long time to expect employees to sustain motivation while being studied to move their jobs to another agency or to the private sector. A strategic planning approach would be much more motivating to the employees. The Human Capital readings describe the need to shift to a perspective where people are considered assets to invest in, not expenses to be cut. Allowing public administrators to integrate privatization into their strategic plans would be much more effective for morale, trust and production than conducting these resource depleting CA studies. The decision to compete should be a well-thought out result of a decision process that critically evaluates all the alternatives and the long term consequences to those alternatives. Augmenting services through privatization should be a part of the publicized strategic plan so that everyone can see that the main core of decision-making competencies is being maintained within the public structure for now and for the future.

  Trudy DiLiello Posted May 22, 2003 12:20 PM