Government Executive - Authors - Erin Dian Dumbacher

Atlantis launch marks a bittersweet end to shuttle program

Erin Dian Dumbacher — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Kennedy Space Center, Fla. -- Finding a break in the clouds, NASA's Atlantis space shuttle lifted off toward the International Space Station at 11:29 a.m. EDT on Friday, from launch pad 39A. This will be Atlantis' 33rd and final flight, and the last mission of NASA's space shuttle fleet.

NASA is retiring the space shuttle program after decades of travel to and from low-Earth orbit, ending "an amazing 30-year program of exploration, which launched great observatories, built an International Space Station, and taught us more about how humans can live and work in space," the space agency said.

Conceived as a vehicle for transporting humans and cargo into space, the shuttle program made travel into space routine, but not cheap. The 135 flights required a vast organization of research, development and operations across NASA centers in Florida, Texas, California and Alabama, among others. Each shuttle flight cost an estimated $450 million.

When Atlantis' 12-day mission is over, many of the civil servants and contractors who made travel to space possible will look for new work. The International Space Station will stay in orbit until 2020, yet the U.S. government will have no direct means of access.

In Need of a New Direction and Resources

President George W. Bush officially announced the retirement of the shuttle fleet in 2004, but a clear replacement project is elusive. NASA initiated the Constellation program to return to the moon and travel to Mars during the Bush administration, but the program was cut last year. Federal space policy seemed an after-thought for an Obama White House consumed with an economic downturn in 2010, until a breakthrough this spring in which NASA commissioned private firms -- with federal support -- to begin development of lower-cost solutions for entry into space. In addition, NASA plans to develop a heavy-lift vehicle to go beyond low-Earth orbit.

The Office of Management and Budget and congressional committees have yet to finalize their appropriations for the space agency. Just Thursday, a House subcommittee voted to cut $1.6 billion in the agency's fiscal 2012 budget, bringing spending to $1.9 billion less than President Obama's request. The subcommittee mark-up includes $3.65 billion for space exploration, or $152 million below last year's budget, but cuts space operations and NASA science programs such as the James Webb Space Telescope.

"Big, hard things to do technically are big, hard things to do politically," said Christopher Scolese, NASA associate administrator, in an interview with Government Executive.

As NASA lays off civil servants and contractors, commercial firms are trying to fill the void of the space shuttle as soon as 2014. Until then, "we'll have to rely on rides from the Russians for a while," Kennedy Space Center Director Bob Cabana said Friday in a post-launch news conference. NASA's international partners, too, will look to the Russians to service their experiments and segments on the International Space Station, but believe multiple country access to space is essential. "The Russian craft is reliable, as well," said Koichi Wakata, a Japanese astronaut who has flown in both the shuttle and the Russian Soyuz, "but the shuttle is more convenient -- I live in Houston."

Cuts will require the space center in Florida to reduce its workforce of operations managers and technicians from 15,000 to 8,200 employees. Only 2,100 of the remaining employees will be civil servants -- more than 6,000 contractors will lose their jobs at the end of July.

"Many of these workers have spent 25 years in one job," said Lisa Malone, director of public affairs at Kennedy Space Center. "They have unique experience . . . they're so disciplined and feel honored and privileged to have been a part of the shuttle program." What these thousands of technical specialists and engineers will do next, and what experience they will take with them, remains unanswered.

Bill Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for space operations at NASA, said it is critical for the agency to capture the knowledge of shuttle workers. "We have an extensive lessons learned program captured with multimedia" plus a database, he said. But he added he thinks the best way to retain the experience would be to "move people from one activity and apply it to a new program."

Space as Personal

The mood among NASA managers at the Space Center on Friday was bittersweet. Managers lingered in the launch control center after Atlantis was safely into orbit, and savored the final moments of "launch day," usually an occasion for celebration.

Engineers were satisfied with the day's events and praised the professionalism of the shuttle team, but fear the country may not retain its dominance in human spaceflight. The U.S. public agrees: 58 percent said it is essential that the United States continues to be the world leader in space exploration in a recent poll by the Pew Center for People and the Press. The poll did not ask them to rank space travel relative to other national priorities.

Commemorative pins and banners for Atlantis' last flight featured prominently at the launch, while managers spoke of the opportunities for travel beyond low-Earth orbit that the space shuttle could not offer. "To change is hard," Malone said. "But we knew it was coming and we've been planning for it. We will evolve."

]]>

From Nextgov: Estonian experience offers lessons on preparing for a major cyberattack

Erin Dian Dumbacher — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Read the full story on Nextgov.

]]>

‘C’ Is for Change

Erin Dian Dumbacher — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:00:00 -0400

As agency chiefs take the lead on financial, technology and personnel reforms, they see hurdles to innovation.

The Obama administration has unveiled myriad initiatives to improve the business of government, but objectives ranging from financial reforms to information security have been difficult to implement-especially as they trigger changes in the way agencies work. A recent study from the Government Business Council, Government Executive Media Group's research division, shows chief executives and their staffs face unprecedented challenges as they strive to innovate.

The chiefs of finance, information, information security and human resources are the stewards of programs as varied as financial system modernization, open government, data security and hiring reform, all while coping with increased budgetary pressures. Top managers believe many of the initiatives are important, but low on their agencies' list of priorities, according to the April survey of 148 Senior Executive Service members and GS-15s.

"It is difficult to get senior agency officials to agree or prioritize these matters as so many other initiatives also are a high priority," said one respondent. "We are too reactive; to successfully implement these efforts would require thought and planning."

An Uphill Climb

One of the most innovative efforts is the 25-point plan that federal Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra unveiled in December 2010. It calls for agencies to cut costs by adopting a "cloud first" policy of moving technology systems to Web-based services. Top managers see great potential for change because, as one respondent said, "historically IT has not been a high agency priority." But they report a lack of resources for moving systems to the cloud.

"There is a lot of 'hype' about these initiatives, although it seems to be more talk than action," said one commenter.

Most agencies are facing budgetary constraints, and many managers recognize the increased burden on chief financial officers. Innovation in financial management will not be easy, according to the survey. More than 60 percent of respondents said it will be "very" or "extremely" difficult to respond to cost pressures; only 24 percent said it will lead to significant reforms.

Management challenges have increased for chief human capital officers as well. Nearly half the senior managers said hiring reforms, such as streamlined recruiting processes and telework, will be "very" or "extremely difficult" to implement. Executives believe hiring reform and the new Human Resources University could prove successful if execution can be managed. The first phase of HR University, a website launched in February by the Office of Personnel Management and the federal Chief Human Capital Officers Council, offers information and resources for current and future HR professionals. When all phases are up and running, the university also will offer classroom and online training courses and a certification program.

Most senior managers are unfamiliar with the initiatives under way in the offices of information technology and security chiefs, according to the survey. More than 40 percent consider the open government directive and the 2002 Federal Information Security Management Act to be strictly the domain of technology officials. Yet attentive technology management is relevant for most executives: More than 70 percent surveyed have agency-issued laptop computers and 76 percent carry smartphones.

Politically Charged

Half the managers surveyed agree that the leadership role of agency C suites has increased in recent years. A full 52 percent have seen responsibility at the top of their organizations increase "significantly" or "somewhat" in the past five years. And they expect pressure from amplified congressional oversight and White House-appointed czars will continue to mount.

Those challenges are complicated by strained relationships among senior executives and the political appointees they work with. The GBC survey reveals skepticism about the ability of political appointees to improve agency performance. One respondent said, "The role [of senior leadership] has increased, but the effectiveness, skill and knowledge has dramatically decreased."

The potential for conflict between career and political managers is not new, but survey respondents rated Obama appointees lower than those in previous administrations. Obama appointees earned a C average, or 2.0, compared with a 2.3 for those in the George W. Bush and Clinton administrations. More than 30 percent gave Obama appointees a D or an F for overall job performance, while only 20 percent awarded past appointees such low marks.

Obama officials lack functional and agency-specific knowledge, according to survey respondents. Many believe appointees don't understand human resources and procurement rules, saying they presume the "institution is there as an obstruction" and therefore attempt to "break organizations."

Appointees have "unbelievably poor communication with career employees," one commenter said. Forty percent of managers gave them Ds or Fs on collaboration and communication with their staffs. Some "have a divide-and-conquer strategy, and there are way too many industry fingers allowed in decision-making," a respondent noted. At another agency, a manager said the result has been "politicization of normal agency functions."

A New Chief

The 2010 Government Performance and Results Modernization Act required each agency to appoint a chief operating officer to lead performance improvement initiatives.

Managers surveyed believe functional improvements are necessary, but naming a COO "isn't the answer," one respondent said. Some fear the position will merely add a layer of bureaucracy, rather than boost innovation.

According to federal managers, the law's new reporting requirements are likely to bring about paperwork, rather than performance improvement. Chief operating officer initiatives would merely increase work for career managers, one executive noted.

One-fifth of respondents said they expect an increase in planning and measurement from the COO-the institution of "countables"-to spur better performance. But managers worry that before an operations chief can achieve results, the next administration will undo the changes. With a chief operating officer on board, business could simply "continue as usual," one commenter said.

Senior managers responsible for implementing sweeping changes at their agencies see potential for innovation, but many feel caught in the middle between Congress, the White House and an American public at odds over policy, appropriations and implementation. The results remain to be seen, but all eyes are on the C suites.

]]>

Senior executives give low marks to Obama appointees

Erin Dian Dumbacher — Fri, 27 May 2011 00:00:00 -0400

In the survey, respondents rated Obama appointees lower than those in previous administrations. Obama appointees earned a C average, or 2.0, compared with a 2.3 for those in the George W. Bush and Clinton administrations. More than 30 percent gave Obama appointees a D or an F for overall job performance, while only 20 percent awarded past appointees such low marks.

The study, conducted in April by Government Executive's research division, the Government Business Council, involved surveying 148 Senior Executive Service members and GS-15s about their attitudes toward current challenges and Obama administration initiatives.

The survey revealed skepticism about the ability of current political appointees to improve agency performance. One respondent said, "The role [of senior leadership] has increased, but the effectiveness, skill and knowledge has dramatically decreased."

Obama officials lack functional and agency-specific knowledge, according to survey respondents. Nearly 60 percent of respondents gave Obama appointees a grade of C or lower for their functional expertise, with less than 37 percent giving them A or B grades. Many believe appointees don't understand human resources and procurement rules, saying they presume the "institution is there as an obstruction" and attempt to "break organizations."

Appointees have "unbelievably poor communication with career employees," one respondent commented. Almost 40 percent of managers gave appointees Ds or Fs on collaboration and communication with their staffs. Some "have a divide-and-conquer strategy, and there are way too many industry fingers allowed in decision-making," a respondent noted. At another agency, a manager said the result has been "politicization of normal agency functions."

Further results of the survey will be featured in "The Chiefs," a June 15 special issue of Government Executive on challenges faced by government's chief officers.

]]>

From Nextgov.com: Tornadoes knock out power to Redstone Arsenal, Marshall Space Flight Center

Bob Brewin and Erin Dian Dumbacher — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Endeavor planned for Friday.

Read the whole story at Nextgov.com.

]]>

Exclusive survey: Feds don’t know whether they'll be furloughed

Tom Shoop, Erin Dian Dumbacher, and Robert Brodsky — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 00:00:00 -0400

This story has been updated. More than half of federal managers and employees surveyed Wednesday said their agencies had not shared plans with them for implementing a shutdown of operations if funding for government agencies runs out Friday night -- and nearly as many didn't know whether or not they would be subject to a furlough.

A total of 56 percent of the 1,200 people who responded to the survey said their agency had not shared a shutdown plan with them, although almost one quarter -- 24 percent -- expected to receive notification of a plan this week. Many federal agencies began notifying their employees of their respective contingency plans throughout the day on Wednesday.

More than half the respondents said they did not know whether they would have to report to work during a shutdown. Twenty-three percent said they knew they would be excepted from a furlough and would be on the job. Many workers said the lack of information and direction from agency leadership has become frustrating.

"There's been no confirmation," one respondent said. "I'm a little concerned that we're three days away and I have no idea how I should react to the news on Saturday morning. This is becoming a long-term stressor."

The email survey of 1,200 federal managers and employees was conducted by Government Executive's research arm, the Government Business Council, on Wednesday afternoon. Virtually all the respondents were civilian federal employees, covering a host of agencies. More than 27 percent of those who completed the survey worked for the Defense Department or one of the military service agencies. Most respondents indicated they were at the GS-12 level or higher, and nearly half manage one or more direct reports.

The survey showed that agency morale is taking a hit as a result of the protracted budget battle. A plurality of respondents -- 48 percent -- rated morale at their agency as "low" or "very low." Only 13 percent considered their agency's employees to be motivated right now.

"People are working hard to get their work complete before a shutdown occurs, but they feel unappreciated and scared about paying bills," one respondent explained.

One-third of federal managers believed it is likely they will receive retroactive pay for the shutdown period. A full 44 percent were less optimistic and believed it is either "unlikely" or "highly unlikely" that they will receive back pay for the shutdown period. That opinion was echoed on Wednesday by Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., who said furloughed employees should not expect to receive back pay. Moran's Northern Virginia district is home to tens of thousands of federal workers and contractors.

"Furloughed employees received back pay in 1996, but the political climate was not nearly as polarized and federal employees had not been so thoroughly demonized and dehumanized in the political rhetoric as we have of late," one employee said.

Others were holding out hope that the economic consequences of at least 800,000 federal workers going unpaid, and therefore not spending their money elsewhere, would motivate Congress to provide reimbursement.

"I don't believe Congress can risk the financial fallout from not paying federal employees," a respondent said. "We have mortgages, car payments, utility bills, etc. that will not wait just because inept congressional folks cannot do their job."

A little more than 45 percent of those surveyed said they would cease all use of agency-issued mobile devices, such as laptop computers and BlackBerrys, in a shutdown, with another 40 percent saying their agencies had not provided such devices to them. Nearly half of respondents said they would cease all contact with their colleagues during a shutdown.

If a shutdown occurs, respondents said they would hold Congress most to blame. Survey takers, who were allowed to choose more than one option, pinned most of the fault -- nearly 66 percent -- on congressional Republicans, while almost 51 percent pointed the finger at Democrats. Forty-four percent blamed the Tea Party and 40 percent held the White House responsible.

No matter who is at fault, most agreed federal workers should not be victimized by the stalemate. "Cutbacks are a necessity, I agree," one worker said. "But politicians should not ask the federal workforce to bear the weight of bad decisions made by politicians."

More than 22 percent of respondents identified themselves as Republicans, compared to less than 21 percent as Democrats. The remainder identified themselves as either Independents, from another party, or declined to answer.

]]>