## Bureau of Reclamation

## Lower Colorado Region

## Yuma Area Office

## Yuma Arizona

**Arizona ABC Pilot**

**Pilot Report**

**April 25, 2003**

**Bureau of Reclamation**

**AZ ABC Pilot Report**

### Activity definition/outputs/measures

1.  Are there activities that generated no cost/workload data? If yes,
    which were they. Why did they generate no cost/workload data?

> ***Unable to respond, the report generated to make this determination
> was not accurate. Technical Support is checking into this*.**

2.  Which activities, outputs, or workload measures need to be reworded
    so they make more sense to a field practitioner? How would you
    reword them?

    -   ***Indirect and direct charges for maintenance and planning
        activities need some clarification.***

    -   ***Had a difficult time matching activities to work performed at
        YAO.***

3.  Which activities collected the most data? Does it appear as though
    the activities were used as a \"catchall\" for other work that needs
    its own definition? Or does the existing definition need
    clarification to indicate what\'s included and what\'s not?

> ***YAO work order breakdowns are much more detailed, i.e. surveying,
> design activities, procurement, environmental, etc. all cost
> associated with specific project. Somehow, in order to be able to
> determine specific project costs, these all must be captured
> somewhere. Need to provide broader breakdown of activities that
> capture our work activities. BOR Activities are varied, and go from
> maintenance activities to major design and construction work.***
>
> ***Indirect Planning was a catch all area. General meetings on work
> specific meetings on projects and work on detailing work schedules and
> assignments all were charged here. There was no way to separate out
> meetings of a general nature and work session detailing work
> schedules. We plan and schedule for maintenance work but we do not do
> it in Operate facilities. Work areas for other Bureaus was broken down
> much farther than for USBR.***
>
> ***7R Annual Maintenance on Water Maintenance Facilities was used as a
> "catch all" area. Primarily because it was difficult to find a good
> match to the activities performed at YAO.***

4.  Is there any confusion over where to record time, e.g. blurring the
    distinction between activity definitions for two different
    activities?

> ***The major problem was trying to determine into which of the
> established categories work fit. This goes back to question No. 3
> where BOR needs to establish more activities and descriptions.***

### Training

1.  What areas/topics that were covered in the pilot training need to be
    clearer? Eliminated?

    -   ***More time should have been spent on reviewing the specific
        activities, the definitions, and the selection.***

    -   ***The time spent on the overall philosophy about ABC could have
        been reduced.***

    -   ***Not enough time was spent on the use of the tracking tool.***

    -   ***It would have been very helpful if the definitions for the
        activities had been provided at the training.***

    -   ***Not enough time was spent reviewing the activities to
        determine which ones were applicable to the work done here.***

    -   ***Training personnel did not agree on interpretation of
        functions. Disagreements among trainers should be avoided, i.e.
        there was a disagreement about the definition of Invasive
        species as a function and its activities.***

2.  What was not covered that would have helped the pilot run more
    smoothly?

> ***Since the staff at the Yuma Area Office has been involved in the
> concept of direct charging, the staff believed that more ore time
> should have been spent on reviewing the definitions for each of the
> activities that were going to be tested.***

3.  If the training were put on a CD with specific training modules that
    you can go through at your leisure, would that have been more
    effective than traditional classroom training?

> ***It all depends who the audience is. For trades and crafts people, I
> believe that the traditional classroom type training would be more
> beneficial. For employees literate in computer use CD training should
> be okay. One draw back to CD training or any type of on line training
> is that it takes away from the personal interaction that encourages
> questions and gives answers.***

4.  If training was delivered on a CD, would you still require a
    \"live\" instructor or someone who would go to the field and provide
    some \"hands-on\" training on ABC?

***I suggest that all employees in the Department are surveyed to
determine this. Again for trades and crafts staff, the "hands-on"
training will be more beneficial. Some of them may not even be computer
literate so providing them with a CD may not be of any help.***

### Logistics:

1.  For those of you whose participants did not have access to computers
    on a daily basis, did those individuals regularly take part in the
    pilot? If so, how did they record their time and enter it into the
    AZ pilot software?

> ***The employees who did not have access to the computer participated
> indirectly. Their time was entered by a person designated in the
> office and who regularly enters time for them.***
>
> ***Currently at the Yuma Area Office, most trades and crafts staff
> don't enter their time to the automated time and attendance system.
> Their time is entered by a clerk in their office. This same process
> was used for the Pilot.***