**Final Report**

***Management Assessment and Organizational***

***Analysis for the***

***Office of the Deputy Chief for Management***

![](media/image1.png)

![](media/image2.png)

**March 7, 2005**

![](media/image3.png){width="1.8020833333333333in"
height="1.3798611111111112in"}

**3441 Commission Court, Suite A**

**Woodbridge, VA 22192**

**Tel: (703) 492-0880**

**Fax: (703) 492-6336**

[http://www.compubahn.com](http://www.compubahn.com/)

Executive Summary

Compubahn, Inc. took a comprehensive and critical look at the
functionality and performance factors of the Office of the Deputy Chief
for Management of the Natural Resources Conservation Service at USDA.
The open access and cooperation of the Deputy Chief for Management and
the division managers reporting to that office allowed the project team
to inquire freely. The key objectives of this organizational assessment
are borne out of the desire of the Deputy Chief for Management to make
strategic decisions based on the overall effectiveness of the divisions
and staffs that report to his office. Compubahn's "organizational
evaluations, measurements, and determined effectiveness of the divisions
and staffs reporting to the Deputy Chief for Management" and the
identified dependencies between the divisions under the Deputy Chief for
Management and the other deputy chief areas would be addressed through
series of prioritized recommendations for improvements. With the
guidance of the COTR (Director of the Information Technology Division)
and the Executive Sponsor (Deputy Chief for Management), Compubahn
reviewed and compared the customer feedback with service provider
expectations for the entire organization.

The methodology for the study included an initial analysis,
prioritization, current state, desired state, and gap analysis. An
initial analysis of the organization was performed, with information
given to us during initial meetings and other documentation provided to
us. Because of constraints both in time and resources, the
prioritization phase was accomplished with an initial set of interviews
with key personnel of the NRCS. Once the priorities were determined, an
assessment of the current state of the selected Business Processes would
be made in a series of follow-up and additional interviews. We
determined the desired state for NRCS through a series of more detailed
interviews. The final gap analysis revealed the recommendations
necessary for change. The interview groups included department level
personnel responsible for implementing and defining policy; NRCS
division managers as top-level service providers and consumers; NRCS
deputy chiefs as top-level consumers of services; NRCS mid-level service
providers who are users, process owners, and service providers; and
senior staff of the field service agency partners, Rural Development and
the Farm Service Agency.

There is an organizational and cultural dissociation between the
administrative management functions housed in the Office of the Deputy
Chief for Management and the program offices and the Office of the Chief
of NRCS. This leadership system observation by the Compubahn project
team may be the strongest underlying factor contributing to the
"separateness" generally felt by the senior management team of the
Deputy Chief for Management. The lack of visionary and strategic
integration between administrative and program subunits are not uncommon
and they are not insurmountable organizational barriers. However, if the
vision and strategic objectives of the enterprise do not integrate the
roles of administrative and program subunits, the disconnection may fuel
the development of separate and contrary cultures.

Several of the over-arching generalized issues were earmarked by
customer and service provider comments. Those issue areas include the
need for service level agreements, improved customer service, assuring
there is personal accountability, heavily investing in staff training
and development, making leadership teambuilding a top priority, and
setting clear standards for performance. The principal findings in the
review of current business processes verify the results of an ad-hoc
approach to processes that have led to a higher level of organizational
ineffectiveness and inefficiency. The findings include a lack of
assessment ability or accountability, no formal means of tracking the
progress of requests, and overly stressed employees who lack clearly
assigned tasks and responsibilities to their customers.

This study concludes with 25 recommendations that are grounded in the
findings. At the top of the list is the recommendation to develop an
integrated implementation plan for the recommendations. Without a
coherent plan that balances co-dependent or inter-dependent
recommendations, resource availabilities, and time constraints, the
individual recommendations may have merit but they will have less value.

The effects of recent organizational restructuring at NRCS and OMB's
government-wide initiatives to streamline administrative management
functions over the last decade have put pressure on organizations to
undergo business process reviews, re-engineering, and automation, or in
some cases, the elimination of certain functions. Although NRCS has not
shown evidence of having been engaged in an enterprise process review,
there have been documented process reviews and re-engineering efforts on
a micro-basis in the information technology division. It appears that
two factors inhibit the accommodation of new business processes in the
administrative management functions under the Deputy Chief for
Management: 1) the lack of documented business processes; and 2) the
lack of resources for staffing and training for existing staff.

The Compubahn project team has given focused attention to the underlying
factors affecting the quality of service concerns that were expressed by
customers and process owners. Among the many comments that reflected
frustration on the part of customers and service providers were "shining
stars" of dedicated employees who were trying to meet the expectations
of their customers, although unwritten. Based on strong positive
comments from customers, the IT help desk, applications development, the
Employee Development Center in Ft. Worth, and certain individual efforts
in space planning and other isolated functions are highly regarded. This
point is gladly noted for this report. However, these accolades are
often hidden by the frequency of customer complaints and the level of
general frustration in the divisions under the Office of the Deputy
Chief for Management.

It is difficult for operations and service organizations to turn its
attention to process improvements when the "way we're doing it" works.
The pursuit of best practices in any organization requires a cadre of
staff or consultants to review and document how the work is getting done
and how it can be improved. If the business processes are not
documented, the ease of accommodating service efficiencies through
business process re-engineering and automation is hampered.

**Table of Contents**

[1 Introduction 1](#introduction)

[2 Key Objectives 1](#key-objectives)

[3 Findings 2](#findings)

[3.1 General Overview 2](#general-overview)

[3.2 Principal Findings 4](#principal-findings)

[3.3 Human Resources Management Division
6](#human-resources-management-division)

[3.4 Management Services Division 8](#management-services-division)

[3.5 Information Technology Division
10](#information-technology-division)

[3.6 Financial Management Division 14](#financial-management-division)

[3.7 Other Divisions 15](#other-divisions)

[3.8 Cross-cutting issues 16](#cross-cutting-issues)

[4 Recommendations 17](#recommendations)

[4.1 Implementation Planning 17](#implementation-planning)

[4.2 Strategic Approach the Enterprise
18](#strategic-approach-the-enterprise)

[4.3 Organizational Communications 19](#organizational-communications)

[4.4 Deputy Chief for Management Task Tracking System
19](#deputy-chief-for-management-task-tracking-system)

[4.5 Delegated Authority 19](#delegated-authority)

[4.6 Customer Relations -- Training 20](#customer-relations-training)

[4.7 Personnel Management Issues 20](#personnel-management-issues)

[4.8 Leveraging Innovative Technologies
21](#leveraging-innovative-technologies)

[4.9 Business Process Documentation 21](#business-process-documentation)

[4.10 Provide Funding to Enhance Functionality of ICAMS
21](#provide-funding-to-enhance-functionality-of-icams)

[4.11 Document Business Processes for Personnel Action
22](#document-business-processes-for-personnel-action)

[4.12 Automate SF-52 22](#automate-sf-52)

[4.13 Acquisition Processes for Real and Personal Property
22](#acquisition-processes-for-real-and-personal-property)

[4.14 Facilities Management (Space) 22](#facilities-management-space)

[4.15 Contract Initiation and Administration
23](#contract-initiation-and-administration)

[4.16 Integrate with FFIS 23](#integrate-with-ffis)

[4.17 Generate a Process to Provide an Accurate "Snapshot" of Financial
Data at any Time
23](#generate-a-process-to-provide-an-accurate-snapshot-of-financial-data-at-any-time)

[4.18 Develop a Process to Prioritize Software Certification
23](#develop-a-process-to-prioritize-software-certification)

[4.19 Establish a Structured Process for Managing Information Systems
through System Life Cycle Management (SLCM) Process
24](#establish-a-structured-process-for-managing-information-systems-through-system-life-cycle-management-slcm-process)

[4.20 Review and Evaluate the Reporting Structure of the CIO
24](#review-and-evaluate-the-reporting-structure-of-the-cio)

[4.21 Update and Improve IT Employee Skill Sets to Support the CIO
Function and Agency Mission
24](#update-and-improve-it-employee-skill-sets-to-support-the-cio-function-and-agency-mission)

[4.22 Refine Correspondence Approval Process and Make Sure you Have
Alternatives
25](#refine-correspondence-approval-process-and-make-sure-you-have-alternatives)

[4.23 Implement Electronic "Tracking and Approval" for Correspondence
25](#implement-electronic-tracking-and-approval-for-correspondence)

[4.24 Service Level Agreements (SLA's)
25](#service-level-agreements-slas)

[4.25 Add Staff for Retirement Counseling and HR Specialist for
Staffing/Classification
25](#add-staff-for-retirement-counseling-and-hr-specialist-for-staffingclassification)

[5 Annexure 26](#annexure)

[5.1 Methodology of Study (Annexure 1)
26](#methodology-of-study-annexure-1)

[5.2 Questionnaires (Anexures 2a-2g) 30](#questionnaires-anexures-2a-2g)

[5.3 Management Study Interview List (Annexure 3)
37](#management-study-interview-list-annexure-3)

[5.4 Reference Documents (Annexure 4)
39](#reference-documents-annexure-4)

[5.5 Organization Charts (Annexure 5)
40](#organization-charts-annexure-5)

[5.6 Progress Reports (Annexure 6) 45](#progress-reports-annexure-6)

[5.7 Acronyms (Annexure 7) 57](#acronyms-annexure-7)

#  {#section .unnumbered}

# **Introduction**

Compubahn, Inc. was retained by the Office of the Deputy Chief for
Management at the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) to assess the current
management apparatus under the Deputy Chief's responsibility. The study
commenced on June 23, 2004. The initial study design for the assessment
and organizational analysis began with the assumption that process-based
systems for service delivery were verifiable by oral presentations or
written documentation. Compubahn's earliest interviews revealed a
general lack of standard processes and a prevalent practice of relying
upon informal methods of completing tasks. Compubahn redesigned the
study to accommodate the new landscape and address basic organizational
needs as expressed by systems owners, service providers, and customers.

The Deputy Chief for Management expressed that "this study is not a cost
cutting initiative. If there are cost savings as a result of automation
or other changes, we will need to redirect those savings for
organizational improvements." Compubahn considers this study to be a
"bold management initiative to refine the understanding of the
customer's concerns, employee frustrations, and organizational inertia"
that prevents meaningful change. The Compubahn Project Team was
impressed with the open-door allowances for this study. The Deputy Chief
for Management provided open access to all of the areas requested by
Compubahn and approved of the directness of the assessment. The Team
established an investigative approach that considered costs savings but
gave more comprehensive assessments to customer service and
organizational processes. It became apparent that customer concerns
about poor timeliness in service delivery reflected a lack of
standardized processes, human resource deficits, and an inability to
accommodate innovation and technology for service improvements.

The NRCS is one of USDA's three field service agencies. Along with Rural
Development (RD) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA), NRCS forms the
locally based, principal service delivery structure to America's farmer,
ranchers, and rural communities. Federal statutes mandate that these
three agencies coordinate their information technology and other
administrative functions at the field service level in order to
streamline and simplify service delivery. NRCS and the other agencies
are located in nearly every county or parish in the United States.

NRCS provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people
conserve, maintain, and improve our natural resources and environment.
NRCS puts nearly 70 years of experience to work in assisting owners of
America\'s private land with conserving their soil, water, and other
natural resources. Local, state and federal agencies and policymakers
also rely on NRCS expertise. They deliver technical assistance based on
sound science and suited to a customer\'s specific needs. NRCS also
provides cost sharing and financial incentives in some cases. The Deputy
Chief for Management has 140 employees who provide direct services to
nearly 500 people and supportive services to fourteen thousand (14,000)
employees nation-wide.

# **Key Objectives**

The open access and cooperation of the Deputy Chief for Management and
the division managers reporting to that office allowed the project team
to inquire freely. The key objectives of this organizational assessment
are borne out of the desire of the Deputy Chief for Management to make
strategic decisions based on the overall effectiveness of the divisions
and staffs that report to his office. Compubahn's "organizational
evaluations, measurements, and determined effectiveness of the divisions
and staffs reporting to the Deputy Chief for Management" and the
identified dependencies between the divisions under the Deputy Chief for
Management and the other deputy chief areas would be addressed through
series of prioritized recommendations for improvements. The findings are
presented in Section 4.

With the guidance of the COTR (Director of the Information Technology
Division) and the Executive Sponsor (Deputy Chief for Management),
Compubahn reviewed and compared the customer feedback with service
provider expectations for the entire organization. Priority focus was
given to four major organizational divisions: Management Services, Human
Resources, Financial Management, and Information Technology.

In the context of the general scope for the study and in meeting these
objectives, Compubahn reviewed:

1.  Integration of management processes with internal and external
    programs and policies.

2.  Organizational representation and liaison to customer units.

3.  Direction and guidance of customer units.

4.  Administration and control of financial and material resources.

5.  General implementation and results.

# **Findings**

## General Overview

The principal findings in the assessment are in eight (8) separate but
inter-related categories. There are findings that pervade the
organization with a broad underlying impact and there are more specific
findings that are tied to certain business lines or services. The
principal findings of this report are in the categories of: leadership
issues, business processes, ethos and culture, accountability, the "fire
fighting" approach to operations, resource controls, communication, and
limited focus on innovation and technology.

Issues related to staffing and training needs, business process
standardization, the need for financial resources, and the development
of leadership systems permeated the study and were not tied only to the
senior levels of the Deputy Chief for Management. The NRCS senior
management team that include the NRCS Chief and those who report to the
Chief have a critical role in demonstrating to the
enterprise-organization that all of its areas and subunits comprise the
corporation. Without a sense of relationship to the corporate identity,
any area or subunit will lack a sense of mission that is tied to the
enterprise goals. Although there were weaknesses that resulted from the
organizational disconnect between the Office of the Deputy Chief for
Management and the program offices, branches such as the Information
Technology Center in Fort Collins, CO and the National Employee
Development Center in Fort Worth, Texas, received consistently positive
comments from customers. There were also a number of individuals who
were named as excellent service providers. But these positive mentions
were drowned-out by more frequently lodged complaints.

Compubahn's findings reflect a lack of documented and definable business
processes. The most frequently expressed notion of a business process
was the "that's-how-we've-always-done-it" syndrome. The lack of standard
processes for frequently executed tasks weakens the ability of the
organization to implement broad process improvements, accommodate
technology, and enhance the work environment of its employees.

The ethos and culture of the Deputy Chief for Management's area are
indicative of an organization that operates on an "informal" business
model rather than operating with service level agreements and assurances
of accountability. The multiplier effect of not having documented
processes and no service level agreements pushes individual performers
and can subordinate organizational goals and teamwork. The "informal"
business model may work well at a local neighborhood store or between
family members, but the pressure and constant demands on service
providers makes it essential to establish standardized processes and
service level agreements for their own measurable performance
improvements. The work environment for customers and service providers
will improve when the expectations of each are better understood through
these agreements and processes.

A noted issue of no delegated resource controls to the division managers
reporting to the Deputy Chief for Management seemed contrary to the
general management policies of NRCS. At the senior management or
supervisory level, one of the principal performance measures is tied to
the appropriate allocation of resources in completing assigned tasks or
objectives and preparing for future needs. The issue of fiscal
accountability for the managers is called into question because they
lack delegated control of their resources. In a number of cases,
managers have expressed that their employees need training or retraining
and if funding were within their immediate control, they would authorize
it. In a different case, a resource that is in limited supply is office
space. It appears that managers are at a loss for assuring their
employees that appropriate office space can be allocated. In some cases,
this resource is difficult to determine: *How many square feet is my
office? Do I get a window? Is there conference room space for privacy?*
The full range of resources for oversight and accountability does not
reside in the division managers.

Compubahn found that communications within the organization of the
Deputy Chief for Management were compartmentalized. The best level of
communication was within subdivision performance teams. However, it was
not uniform throughout the organization. There was very little
investment in the internal communications process of the Deputy Chief
for Management. The concept of corporate communications has developed
and expanded rapidly in recent years. Technology and the "want to know"
behavior of workers in the information age have forced this change. The
residual benefits of a well-designed and thoughtfully implemented
intra-organizational communications strategy can be highlighted by
stimulating a corporate culture of better-informed employees. Between
customers and service providers, the informal communications channels
appeared to be working well. The only weakness in this practice is that
tasks, assignments, and status reports were not routinely captured for
performance measurement.

The overall operating nature of the principal divisions reporting to the
Deputy Chief for Management reveals that an informal relationship takes
precedence over business protocols or processes. In this case, the
squeaky wheel gets the grease. But even when there are no squeaky
wheels, without standard processes the individuals, teams, and
organizations frequently find themselves in the "firefighting" mode of
service delivery. One customer said, "I get knots in my belly when I
know I have to make a request to that office. I don't know what to
expect and I don't think they do either." The high anxiety for customers
and service providers is created by a "firefighting" mentality that is
grounded in an informal business model that lacks a foundation for
expectations on the part of the customer or service provider.

## Principal Findings

### Leadership Issues

The principal role of leadership is to articulate and communicate a
vision for the organization and to direct the organization toward its
objectives. The organizational objectives for the enterprise and its
units or divisions will precede the formation of "functional
statements". The "functional statements" describe what tasks needs to be
completed in order for the enterprise to meet its objectives and
carryout its mission. Clearly defining the purpose of NRCS in an
organizational strategic plan is the responsibility of the Chief of
NRCS. In leading this developmental process, the Chief integrates the
authorities of law and regulations to set the enterprise in a direction
that meets its prescribed mission.

The Deputy Chief for Management reports to the Chief of NRCS. The
results of the Compubahn management assessment revealed that there is
little reflection of an integrated strategic plan at the Deputy Chief
level. The linkages between the management functions and the ultimate
customer, the American people, has not been articulated and made a part
of the "core values" that guide the organization. As much as this
organizational guidance is lacking for the deputy chief, it is not
uncommon in administrative management operating organizations. If fact,
it is generally uncommon to find administrative operations that are
guided by an internal vision, mission, and a set of strategic
objectives.

Many administrative operating units are driven by customer demands and
timely task responses rather than lofty visions. In the case of NRCS,
the managers reporting to the deputy chief expressed that it would be a
"luxury to pause, step back, and develop a thoughtful vision for what
our organization could be."

In the NRCS General Manual, Title 330, Operations Management, Part 400,
Functions of Management states, "The management process seeks to
effectively and efficiently integrate the functions of planning,
organizing, staffing, directing, and evaluating." Furthermore, "these
functions interrelate to achieve the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) mission and objectives. Line officers and program
managers who effectively use these management functions prevent
deficiencies in the delivery of services, increase support for programs,
and improve the morale of employees."

In Part 400.1- Policy, of the General Manual, it emphasizes that "it is
NRCS policy that the five management functions of planning, organizing,
staffing, directing, and evaluating be used in a continuous process in
all NRCS organizational units. All NRCS personnel are to fully utilize
the management functions in managing resources under their control to
attain the maximum amount of high quality work in support of the NRCS
mission and objectives. This responsibility is carried out in close
cooperation and coordination with conservation district activities,
plans, and priorities."

The findings regarding leadership issues resonate throughout the study
and raise concerns regarding the top level of the NRCS enterprise and
its business relationship to its administrative management arm. The
disconnection between the program offices and the supporting
administrative management offices was apparent in the interviews with
customers and service providers. However, this disconnect appears to be
an historical organizational phenomenon that has persisted. In the
current NRCS Strategic Plan, there are few references to the mission or
enterprise relationship between the Deputy Chief for Management's area
and the rest of NRCS. Although the NRCS program customers of the
administrative management divisions conveyed their essential need for
the services in order to complete their missions and goals, the Deputy
Chief for Management's area has not been appropriately integrated into
the NRCS vision and strategic plans.

NRCS, as an enterprise, has an excellent relationship with its customers
in the field. For the Deputy Chief for Management in Washington, DC,
this does not translate into customer satisfaction among program
offices. It is true that overall services are provided by the management
area day-in and day-out but there are serious chronic "pain points" that
take its toll on staff and employee morale.

The principal findings under the category of leadership are reflected in
the following "pain point" quotes expressed by customers and service
providers. The leadership of the NRCS management divisions believes
these "pain points" are symptomatic of the "systematic de-emphasis" of
administrative management functions at NRCS.

1.  Regarding service level agreements: "Poor, poor, poor service. It's
    known to everyone. Service agreements? We don't get to those kinds
    of things. We don't have time to get to SOPs."

> "It would be good to have service level agreements in writing. It
> would be good for providers and customers regarding expectations."

2.  Customer service: "The attitude is poor, rude, discourteous, and
    nasty. Customer service training is necessary for Dwight Holman's
    area. All management employees need it. Do it by division. It might
    be that professional standards need to be elevated. "

3.  Accountability: "A lack of timeliness drives my folks crazy. If it
    is important to us, we hand-walk a document through the system.
    There is no accountability because there's no tracking."

4.  Staff training and development: "I observe a lack of staff
    resources, multi-tasking by staff, and poor direction from
    supervisors. They have a shortage in the amount of people with the
    right skills. They have poor skill sets that are matched with the
    offices (they're in), and they are trying to meet service needs."

5.  Leadership teambuilding: "People trying to do too much, too fast
    contributes to the problems. Trying to do too much with too few
    people. But there is a lack of teamwork. There is an issue of
    attitude and skills."

6.  Performance: "There is marginal functioning. High achievers are
    finding it hard to perform. They get dragged down."

> "Attrition of well-trained, good staff especially in HR is a problem.
> Working conditions are better elsewhere and promotion potential might
> be the same."

### Business Processes

We have found that there are few business activities within the NRCS
management office that are explicitly defined, and success depends on
individual efforts and heroics. The staff is working on day-to-day
operations and do not have time to improve processes.

The principal findings in the project team's review of current business
processes verify the results of an ad-hoc approach to processes that
lead to:

1.  Lack of assessment**:** There are no mechanisms to assess or measure
    the performance of the business processes.

2.  No Accountability: Many tasks have not been formally assigned to
    agents, for example in personnel, and frequently there are no
    expectations for when tasks have to be completed or who is supposed
    to complete them. In addition there are no formalized Service Level
    Agreements (SLAs) between different parts of the organization. This
    also leads to a lack of responsiveness to requests from different
    agents.

3.  No tracking: The lack of explicit processes does not allow for the
    tracking of progress or status. It is up to the individual to track
    the progress of requests through the organization.

4.  Stressed Employees: The lack of clearly assigned tasks and
    responsibilities to agents (employees), the reliance on individual
    efforts and heroics leads to overworked and stressed employees,
    which in turn leads to poor morale.

## Human Resources Management Division

The principal findings in HRMD are:

1.  Insufficient resources in some areas

2.  Lack of tracking systems, SLAs, strategic plan, automated processes.

3.  Some customers are confused by inconsistent HR procedures.

4.  Some staff is lacking skills in classification and retirement
    /benefits area.

The HRMD is responsible for providing policy nationwide as well as the
full range of operational servicing activities to the NRCS headquarters
staff. There are three principal branches: Employee and Labor Relations;
Employment and Classification; and, Human Resources Servicing. There is
also a small HR services staff located in Fort Worth Texas.

The division is still somewhat in flux adjusting to the NRCS
reorganization which impacted the division staff in terms of changing
assignments and movement of staff to new positions. It appears that the
biggest issue is insufficient resources to do the job. In addition to
the regular day-to-day work, the staff struggles with other major
assignments such as Congressional mandates, competitive sourcing i.e.
outsourcing, and Presidential and Secretarial initiatives.

As a result, there are several common themes that are evident throughout
the division. There is no strategic plan for the division. There are no
service level agreements, or business processes other than informal
agreements. There is policy guidance available to help with providing
advice and guidance to NRCS staff, but generally no standard operating
procedures that would significantly aide staff or customers. Further,
there are no automated processes, and very little in the way of tracking
capabilities. Thus, there is no reliable data available upon which to
base resource decisions.

Customers complain that they don't know what to do to get certain
requests into the system. They are often given different advice
depending on with whom they spoke.

There is positive feedback as well. Some HRMD staff felt that most of
the comments they received from customers were very favorable. For
example, in the area of the ERT (Employee Relations Team) there is
favorable feedback. In this area, customers are usually dealing with
difficult employee issues and problems. When the issues are handled
competently, their satisfaction level tends to be high. Interviewers did
receive one negative comment regarding this area. That complaint related
to handling grievances when civil rights issues are involved. Allegedly,
this matter was not handled in the proper sequence. It was not
determined if there was a pattern of dealing with these type cases in a
similar fashion.

The HR Servicing Team has several concerns. The long-term detail of a
personnel specialist from this team has adversely impacted service to HQ
(Headquarters) customers. There are not enough Personnel Specialists to
handle the workload. The specialists on the team provide staffing and
classification advisory services but due to the lack of experience and
training they are not proficient in classification, although staffing is
the bulk of their work. The Team Leader is the only skilled classifier
on the team. When requests come in, the Team Leader is the only person
who can respond. The Team Leader has recently accepted a position
elsewhere in NRCS.

The hiring process generates some customer concerns. There are different
procedures depending on how a position is being filled; e.g. merit
promotion versus outside recruitment. Either method is time consuming.
In addition, the procedures for both are not well understood by
customers. Even the Request for Personnel Action (SF-52) process is not
documented which often results in requests being sent to the wrong
office for action.

There is also a lack of coordination between the Management Services
Division (MSD), and the Financial Management Division (FMD), with
respect to employee relocation. Personnel action that result in the
movement of an employee from one location to another must have well
coordinated procedures to avoid personal hardship to the employee
involved and disruption and or financial disaster to the respective
offices. Comments from interviewees indicated that this is a recurring
problem.

The HR servicing team also lacks adequately skilled resources to provide
professional retirement counseling and guidance as well as competent
benefits counseling. This deficiency causes employees not to have
confidence in seeking guidance in what is a highly personal and
sensitive area. Employees are in the uncomfortable position of seeking
help outside the Agency, or trusting the advice they are given.

The National Employee Development Center in Fort Worth appears to be
well organized, and focused on its mission. They have a formal business
process for managing their work throughout the training cycle. The
limitations result from lack of funds, and lack of control over NRCS
staff that provide the principal source of subject matter trainers. The
Director would also like to provide much more inventory, but is limited
by the above-mentioned impediments.

##  {#section-1 .unnumbered}

## Management Services Division

The principal findings of MSD are summarized as follows:

1.  Generally negative feedback from customers concerning reliability,
    attitudes and competence.

2.  Poor coordination with HRD and FMD.

3.  No accountability for poor performance

4\. No business processes.

Management Services Division (MSD) is responsible for Grants and
Agreements management, Contracts management, Facilities management, Real
and Personal property management, Mail management, Records and
Directives management, and Acquisition management. It provides national
leadership for a comprehensive management services program. Internal and
external customers require these administrative management support
services to complete their duties. Internal customers include each
organization established within NRCS at all levels, down to local level.
External customers include farmers, ranchers, municipalities,
contracting communities and grantees (universities, for profit or non
profit organizations). Without these vital services, all customers would
find it difficult to do their jobs and operate in the system.

The customers assess the delivery of these management services with
these criteria: (i) Complete customer service (ii) Promptness i.e.
timely factual answers (iii) Solid, clear and consistent policy and (iv)
Politeness in dealing with customers. The staff providing services
generally does not adopt these criteria in meeting the needs of its
customers. There was widespread negative feedback from customers
concerning reliability, attitudes and professional competence. There are
no performance standards in place and no one is accountable for poor
performance. There are some who feel that the system is broken,
dysfunctional and has no credibility. Although these findings readily
site the weaknesses in MSD, there were noted pockets of high performers,
such as in space planning.

There are no formal service level agreements for service delivery so
that customers know in advance what they are getting. Most employees
work on the basis of informal understandings and functional
requirements. The informal nature by which the divisions get their tasks
and functions accomplished do not allow for a consistent standard of
service and therefore does not appear to engender performance
accountability. In addition, MSD, HRD and FMD do not work as an
integrated team to provide optimal management services to NRCS. In a
recent reorganization, some staff were transferred to Headquarters from
outside the Washington, DC area. They reported for duty but there was no
office space, telephones, furniture and personal computers available for
them. HRD was responsible for transferring the staff to NHQ; MSD was
responsible for space allocation and providing telephones and computers
and FMD was responsible for providing budgetary resources. Due to a lack
of communication and advance planning and coordination, the transferred
staff was not operational for several weeks. It is therefore vital that
these divisions should proactively work together rather than working
independently and waiting for the other to respond.

Generally, there are no written or well-defined business processes to
follow in providing services. The work is done sometimes on the basis of
guidelines or standard operating procedures or as directed by the
supervisors. However, they are using (i) Acquisition system for
procurement (ii) New property management system and (iii) Mail
management system. Customers still want to know the acquisition process
for real and personal property. No one seems to know what happens to
their requests and there is no feedback from the service provider. Space
allocation is a big issue among staff and the issue causes resentment.
There should be well-defined processes for allocating space as per
standard guidelines in a timely fashion. ProTracts which is a
Web-enabled application that streamlines the application and contracting
process is being used. Steps are being taken to improve ProTracts with
additional functionality and to simplify Program Contracts and
Application Process. There is a need for contract initiation and
administration process for clearance and tracking. These examples
illustrate that there is no mechanism for developing and regularly
updating business processes within MSD. According to MSD, business
process development, documentation and communication to customers is not
done due to lack of adequate staff. With availability of more staff, MSD
intends to document business processes. There is a realization that the
current way of doing work is not efficient and needs improvement.

One of the reasons generally given for not being able to provide
customer service is "a staff that is overworked and stressed". The
workload has increased over the years without a corresponding increase
in staff. It appears that MSD does not have adequate human resources
with the right skills in several areas. The present staff strength and
requirements of various teams in MSD is as follows: Grants and
Agreements team have 2 but need 7, Records and Directives have 7 but
need 10, Facilities, Property and Mail Management have 6 but need 11,
Acquisition Policy have 5 but need 11, and Acquisition Operations have 0
but need 11. There is no data available to quantify the workload.
Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether poor customer service
is due to a shortage of staff, inadequate skill sets, non-utilization of
technology tools, worker attitude issues or inefficiency. It could be
any or all of these reasons.

There are communication problems between some staff and team leadership.
The staff feels that team leadership does not have knowledge and
relevant experience and does not respect the authority of the officer.
Sometimes management makes decisions without communicating to the
officer working on the issue/project and sometimes the officer gets
mixed signals from management. This creates tense interactions and a
difficult work environment. There is also a feeling of unfairness and
special treatment for certain individuals. The staff morale is
negatively affected when they do not get support for grade advancement.

The Electronic Directive System provides employees immediate access to
the most current manuals, handbooks, bulletins, technical notes, and
user guides issued by NRCS. This system is maintained by ITC. There is
no dedicated person in ITC for directives work. Records management is
not recognized as an important function in MSD. Due to insufficient
funding and staff, the needs of customers are not fully met. There is
room for improvement in the record management process.

## Information Technology Division

The principal findings of ITD are summarized as follows:

1.  IT project portfolio management is good. However, ITD should develop
    a structured process to manage systems initiation, integration,
    development and maintenance of applications and software development
    initiatives with formal sign off.

2.  Business application development by ITC is excellent. Contractors
    are not providing documentation as per federal life cycle process
    mandated by OMB. Put in place a process to provide documentation for
    ITC developed software including user guides, tutorials, system
    administration guides, and technical reference manuals.

3.  ITD should set up a process to prioritize and streamline software
    submission for Certification.

4.  IT support services considered excellent by customers. Service Level
    Agreement's (SLA) are in place. This function is being transferred
    to ITS.

5.  The data reflects an inadequate organizational structure and
    management span of control. ITD being reorganized to provide better
    IT management

6.  IT employee skill set need updating and improvements to support the
    CIO function and the Agency mission.

7.  Review and evaluate the reporting structure of the CIO.

8.  No documented business processes available. Set up a mechanism for
    developing and regularly updating business processes.

The NRCS IT mission is to provide leadership, vision, and advice on the
strategic and tactical use of information technologies to the Chief,
Associate Chief, Deputy Chiefs and other NRCS senior managers in order
to support core business processes and to help the agency achieve its
mission, critical goals and objectives. NRCS is a progressive agency in
its information technology approach and methodologies and strives to
continually improve its processes, procedures, and policies to ensure
the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of information
resources.

The NRCS Chief Information Officer (CIO) has overall leadership,
responsibility and accountability for the NRCS Information Technology
(IT) Program. The NRCS CIO is charged not only with meeting the assigned
duties and responsibilities within NRCS, but also with supporting
department level initiatives such as eGovernment implementation,
Co-Chair, USDA Telecommunications Advisory Subcommittee, and USDA CIO/IT
Leadership Council member. The CIO is explicitly responsible for
promoting improvements in agency work processes to ensure that work is
done effectively prior to making IT investments.

The National IT staff is under the leadership of the NRCS Chief
Information Officer (CIO). The national information technology and
management functions are conducted by two divisions that are under the
auspices of the CIO, the Information Technology Division and the
Information Technology Center. The Information Technology Division (ITD)
is located in Beltsville, Maryland. ITD is primarily responsible for
policy development and guidance, operational review and analysis, budget
management and capital planning, and security standards and
implementation. The Information Technology Center (ITC) is located in
Ft. Collins, Colorado. The ITC is primarily responsible for agency
software development and documentation, and information systems
certification and accreditation (C&A).

The NRCS IT support structure was highly decentralized and each state
had IT staff to provide help desk support and provide assistance with
agency unique applications. State IT support covered all offices in a
state. On November 28, 2004, support for all common IT infrastructure
support and services was transferred to the USDA OCIO for the Service
Center Agencies (Rural Development, Farm Services Agency, and NRCS). The
new organization, Information Technology Services (ITS) is responsible
for ensuring that all agency applications are tested and certified prior
to placement on Common Computing Environment (CCE) equipment and then
ensuring timely deployment of the software.

Information technology plays an enabling role in all management and
program areas. All deputy chief areas utilize information technology in
some form or another to perform most of their core work. Without IT
service it would be extremely difficult to function and fulfill NRCS
mission requirements. Information technology infrastructure is the means
by which NRCS delivers its services to its customers at all
organizational levels. Having a fully functional infrastructure impacts
how field, state and national staff conduct their business operations.
ITD is responsible for the delivery of these IT services and equipment.
The Information Technology Center (ITC) builds and maintains most of the
corporate business applications in the NRCS IT investment portfolio. It
is responsible for coordinating all business application development and
maintenance in the agency. Until convergence, the ITC has also been
responsible for IT infrastructure operations, including IT acquisitions,
help desk, and network operations. The ITC Director and staff team
leaders have led key Service Center Modernization Initiative IT working
groups, including Common Computing Environment (CCE), telecommunications
strategy and data management.

The Information Technology Division has put in place a structure that
will help convey the needs of its customers. The National Information
Technology Project Coordination Committee (NITPCC) is primarily
responsible for looking at IT development needs, requirements, and
issues to determine the impacts and effects within the Division and
across Deputy Chief areas. The NRCS CIO Co-Chairs the National
Information Technology Project Coordinating Committee (NITPCC) along
with the Director of the Resources Inventory and Assessment Division
(RIAD).

A sub-group the Budget Core Team (PCC-BCT) performs much of the review
and initial analysis and prepares a report to the NITPCC for approval
and then it gets vetted through all of the Deputy Chief's and top
management for future analysis and support. The NITPCC is responsible
for IT projects prioritization leading to the development of the
National IT Project Slate. Ongoing communications throughout the year
also benefits the group by enhancing the coordination of more immediate
issues that arise on a day-to-day basis affecting the agency's key
business objectives. Though this is a good structure, there is room for
improvement. Sometimes events and actions occur and ITD is not in the
loop. Although the decisions are valid, ITD should be informed, even
when a problem status is remedied. This loop must be closed. ITD should
establish a structured process to manage systems initiation,
integration, development and maintenance of applications and software.
This would include formal sign off by Deputy Chiefs and the designated
program representatives that there is a legitimate requirement and that
further analysis is required by ITD/ITC.

The ITC develops, deploys and maintains business applications that meet
the needs of the divisions in all Deputy Chief areas. The Application
Development Team contains software project managers, and developers.
This team works with a "cross-cutting" project team to ensure that
applications are designed and developed according to standards,
integrate efficiently and perform to specifications. The ITC is in the
process of migrating to an agile development model where users are
engaged on bi-weekly intervals through design, construction and testing
of the applications. The current migration will be documented in a NRCS
Business Application Development Handbook, which ITC expects to produce
by mid-January. The ITC holds the key project management and technical
lead positions and contractors provide the remaining skills needed to
build and deploy the product (programmers, technical writers, database
administrators, system analysts, testers, etc). There is a need to train
IT software project managers and delegate more responsibility and
authority for the projects they oversee. Many products are built by
contractors however the documentation and other products required as
part of the federal life cycle process were not written by these
contractors until OMB mandated that this be done. It is therefore
important to put in place a process to provide documentation for ITC
developed software including user guides, tutorials, system
administration guides, and technical reference manuals.

The ITC Application Testing and Support team develops software
installation packages for software that has been developed by NRCS
employees, other agencies, universities and partners. Additionally, the
Test Lab tests these applications to ensure that they can be installed
and run on CCE computers without damaging the computer environment or
other applications. These software packages are tested efficiently and
effectively and the overall database that tracks these activities is
well maintained.

About 150 software applications were tested during FY04. After these
applications are tested and CCE certified, they are put on a website
located in Kansas City. A Software Application Testing and Certification
Policy was developed about five years ago and is generally being
followed. Presently, workload comes in from other agencies, COTS
vendors, field and state offices, national offices, centers and
institutes etc. without any centralized coordination. Before
applications are sent to the ITC test lab for CCE Certification, they
should go through a business driven clearinghouse that coordinates and
insures that the software meets business needs and is supported for use.
In order to optimally utilize limited resources for this work at ITC,
ITD should set up a process to prioritize and streamline software
submission for certification.

IT support services are provided by teams located at NHQ, ITC, Fort
Collins, CO and Fort Worth, Texas. These teams are responsible for
providing help desk support, installation, operation and support of the
information technology infrastructure that is used at all NRCS
organizational levels to deliver services and programs to NRCS and USDA
customers. With an increased reliance on automation by the agency, it is
more important than ever that IT support services provide reliable and
capable services to all NRCS offices. The NHQ team uses tracking
software to know the closeout of help desk request and is also following
a priority system to respond to service requests. Internal customers are
satisfied with the response of the support service team in resolving
their problems in a timely fashion. They have given accolades for the
services provided by the NHQ help desk. The ITC support team is having a
single database where all the requests for assistance are logged to
determine how many calls are received and what areas they cover. In
general, customers consider support services from all of the teams to be
excellent.

There are service level agreements (SLA's) in place for help desks in
DC/Beltsville, Fort Worth Texas and Fort Collins, CO. These SLA's are
critical for responding to end user needs and assistance. IT support
services were transferred to Information Technology Services (ITS) on
Nov 28, 2004. Convergence of IT support services of three agencies is a
challenging task and some are concerned about the support during
transition period to address the unique needs of NRCS customers and
programs

NRCS has historically recognized and supported development opportunities
(succession planning, career opportunities/ladders etc.) within many of
the traditional disciplines (soil scientist, engineers, agronomist etc).
It seems, however, that although IT is the common denominator and the
business enabler for all agency work, it has not been afforded the same
"fanfare", accolades or support as other resource based disciplines.
There is a perception that this cultural enigma has served to erode the
IT discipline and minimize its importance in the agency and work
environments. At this point the organization is reporting directly to
the NRCS CIO. The data reflects an inadequate organizational structure
and management span of control for the ITD. In order to improve overall
IT management, Director, ITD has planned to establish a revised IT
organization with a deputy director and supervisory team or branch
leaders.

The CIO reports directly to the Deputy Chief for Management. However,
this structure has proven to be, in some instances, ineffective and
potentially undermines the best interests of the agency. A recent OIG
audit of the Water and Climate Information System revealed that some IT
functions are beyond the span of control of the CIO and the reporting
structure isn't effective for implementing best management practices.
Further, because the CIO reports to the Deputy Chief for Management and
not directly to the Chief, IT projects, IT needs, and critical
information are not always communicated in a timely manner up and down
the chain of command which results in "gaps" or delays in addressing IT
needs effectively and efficiently.

The ITD has been reorganized several times over the last 15 years.
People have been moved back and forth from line programs to IT. Some of
these people do not have proper IT skill sets. Due to inadequate
funding, there is no organized and structured way for systematic
employee development and training to raise the IT skill levels.
Therefore, it is important to establish an IT training curriculum and
program for shoring up IT skills and ensuring regular refresher training
for all employees. Almost all of the software development skills are
invested in contractors and only a few employees have the capability to
build software. ITD and ITC should consider building and strengthening
its in-house IT project management and software development skills. ITD
has a web modernization team and they must be trained in the latest web
technology to keep the NRCS web sites dynamic and looking its best.

ITD does not have a mechanism for developing and regularly updating
business processes. The work structure is organized for people because
there are no business processes. However, there is a realization that
business processes will be helpful. They certainly understand the
benefits of documenting their business processes. ITD needs to assess
and analyze their strengths and weaknesses and adopt a TQM (Total
Quality Management) approach to get at the desired outcome of better
service delivery, better management controls, documented business
processes and a more integrated organization. ITD has not been able to
concentrate on these issues due to human resource constraints.

## Financial Management Division

The principal findings of FMD are summarized as follows:

1.  Lack of budget dissemination

2.  No process for budget development, execution, and implementation

3.  Lack of delivery of reports/info to other organizations

4.  Employee attrition

5.  Fire fighting mode

6.  "System" is not integrated with FFIS

7.  Unfilled positions (27)

Financial Management Division is responsible for overall financial
management for the agency including ownership of financial system,
processes, reporting and results. The director of FMD serves as the
agency's Chief Financial Officer (CFO). The CFO also provides
leadership, coordination, and technical advice for developing and
maintaining an accounting system capable of: (a) providing complete,
reliable, consistent, timely and useful information; (b) integrating
accounting and budgeting information; (c) generating data that can be
used to measure various aspects of the agency's performance; and (d)
providing data for agency integrated accountability system.

The customers expect FMD to provide fund availability assessment
(Certification Process), bill payment services (contractor and grantee
payment), budget development and approval in a timely manner, payment of
vouchers and up to date financial reports to track expenditure. There
are no service level agreements to provide these services. FMD does have
an agreement with National Finance Center for accounting and payroll
support. FMD leadership has clear understanding of customer expectations
and is able to provide some of these services, but not all. They realize
that they can do better.

Financial and Management Services must have close working relationship.
The information generated by MSD when using IAS, CPAS, PROTRACT flows
into the financial system. FMD is supporting MSD in developing
procedures and training for grants and agreements and is also providing
help in implementation and conversion of CPAS.

Budget information is not disseminated in a timely fashion. There is no
information on process for budget development, approval and
implementation. There is one person at present working from home and
happens to be responsible for the process reviews. This employee is
tasked to consolidate all memos from the last three years and update all
procedures and communications. Business process reengineering is the
responsibility of this employee.

FMD is not able to deliver accurate financial reports upon the random
request of customers and other organizations such as the USDA CFO, OMB
or Congressional committees. FMD does not have adequate human resources
to provide timely or quality customer service. They have 52 positions
and 25 people. There are 27 unfilled positions. Due to shortage of staff
and pressure to meet deadlines, they are always in a firefighting mode.
As a result of recent reorganization, 17 positions from field were moved
back to headquarters, but people did not come with the positions and
functions. The grade levels were too low for people to come to
headquarters.

At present NRCS financial system is not integrated with Foundation
Financial Information System (FFIS). As a result budget allocation and
spending reports to monitor spending are not reconciled. There is urgent
need to link NRCS financial system to FFIS for financial reconciliation.
This will lead to increased efficiency and improved quality of
information reporting.

## Other Divisions

#  {#section-2 .unnumbered}

### Correspondence Management

The functions of the correspondence management staff are process and
priority driven. The review and editing of correspondence and the
efficient circulation of the documents for approval are demanding and
time sensitive. There is a manual tracking process to follow the
progress of documents, however, it is frequently circumvented. In a
number of cases, documents are lost.

The number of staff to accomplish the workload may be inadequate. There
is concern about the grade structure for the employees. When viewing the
correspondence management staff, one person observed that everyone
appeared to be in jobs that are dead-ended. This lack of upward mobility
in grade structure may contribute to low morale. The manager of the
correspondence management staff has requested a "desk audit" but it has
not been approved.

### Ethics

The work of the ethics staff appears to be meeting its objectives of
counseling, education, and prevention. The major objective is to prevent
ethical violations. Urging employees to seek advice on matters that may
seem inappropriate requires that the ethics staff build trust and
communicate effectively and frequently with guidance. The ethics staff
is fortunate to have the active support of the NRCS senior management
team.

### Outreach

The outreach division works closely with the program areas of NRCS is
providing support for the national scholars programs and keeping working
relationships with Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs),
Hispanic American Colleges and Universities (HACUs), the developing
Asian American Serving Institutions, and American Indian Serving
Institutions. The outreach division see themselves as the "program
conscience of NRCS".

A business plan serves as an organizational guide for the outreach
division. The development modeling for the scholars programs has a
written pilot but they do not have a manual for guidance. In the effort
to improve the message of outreach and consolidate resources at
conferences, the outreach office coordinates conference displays with
other NRCS program areas.

##  Cross-cutting issues

An analysis of the major crossing-cutting issues that will require the
Office of the Deputy Chief for Management to weigh the value and place
priorities on the elements of management improvements are: leadership
and strategic direction; business processes and innovation and
technology; and organizational structure and resources. Any
implementation plan must consider these discussions and decisions.

The leadership and the development of a strategic direction for the
organization is ill fated if they are not well integrated and
coordinated. This effort would include leadership development (executive
coaching, training, team-building). In the process of developing a
strategic direction for the organization, a model of teambuilding is
frequently a desired by-product of the exercises. The basic principle is
that an organization that does not have a clearly stated vision of the
ideal environment it wants to help create; or what it will do to
contribute to its creation; or how each division or unit will achieve
its tasks, will wander and expend time, energy, and other resources
seeking "corporate purpose". Once the leadership team has developed a
thoughtful vision and strategic direction, communicating this vision to
the organization in a coordinated fashion with "common language" and
timetables is the first step toward fulfilling a corporate need. This
particular need goes unmet in the enterprise of the Deputy Chief for
Management.

Business processes and the use of innovation and technology are divorced
from the role of leadership, but must be embrace by leadership. All
change efforts whether at the division, team, or corporate level must
have executive sponsorship to help drive the effort with the allocation
of money, human resources, and visibility. The changes in business
processes or the development of new, documented processes are resource
intensive and focused. As stated in Section 4.1 General Findings above,
"The lack of standard processes for frequently executed tasks weakens
the ability of the organization to implement broad process improvements,
accommodate technology, and enhance the work environment of its
employees."

If the business processes of the service delivery employees and staff
are well understood but not documented, it is easy to convert this
process to a document for future modifications or for conversion to
automation. The link between efficiency and technology is easily
recognized but the "implementation of technology must be based on
clearly defined business requirements". The documentation of business
processes is the foundation for accommodating innovation and technology.

The organizational structure of the Office of the Deputy Chief for
Management is relatively flat with broad and over-extended spans of
control. Not only at the senior executive level but also at the division
level and below. Any complications that are related to span of control
are compounded by the "scattered" sites of the offices. This is a
complicating factor but can be addressed with intentional efforts in
communications and setting a clear vision and strategic mission for the
organization. The essence for a strategic planning and direction is to
set corporate goals and directions and have every division, branch, and
employee feed into those goals. When managers and employees have
performance elements based on the goals of the organization, this
accountability will breed ownership.

The organizational structure of the Office of the Deputy for Management
has practical issues with space and resources. The physical space issues
can be better addressed with a comprehensive approach to space planning.
The realization of a limited amount of physical space must be
acknowledged, and the management and methodology for space controls can
be shared. Just as the physical resource controls can be shared in a
comprehensive plan, the financial and personnel controls for managers
can delegated to them. An organizational structure that seeks to
supports personal accountability and performance may be better
positioned when decision-making and resource controls are pushed lower
toward the service delivery levels.

# **Recommendations** 

1.  Implementation Planning

2.  Strategic approach for the enterprise

3.  Organizational Communications

4.  Deputy Chief for Management Task Tracking System

5.  Delegated Authority

6.  Customer relations -- training

7.  Personnel Management Issues

8.  Leveraging innovative technologies

9.  Business Process

10. Provide funding to enhance functionality of ICAMS

11. Document business processes for personnel action

12. Automate SF-52

13. Acquisition processes for real and personal property

14. Facilities Management (Space)

15. Contract initiation and administration

16. Integrate with FFIS

17. Generate a process to provide an accurate "snapshot" of financial
    data at anytime

18. Develop a process to prioritize software certification

19. Establish a Structured Process for Managing Information Systems
    through System Life Cycle Management (SLCM) Process

20. Review and evaluate the reporting structure of the CIO

21. Update and improve IT employee skill sets to support the CIO
    function and Agency mission

22. Refine Correspondence Approval Process and make sure you have
    alternatives

23. Implement electronic "Tracking and Approval" for correspondence

24. Service Level Agreements (SLA's)

25. Add staff for retirement counseling and HR specialist for
    staffing/classification

## Implementation Planning

The list of recommendations (Sections 4.1 to 4.25 below) will be
meaningless without a comprehensive implementation plan that addresses
each of them. It is highly recommended that an implementation plan be
developed. Without a plan for implementation, an effort to implement the
recommendations on an ad hoc basis would surely create organizational
imbalance. The plan should provide a timeline, priorities, integration
of related business functions, and an assignment of measured resources
for each task. It is critically important that the plan explicitly
describe some of the interdependencies that each of these
recommendations entails.

It was obvious during our interviews that there is a level of
frustration among NRCS personnel. The level of expectation that is
generated as a result of this study is high and it is advisable to take
advantage of the momentum created by these expectations. A set of
well-delineated findings and recommendations that are presented without
an action plan, may compromise any credibility generated by this
organizational analysis and study effort.

It should be clearly stated that since some of these actions are
sweeping and broad, they should be endorsed and supported at the highest
level of the organization (NRCS). Without that reasonable support, the
likelihood of a successful enterprise transition is very low. The
organizational development and change management disciplines are
emphatic on this point.

## Strategic Approach the Enterprise

The development of a strategic approach to business and service delivery
by the Office of the Deputy Chief for Management would focus the
organization on its vision and mission as the administrative support to
the program offices of NRCS. Although there is a strategic plan for
NRCS, the Office of the Deputy Chief for Management is not a featured
sub-organization nor does it appear to have an intended integration with
NRCS programs.

The strategic approach is based on the development of a vision
statement, mission statement, strategic objectives, core values and a
set of operating principles. This would serve the Office of the Deputy
Chief by focusing the enterprise in a direction that is based on the
legally mandated mission of NRCS. It is the executive management team
that establishes a strategic plan with its origin in a set of core
values: the essential values of the organization. A vision statement is
a brief comment that articulates an ideal image of the world of the
organization. The mission statement describes what an organization must
accomplish in order to move toward its vision. The strategic objectives
or goals are well-delineated outcomes that further the mission of the
organization. Also within the strategic plan are the principles of
operation that guide and govern the behavior of employees toward one
another and toward their customers in the commission of their
responsibilities. The principles of operation are based on the
organization's core values.

It is recommended that all of the divisions and branches (teams) of the
Office of the Deputy Chief for Management develop strategic plans that
feed into the Deputy Chief's strategic plan. Furthermore, from the
enterprise standpoint, it is the individual employee who is responsible
for the achievement of organizational objectives and goals. Frequently,
every employee has performance elements (tasks) that are tied directly
to the organization's strategic plan.

Communicating the vision, mission, and strategic objectives to the
organization in an orderly fashion insures clarity and attention to the
importance of the message. The communication plan must reflect a
corporate roll out and provide an avenue for employee feedback and
questions. In many organizations, repetition has been an effective
strategy for gaining greater familiarity with the strategic plan.
Another important learning principle is associating the strategic plan
to the specific work of each employee or staff through their performance
plans.

## Organizational Communications

Based on the findings in each division and in many subunits, regular
staff meetings appear needed for a number of reasons. It is recommended
that the Deputy Chief for Management conduct regular staff meetings with
direct reports in order to assign specific tasks and to receive
in-person reports on the status of these assignments. This is also an
opportunity for the "senior management team" to assess the general
progress of the organization in relation to its strategic objectives and
goals. The regular meetings would allow for immediate feedback from the
senior executive to the direct reports providing further clarifications,
support, and correction where needed. The regularity and standard
process for the meetings will lead to more effect and fruitful sessions.

The direct reports meetings are not limited to the senior management
team of the Office of the Deputy Chief for Management. It is recommended
that the same meeting regime be executed at the division and team level
of the organization.

As an integral part of the organizational communications strategy,
"all-employee meetings" are recommended. It is recommended that these
meetings occur on a quarterly basis during intensive "organizational
change" efforts. Frequent communications via real time, in-person
settings give importance and value to the events. When the senior
management team provides helpful and timely information to employees
during stressful times, it reinforces the principle of "valuing
employees".

## Deputy Chief for Management Task Tracking System

The number of tasks undertaken by the divisions reporting to the Deputy
Chief for Management varies in urgency, priority, and complexity. The
clearinghouse for task status and knowledge is in the mind of the Deputy
Chief for Management. It is impressive. This "business intelligence" can
be captured in an "electronic dashboard" tracking and notification
system. The concerns expressed by division managers and principal
customers reflect that the Deputy Chief for Management should implement
a task tracking system. The Deputy Chief for Management's expressed
concern for the lack of time in following up on projects' status and
having too many tasks to follow further supports this recommendation. An
automated system of tracking major projects, assignments, and tasks may
have an advantage over a manual approach.

The manual approach requires a person to interact with the Deputy Chief
for Management and serve as an intermediary to the division managers or
"assignees". This approach is more time-consuming and may introduce
misunderstandings or confusion thereby defusing accountability. The
automated system is purely time-line and status reporting until the task
is accomplished. The Deputy Chief for Management easily initiates direct
contact with staff if it is required.

## Delegated Authority

It is highly recommended that the Deputy Chief for Management delegate
authority for budgeting, acquisition, and personnel to the division
managers. This delegated authority further enhances the responsibility
and accountability that rests in the duties ascribed to each division
manager.

The full authority and exercise of that authority truly makes the
division manager's full team members in carry out the functions and
responsibilities of the Office of the Deputy Chief for Management. Full
accountability for resource management will then rest in the managers.

## Customer Relations -- Training

One of the most often raised concerns by interviewees was the lack of
good customer-relations skills in certain divisions within the Deputy
Chief for Management. Comments included: "lack of follow up; unhelpful
attitudes; rude behavior; inaccurate advice and guidance". While the
vast majority of these complaints were attributed to one division
(Management Services), some were also directed to the Human Resources
Management Division, particularly those areas providing direct service
to program areas.

Because of the obvious dependencies that exist between the various
divisions under the Deputy Chief for Management in providing services to
other Deputy Chiefs, there is a multiplier effect in terms of the
negative impact resulting from these behaviors. Specifically, poor
service between divisions creates friction and increases office-wide
negativity while at the same time it impedes prompt and efficient
service to other Deputy Chiefs. This affects mission accomplishments,
and exacerbates perceptions of poor service provided by the Deputy Chief
for Management.

At the heart of this problem, is the lack of business processes,
documented operating procedures, and service level agreements that would
help everyone to communicate and understand necessary information. These
issues must be addressed as part of the overall strategy to improve
customer relations.

Another factor affecting good customer relations is the matter of poor
performance among employees. Many interviewees felt that management has
not effectively dealt with this issue. Some poor behaviors cited by
employees are not necessarily related to a lack of established business
processes but a matter of "poor professional standards and poor
attitudes". Holding individual supervisors and employees accountable is
essential to improving this situation.

A specific training plan needs to be developed to address this issue. If
the Employee Training Center does not have something appropriate in its
inventory, it is recommended that this task be contracted out if funds
are available.

## Personnel Management Issues

HRMD should reassess the process of identifying training needs for its
employees. Currently, Individual Development Plans (IDPs) are in place
for each employee, but funds are generally not available to fully
execute the plan. In addition, IDPs are not developed within the context
of strategic goals.

It is recommended that NRCS comply with the recent Office of Personnel
Management requirement to replace the two level performance appraisal
system with a multilevel plan that includes two levels above fully
successful.

## Leveraging Innovative Technologies

Web portal technology has proven over time to improve organizational
efficiency through streamlined business processes, more effective
communications and a higher level of collaboration. A portal is
essentially a central repository for data and knowledge so that
information can be shared across the organization. It combines
"intranet" and "extranet" technologies to put vital information at the
fingertips of employees regardless of their location or the location of
the information. They help empower employees to better perform their
tasks by solving their day-to-day business problems through enhanced
communications, collaborations and accelerated information dissemination
and access. Because portals leverage the existing information system
infrastructure, they deliver these benefits in a cost effective manner.

At present there is no portal that can provide consolidated information
about services provided by divisions under Deputy Chief for Management.
It is recommended that this web portal be developed that can provide
information on organizational structure, standard operating procedures,
key staff to contact for each service, standard forms, self help,
business process descriptions and other enabling contents. This web
portal should be regularly updated with additional contents based on
customer feedback. It is felt that this portal will act as a catalyst in
improving overall performance of the NRCS management organization.

## Business Process Documentation

It is recommended that the Deputy Chief for Management charge each of
the reporting divisions to identify its core functions and begin
documenting the business processes that drive the functions. A business
process describes the "Why, How, Who and When" and the relationship
between the tasks that make up the process. Without these questions
clearly defined and responded to, the enterprise will operate as a
"fire-fighting" organization, with low levels of productivity, and it
will depend upon personnel that are operating under constant stress.

Defining the business process is a first step. Personnel must be trained
appropriately so that every person understands their role in executing
the process. Users of the process (Customers) must understand what the
process does for them and what it does not do and when to expect
results. Since processes rarely function in isolation, interaction with
other processes or organizations must also be clearly defined through
Service Level Agreements (SLA's).

It is important to understand that the main advantage of having business
processes is that these can be improved and optimized. The first round
of business processes and their implementation will likely contain
errors, shortcomings and inefficiencies; however, the important thing to
remember is that by having a foundation of documented processes allows
the first steps toward business improvements.

## Provide Funding to Enhance Functionality of ICAMS

ICAMS, or Integrated Combined Administrative Management System, is a
processing system for three agencies; (RD, NRCS, and FSA). The system is
used for processing performance appraisals, training, and awards. The
National Finance Center (NFC) is supposed to take over handling this
system in the near future. The existing development team located in
Beltsville, MD, should continue to work with the participating agencies
to further develop its capabilities, and to prioritize enhancements to
the system. The leadership of the three agencies involved should provide
the support and direction to move this project forward.

##  Document Business Processes for Personnel Action

There are no established procedures for initiating requests for
personnel action. Submitting organizations often do not know what is
involved in the process or where to submit the request. Interviewees
reported that Requests for Personnel Action (SF-52) are often sent to
the wrong place for action, e.g. the Deputy Chief's office or the
Division Director's office and other offices because people aren't sure
where they are supposed to go. This results in unnecessary delays that
can affect mission accomplishment. Significant personnel actions such as
a new recruitment to fill a vacant position also lack documentation of
the process involved. There are many steps in the recruitment process,
each with its own time line. The HR servicing team has some internal
tracking of these steps for status purposes, but they do not have
standard operating procedures documented for submitting offices to
follow. Documenting this process would standardize procedures for
customers, reduce the time involved in obtaining service, and avoid
mistakes in submitting requests.

## Automate SF-52

The SF-52 is the basic government wide document for initiating a host of
personnel actions from promotions and reassignments to recruit actions
etc. Automation of this form, especially in conjunction with
documentation of the business process would provide many benefits. Among
them: faster submission of the request; certainty that the request is
going to the right place; electronic approval from supervisors; an
electronic record which can track progress and provide data for the
evaluation of request patterns; and, elimination of paper.

A survey should be done to determine what systems are available
elsewhere in USDA and the rest of the Federal government that can be
used in NRCS, or whether this can be an ICAMS enhancement.

## Acquisition Processes for Real and Personal Property 

Some members of leadership feel procurement is the "weakest area of
all". Procurement is a mystery to them and observed that they don't know
how to get anything anymore. They want to know the process for
procurement. They also want to know what happens to their requests or
want to know one contact person for follow up. These requests get lost
in the system. As there is no feedback from MSD, almost all have to
follow up to get the status. At present there is no well-defined
documented process for procurement. It is therefore recommended that the
acquisition process for real and personal property be developed,
disseminated and used.

## Facilities Management (Space)

Physical space management and moving staff offices is a difficult
process. MSD will move staff but it does not provide phone service or
requisition phone. This service is incongruent. Space is a sensitive
issue for scientists and "there is so much dissatisfaction with the
outcome". Sometimes there are factors beyond the control of the space
management office. NRCS has to follow GSA space allocation formulae. It
is therefore recommended that MSD develop a process to allocate space as
per standard guidelines and develop a comprehensive plan for space
management.

## Contract Initiation and Administration 

Getting contract documents through the process is cumbersome. There is
no process for clearance and tracking. Sometimes documents get lost. One
customer says the mystery should be removed from contracting: "They
should tell the dollar threshold value. They should provide guidance to
be a Contracting Officer Technical Representative (COTR). What is
expected from COTR? What does it take in education or training COTR?
There are no sample contracts to learn from." MSD needs to address all
these issues. In addition it is recommended that a contract initiation
and administrative process for clearance and tracking be put in place
for implementation.

## Integrate with FFIS 

At present NRCS financial system is not integrated with Foundation
Financial Information System (FFIS). As a result budget allocation and
spending reports to monitor spending are not reconciled. There is urgent
need to link NRCS financial system to FFIS for financial reconciliation.
This will lead to increased efficiency and improved quality of
information reporting. It is therefore recommended that NRCS financial
system be integrated with FFIS for financial reconciliation.

## Generate a Process to Provide an Accurate "Snapshot" of Financial Data at any Time

FMD is not able to deliver accurate financial reports on a "snapshot"
basis when requested by senior management within NRCS, USDA, or to other
agencies. These reports or data should be delivered whenever requested
within minutes. This timely delivery is crucial for decision-making. It
is therefore recommended that FMD generate a process to provide an
accurate "snapshot" of financial data at any time.

## Develop a Process to Prioritize Software Certification 

The ITC Testing and Field Support Team develops Software Installation
Packages for software that has been developed by NRCS employees, other
agencies, universities and partners. The Test Lab also tests these
applications to ensure that these can be installed and run on Common
Computing Environment (CCE) computers without damaging the computer
environment or other applications. If these software packages are not
tested efficiently and effectively, then there is a negative impact to
services provided by all business areas. At present workload comes in
from other agencies, COTS vendors, field offices, state offices,
national offices, centers/institutes, etc. There is no centralized or
coordinated effort to control the software submissions. It is therefore
desired that all software applications sent to ITC Test Lab for CCE
Certification should go through a business driven clearinghouse that
coordinates and ensures that the software meets business needs and is
supported for use. It is therefore recommended that a process to clear
and prioritize software submission for certification be developed.

## Establish a Structured Process for Managing Information Systems through System Life Cycle Management (SLCM) Process

The ITD has put in place a structure for Capital Planning and Investment
Control for information technology projects. The National Information
Technology Project Coordination Committee and Budget Core Team is
primarily responsible for understanding IT development
needs/requirements/issues, initial analysis and approval for future
analysis and support. Though this is a good structure for initiating
development of information technology projects but the System Life Cycle
Management process is not followed. The purpose of this process is to
ensure that information systems are planned, implemented, modified and
maintained in a manner that meets the program and business needs with a
high degree of reliability, effectiveness, security and cost efficiency.
The seven basic steps in the system life cycle namely: (i) Conceptual
planning phase (ii) Planning and requirements definition phase (iii)
Design phase (iv) Development and test phase (v) Implementation phase
(vi) Operations and maintenance phase and (vii) Disposition phase needs
to be consistently followed along with development of associated
documentation. It is therefore recommended that ITD establish a
structured process for managing information systems through System Life
Cycle Management process. ITD should develop a SLCM manual for use by
all NRCS and contractor personnel, who develop, acquire or manage new
systems or make modifications or enhancements to existing systems.
System developers, users and all levels of NRCS management across all
functional areas must adhere to this manual.

## Review and Evaluate the Reporting Structure of the CIO

The CIO function needs to be elevated in the organization to a level
commensurate with other federal agencies (as was recommended in the
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996). Not having the CIO at the table with the top
leadership also serves to undermine the information technology
discipline and its functional importance as well as making the desired
outcomes (project, program, budget, integration, and performance, etc.)
more difficult to achieve*.* The placement of the CIO at the proper
organizational level will achieve the authority and status to integrate
IT with the overall organization strategic efforts. It is therefore
recommended that ITD Director/CIO report to the NRCS Chief and the
position be elevated to the senior executive level grade as in FSA and
RD.

## Update and Improve IT Employee Skill Sets to Support the CIO Function and Agency Mission

The ITD has been reorganized several times over the last 15 years.
People have been moved back and forth from programs to IT. Some of these
people do not have proper IT skill sets. In addition there is continuous
generation of new technologies. Due to inadequate funding, there is no
organized and structured way for employee development and training to
raise their IT skill levels. Therefore, it is important to establish an
IT training curriculum and program for updating IT skills and ensuring
regular refresher training for all employees. It is recommended that
plan be developed with adequate financial resources to update and
improve IT employee skill sets to support the CIO function and agency
mission.

## Refine Correspondence Approval Process and Make Sure you Have Alternatives

Many individuals write to the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture
(USDA), as well as the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) to find out answers on specific program information,
discuss employee issues, or to obtain general comments regarding agency
and services. There is an approval process in place before the final
edited letter goes to NRCS Chief. Sometimes not all of the steps are
fully operational and letters are not signed in accordance with the
process. No one wants to break the guidelines and letters get delayed.
It is therefore recommended that the correspondence approval process be
refined with alternatives at each step in the process. This will enable
the process to move smoothly and avoid unnecessary delays. It is further
recommended that the service provider be proactive on behalf of the
customer in delivering this service.

## Implement Electronic "Tracking and Approval" for Correspondence

The correspondence management division serves as the central office for
editing, formatting and writing correspondence for NRCS offices. Their
customers are Division Directors and their staff, Deputy Chief's, Chief
and the Office of Executive Secretariat (OES) in USDA. They keep record
of all the correspondence and manage approval process manually. In order
to bring efficiency to this process it is recommended that
correspondence division implement electronic "tracking and approval" for
all correspondence.

## Service Level Agreements (SLA's)

The development of Service Level Agreements is recommended in order to
formally describe and formalize the interaction between two or more
organizations. As a general rule they contain:

-   A description of what the organization needs and only what it needs.

-   Definition of terms and how to monitor compliance with those terms

-   A description of the best-case scenario. What is the ideal
    situation?

-   A description of the worst-case scenario. What will happen if the
    organization fails for perform satisfactorily?

-   What are the penalties for poor performance? Make the punishment fit
    the crime.

-   Demand continuous improvement

-   Reward carefully

## Add Staff for Retirement Counseling and HR Specialist for Staffing/Classification

As discussed in the findings section, the retirement and benefits area
is lacking real program content as well as the necessary employee skill
sets to manage a full service effort. It is recommended that NRCS assess
whether or not they should contract this program out to another agency,
(preferably in USDA), or hire additional staff and provide more
extensive training.

The shortage in staffing and classification specialist in the HR
servicing team is in part due to the long-term detail of one of the
staff. This individual should either be reassigned permanently, or
returned to the unit. There is insufficient data available to determine
if additional staff beyond returning the detailed employee is warranted.

#  **Annexure**

## Methodology of Study (Annexure 1)

###  {#section-3 .unnumbered}

### Purpose and Approach

The purpose of this section is to explain the methodology followed in
the NRCS Management Study and the process used in implementing it. Our
main assumption is that any task performed by the NRCS office of
management can be viewed as a System and therefore can be analyzed using
Systems Analysis.

The study was divided into five main phases:

1\. Initial Analysis.

An initial analysis of the organization was performed, with information
given to us during initial meetings and other documentation provided to
us. Based on this, six different groups were broadly classified, as
follows:

1)  Department Level Personnel

> In charge of implementing and defining policy

2)  Division Managers Personnel

> The top-level service providers. This group is also a consumer of
> services from other parts of the organization.

3)  Deputy Chiefs

> From the point of view of the NRCS management office, members of this
> group are consumers of services.

4)  Midlevel Service Providers Personnel

> This group of users report to the Division Management. They are the
> main operational service providers. This group is also a consumer of
> services from other parts of the organization.

5)  Field Service Partners Personnel

> From the point of view of the NRCS Management office, this group is
> viewed as consumers of Services

6)  Other Key personnel

For the purposes of this study, we generated a relationship diagram
between these groups as such:

> ![](media/image4.wmf)

2.  Prioritization.

> Because of constraints both in time and resources, the second phase
> determined which Business Processes to focus on. We accomplished this
> with an initial set of interviews with key personnel of the NRCS.

3.  Determination of the current state for NRCS.

> Once the priorities were determined, we followed by assessing the
> current state of the selected Business Processes, with a series of
> follow up and additional interviews.

4.  Determination of the desired state for NRCS.

> Based on the information gathered from the interviews, we assessed
> where the organization needs to go.

5.  Perform a gap analysis between the current state and the desired
    state.

### Systems Analysis

Systems Analysis is defined as the study of an activity, procedure or
process to determine the desired end and the most efficient method of
obtaining this end. We have used this definition to characterize the
process and methodology performed in this study.

It is our understanding that the purpose of these processes is to
service requests both from external and internal users of the
organization. From a Systems Analysis point of view a System consists of
procedures, agents and constraints. Each can be defined as:

-   Procedures are the set of steps followed by the organization to
    perform the series of specific tasks for which it is responsible.

-   Agents are people, computer systems, equipment or any entity
    assigned to perform a specific task.

-   Constraints are the set of rules, regulations and laws that guide
    and regulate what and how the agency is supposed to perform its
    function.

The purpose of analyzing NRCS in this light is to allow us to understand
how NRCS processes are performed from a abstract level, to focus on its
most important elements, to determine how it is currently executing its
assigned responsibilities, to look for opportunities for improvement and
to determine how to achieve those opportunities.

### Determination of Priorities

Because of the limitation in time and constraints for this study it was
decided that the first priority in our study was to determine a set of
business processes to analyze. This was achieved by performing an
initial set of interviews with the objective of determining "end user"
priorities and input. The project team gave high value to the input of
the "process users."

### Determination of Current State

With the understanding of what processes to focus on, we performed a
series of interviews with both users and providers of services in order
to understand how these were implemented and performed. The focus of
this step was to determine some of the following:

1.  Are the processes adequate?

2.  Are the agents (people, systems, equipment) adequate for the tasks
    assigned to them?

3.  Are there any obvious bottlenecks?

4.  Have decision points been adequately identified?

5.  Have the agents been empowered to appropriately perform their tasks?

### Determine where NRCS wants to be

The purpose of this phase was to determine what are the expressed goals
and vision for the NRCS. This was necessary to understand the direction
the organization is going. The project team looked for these elements
during our interviews with top management and others in order to
determine if senior and mid-management, both users and service
providers, understood the goals and vision of the organization.

### Gap analysis

After determining the list of priorities to focus on, determining the
current state and deciphering a vision and a set of goals, the gap
analysis was performed to understand the disparities between the current
state and where the organization wants to be.

### What is a business process?

Business Process has been defined as "a group of business activities
undertaken by an organization in pursuit of a common goal." It usually
depends upon several functions for support, such as IT, personnel, and
space planning. Very seldom does it operate in isolation. It is
interdependent with other business process agents.

### Office of the Deputy Chief for Management Organizational Structure 

There is a Chief of NRCS and there is one Associate Chief and 5 deputy
chiefs. Immediately below the Chief is the Associate Chief, who serves
with the Chief in the planning and development of projects. The
Associate Chief has oversight responsibility for management, programs,
and accountability issues.

The Deputy Chief for Management is responsible for the development of
national policies; establishment and promulgation of procedures,
guidelines and standards; and providing agency and operational
leadership for management services, human resources management,
financial management, information technology, outreach activities,
alternative dispute resolution (civil rights, employee rights) and
ethics programs, correspondence management, and headquarters
administrative support. The Deputy Chief also assesses emerging
legislation, policy, and operations issues and conditions, and develops
management options and plans for managing NRCS.

Compubahn dedicated its study resources on the divisions reporting to
the Deputy Chief. These principal areas of responsibility for the Deputy
Chief for Management are:

1.  Management services. (Director), including headquarters
    administrative support.

2.  Human resources management. (Director)

3.  Financial management. (Director/Chief Financial Officer)

4.  Information technology. (Director/Chief Information Officer)

5.  Outreach activities. (Director)

6.  Alternative dispute resolution (civil rights, employee rights) and
    ethics programs. (Acting Director)

7.  Correspondence management. (Director)

> A director level staff heads each functional area listed above and
> reports directly to the Deputy Chief for Management.

## Questionnaires (Anexures 2a-2g)

### Annexure 2a

> NRCS Management Study
>
> Types of Questionnaires

1.  Level 1: Department level interviews to assess the policy compliance
    and adherence to guidance from the Department's administrative
    management policy offices.

2.  Level 2: NRCS Management Office, Division Directors who are the
    service providers.

3.  Level 3: NRCS Deputy Chief's who are primary customers of the
    Management Office. Civil Rights Office is also a customer of the
    Management Office.

4.  Level 4: Team leaders and others under Division Directors who
    implement the delivery of service.

5.  Level 5: Field Service Partner agencies, Rural Development and Farm
    Service Agency who can provide feedback on the general working
    relationships of the agencies.

6.  Others 6: Questionnaire Acting Associate Deputy Chief for Management
    and Questionnaire for Support Staff.

### Annexure 2b

> NRCS Management Study
>
> Questionnaire: Level 1

1.  What are your expectations of the administrative management
    functions (i.e. civil rights, human resources, procurement,
    information technology, financial) in each agency?

2.  How do you insure that they do what you expect of them?

3.  Does the performance or compliance of the Management Office of NRCS
    raise any concerns for your office?

4.  Do you communicate or acknowledge the successes of the NRCS
    Management Office to the Deputy Chief for Management or others?

### Annexure 2c

> NRCS Management Study
>
> Questionnaire: Level 2

**A:** **As Customer of Services**

1.  What are the three most important services you receive from each
    Division under NRCS management Office and place them in order of
    priority?

    a.  Management Services Division

    b.  Human Resources Management Division

    c.  Financial Management Division

    d.  Information Technology Division

    e.  Outreach Division

    f.  Administrative Support Division

    g.  Special Projects Division

2.  Do you have formal Service Level Agreements or work on the basis of
    informal understanding between divisions?

3.  Are the service level expectations clear?

4.  Explain if there are any "pain points" among service elements you
    receive.

**B: As Provider of Services**

1.  Do you know who your customers are?

2.  Do you know what your customers need?

3.  Are there services that you receive from other divisions that are
    required for you to deliver your own services?

4.  Which divisions do you believe work as an integrated team to provide
    best management services to NRCS?

5.  What policy or regulating guidelines do you feel are difficult to
    comply with? Why?

6.  Do you have adequate resources (manpower, systems, equipment etc) to
    provide expected quality customer service?

7.  Do you have a fully outlined organizational chart in your division
    and a clear job description for each position?

8.  Do you have a mechanism for developing and regularly updating
    business processes in your division?

9.  Are these business processes followed in providing services?

> 10\. Do you have a backup plan for providing time sensitive services?
>
> 11\. How do you rate the level of services you provide? (Scale: 1-10,
> 1Lowest and 10 Highest)

### Annexure 2d

> NRCS Management Study
>
> Questionnaire: Level 3

1.  What do you feel are the four most important services you receive
    from the NRCS Management Office?

2.  Please place these four services in priority order?

3.  How do you assess the benefits of each service you receive?

4.  How do you assess the quality of each service you receive?

5.  Do you have formal Service Level Agreements?

6.  Are the service level expectations clear?

7.  Are there "pain points" among the service elements you receive?

8.  Is there a demonstration of "nearly pure" effectiveness in the
    services you receive? Explain.

### Annexure 2e

> NRCS Management Study
>
> Questionnaire: Level 4

1.  What services do you or your team or division provide?

2.  Do you measure the effectiveness of services provided by your
    division or team?

3.  Are you able to meet the needs of your internal and external
    customers?

4.  What impact does the service you provide have on the services
    provided by the other divisions or Deputy Chief areas?

5.  Are your services integrated or coordinated with internal (within
    the Deputy Chief for Management area) and external programs (other
    NRCS Deputy Chief areas)?

6.  Does your division or team have representation or liaison with your
    customers in groups or working teams to insure customer guidance?

7.  Do you conduct an assessment of the administration of financial and
    material resources, utilization of human resources and review of
    implementation and results? How do you do this?

8.  Do you have adequate resources (human capital, systems, equipment,
    etc.) to execute your service objectives?

9.  What are the structure, staffing, workload and budget of your
    division/team?

10. How effective is your division or team in meeting it's stated goals
    and planned objectives in the following areas?

11. How effective you are in communicating with agency and department
    offices?

12\. Are there weaknesses in the decision-making processes in your team
or division?

> 13\. Do you have a mechanism for developing and regularly updating
> business processes in your division/team? How do you develop your
> business process?
>
> 14\. What business processes are currently being followed in providing
> services? Are these business processes documented? Please provide
> details?
>
> 15\. How you would like to improve your current business processes in
> getting your work done?
>
> 16\. How would you like to improve the services provided by the
> divisions under the Deputy Chief of Management (e.g. streamlining
> procedures, elimination of functions, consolidation, position
> restructuring, co-location, workflow improvement, removal of
> impediments etc.)?

### Annexure 2f

> NRCS Management Study
>
> Questionnaire: Level 5

1.  What do you believe are the three most important business
    relationships between Farm Service Agency/Rural Development and
    NRCS?

2.  What do you believe are the three most important program
    relationships farm Service Agency/Rural Development has with NRCS in
    serving the public?

3.  How do you assess the success of the business relationship?

4.  How do you assess the success of the program relationship?

5.  Among the elements in the business relationship, what do you think
    are the biggest barriers or challenges to success?

6.  Are there "pain points" in the business relationship? What are they?

7.  Are there demonstrations of "nearly pure" effectiveness in the
    business relationship? What are they?

### Annexure 2g

> NRCS Management Study
>
> Questionnaire: Level 6
>
> **A: Questionnaire for Acting Associate Deputy Chief for Management**

1.  What do you feel are the four most important services you receive
    from the NRCS management Office and place them in order of priority?

2.  How do you assess the benefits of each service you receive?

3.  Do you have formal service level agreements?

4.  Are the service level expectations clear?

5.  Are there "pain points" among the service elements you receive?
    Explain.

6.  Is there a demonstration of "nearly pure" effectiveness in the
    services you receive? Explain

7.  Which divisions do you believe work as an integrated team to provide
    best management services to NRCS?

8.  Do you think there are adequate resources (human capital, systems,
    equipment, etc) available with these divisions to meet their goals
    and planned objectives?

9.  Do you have a strategic plan for Deputy Chief for Management?

10. How would you like to improve the services provided by the divisions
    under the deputy Chief of Management (e.g. streamlining procedures,
    elimination of functions, consolidation, position restructuring,
    workflow improvement, removal of impediments etc)

**B: Questionnaire for Support Staff**

1.  What are the most important services you receive from the various
    divisions of NRCS Management Office? Please place them in priority
    order?

2.  How would you describe the effectiveness of the services you
    receive?

3.  Are there agreed upon expectations of service with the Management
    Office Divisions?

4.  Are there specific written procedures available to follow in
    requesting service, or is everything informal?

5.  Are there any "pain points" among the services you receive?

6.  What suggestions do you have for improving the service provided to
    you from the Management Office?

## Management Study Interview List (Annexure 3)

  ---------------------- -------------------------------- ------------------
  **Name**               **Title/Office**                 **Meeting
                                                          Date/Interviewed
                                                          By**

  **Level 1** (Policy                                      
  Offices)                                                

  Ruthie Jackson         Director, OHRM, Human Resources   (Omitted)

  Russ Ashworth/Glenn    Director, OPPM, Property and     9/22/04/WT
  Haggstrom              Procurement                      

  Clyde Thompson         Deputy Asst. Secretary, Office   9/20/04/WT
                         Civil Rights                     

  Alma Hobbs             Director, Outreach, OCR          9/22/04/WT

  Patricia Healy         Deputy Chief Financial Officer,  9/27/04/WT 
                         OCFO                             

  Scott Charbo           Chief Information Officer, OCIO  9/21/04/WT

  Mary Ann Swigart       OES, Executive Secretariat        (Omitted)

  Priscilla Carey        Deputy Asst Secretary for        9/20/04/WT
                         Administration                   

  Rich Roberts           Director, IT Convergence, OCIO   9/22/04/WT 

  **Level 2** (Division                                    
  Directors)                                              

  Joe O\' Leska          Director, Financial Management   10/13/04/WT/AJ
                         Division, NRCS                   

  Ed Biggers             Director, Management Services    10/08/04/WT/AJ&
                         Division                         10/12/04/AJ

  Karen Karlinchak       Director, Human Resources        10/05/04/WT/CW
                         Management Division              

  Mary Thomas            CIO/Director, Information        10/13/04/WT/AJ
                         Technology Division              

  Larry Holmes           Office of Outreach, NRCS         10/06/04/WT/AJ

  Stephanie Edelen       Correspondence Management Staff, 10/05/04/WT/AJ
                         NRCS                             

  Andrew Johnson         Director, Civil Rights, NRCS     10/06/04/WT/AJ

  **Level 3** (Deputy                                      
  Chiefs)                                                 

  Dwight P Holman        Deputy Chief for Management,     11/23/04/WT
                         NRCS                             

  Jose Acevedo           Deputy Chief for Programs, NRCS  09/28/04/WT

  Maurice Mausbach       Deputy Chief for Soil Survey and 09/28/04/WT
                         Resource Assessment, NRCS        

  Lawrence Clark         Deputy Chief for Science and     09/29/04/WT
                         Technology, NRCS                 

  Kathy Gugulis          Deputy Chief for Strategic       09/29/04/WT
                         Planning and Accountability,     
                         NRCS                             

  **Level 4** (Service                                     
  Providers)                                              

  Charles Adams          National Emply Devlop Staff ,    10/20/04/CW
                         Texas                            

  Caryl Butcher          Ethics Staff Leader, Beltsville, 10/6/04/WT
                         MD                               

  Vera Carey             Contract Officer                 10/21/04/AJ

  Sheila Leonard         Grants and Agreements            10/19/04/AJ

  Yvonne Campbell        Records Manager                  10/14/04/AJ

  Phyllis Williams       Directives Manager               10/14/04/AJ

  Elizabeth Pigg         IT, Planner                      10/14/04
                                                          &10/19/04/AJ

  Anita Byrd             IT, Planner                      10/14/04/AJ

  Ken Carpenter          Software Testing Lab, ITC,FTC    10/20/04/AJ

  Scott Snover           Manages CCE, ITC, FTC            10/25/2004/AJ

  Wendall Oaks           SW project Manager, ITC,FTC      10/22/04/AJ

  Bob Langan             HR Team Leader                   10/14/04/CW

  Cynthia Barnes         HR Specialist                    101804/CW

  Cynthia Beasley        Employee Relations Team Lead     10/14/04/CW

  Valerie Smith          HR Specialist                    10/18/04/CW

  Perry Rios             IT Support Service Team Leader   10/19/04/AJ

  Don Kapalka            IT Support Service Team Leader,  10/22/04/AJ
                         TX                               

  Jack Carlson           Director, ITC                    11/19/04/AJ

  **Level 5** (Partner                                     
  Agency)                                                 

  Sherie Hinton Henry    Rural Dev, Dy Chief for          09/20/04/WT
                         Management                       

  John Williams          FSA, Dy Administrator for        09/21/04/WT
                         Management                       

  **Level 6** (Others)                                     

  Michael Gonzales       Acting Associate Dy Chief for    11/24/04/AJ
                         Mgmt                             

  Joyce Morgan           Support Staff                    1126/06/CW
                                                          (Written only)

                                                          

                         WT: Wardell Townsend             

                         AJ: Ashok Jain                   

                         CW: Charles Warrick              
  ---------------------- -------------------------------- ------------------

## Reference Documents (Annexure 4)

1.  General Manual, National Headquarters, Office of the Chief.

2.  General Manual, Sect. 404.77 Deputy Chief for Management.

3.  Reorganization Functional Statements: Sect. 404.10 Office of the
    Chief.

4.  NRCS Streamlining Cost-Savings Initiative -- July 13, 2004

5.  USDA Service Center Modernization Initiative -- Information
    Technology

6.  Final Report -- NRCS Information Resources: "Realizing Future
    Directions", September 2001

7.  The Correspondence Management Staff Procedures Reference Guide.

8.  Natural Resources Conservation Service Strategic Plan 2003 Update.

9.  Fiscal Year 2003: NRCS Performance Report.

10. Information Technology Division Organization Chart

11. Human Resources Management Division Organization Chart

12. Financial Management Division Organization Chart

## Organization Charts (Annexure 5)

### OCIO-ITD & ITC Staffing Chart

![](media/image5.wmf)

![](media/image6.wmf)

### Human Resources Management Division

![](media/image7.wmf)

### Management Services Division

![](media/image8.wmf)

### Financial Management Division

![](media/image9.png){width="6.370138888888889in"
height="5.102777777777778in"}

## Progress Reports (Annexure 6)

### Report #1, June 23-July 31, 2004

The first official meeting between the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) COTR (Contracting Officers Technical Representative),
Mary Thomas, Wardell Townsend, Project Leader with Compubahn, Inc., and
Bob Terry, contracts officer, was on June 29, 2004. This "Pre-award
meeting" was an informal review of the Statement of Work (SOW) that had
been awarded on May 7, 2004. It was agreed that NRCS would provide areas
of focus for the management assessment and any existing documents that
provided analytical background on the strategic and operational aspects
of the Office of Management.

Compubahn's team (CT) began review the NRCS government website for
background information on the mission of the agency, its organizational
structure and geographical scope, and recent organizational changes
mandated by Congress or Executive Order.

The CT began preparing for the "kick-off" meeting scheduled for July 17
at the NRCS Beltsville offices. At the meeting on July 17, based on a
series of questions by CT and responses by the NRCS executive sponsor,
Deputy Chief for Management, Dwight Holman, the COTR and members of the
NRCS project team (Bob Terry, Elizabeth Pigg and Suzie Wu), areas of
focus for the assessment became clear: information technology division;
management services division; financial management division; human
resources division; and correspondence management. CT will devote
greater granularity of study in these business areas of the Office of
Management; however, the remaining business areas will be reviewed
appropriately.

There are specific reviews that were suggested by the customer for
certain divisions. Process reviews that will answer "bottlenecks";
skill-set assessments for specific functions; customer expectations.
Furthermore, CT will establish which issues or improvements will take
highest priority with the guidance of the customer.

CT prepared for the July 29 meeting at USDA South Building. Those
attending were:

Dr. Rajeev Aggarwal, President; Wardell C. Townsend, Jr., Senior Vice
President (Project Leader); Dr. Ashok Jain, Manager R&D; Amalio Escobar,
Program Manager\
 \
The NRCS Management Division Directors, Mary Thomas, CIO, Information
Technology Division; Stephanie Edelen, Director, Correspondence
Management;\
Carole Butcher, Ethics Manager; Susie Wu, Special Assistant to the CIO,
Information Technology Division; Edward Biggers, Director, Management
Services Division; Vera Carey, Administrative Officer; Cindy Beasley,
Acting for Karen Karlinchak, Director, Human Resources Management
Division; and those conferenced by phone were Dave Anderson, Acting for
Jack Carlson (Ft. Collins); Fred Reeves, Acting for Larry Holmes,
Director, Outreach Division (Beltsville); Patty Brown, National
Competitive Sourcing Team Leader; Joe O\'Leska, Director, Financial
Management Division.

The July 29 meeting was a formal presentation of the purpose,
philosophy, and methodology for the management study. The purpose:
Assess the priority functions of the Office of Management for process,
personnel, and operating efficiency and effectiveness. Recommend the
best use of resources to function at a higher level. The philosophy: The
service agency must accommodate its customers and manage and meet their
expectations with honest inquiry and feedback. The methodology: A
principled and organized method of Systems Analysis, a dominant process
of business process re-engineering. In essence, "people, processes, and
equipment" are viewed as agents and the analysis focuses on the quality
and the interaction and relational practices between agents.

The meeting concluded with next steps: Establish a date for the NRCS
Office of Management all-employee orientation in the second week of
September. Setting up interviews with deputy chiefs, field service
agencies, and division directors in the Office of Management.

Wardell Townsend

> Project Leader, NRCS Management Study
>
> Compubahn, Inc.
>
> July 31, 2004

###  Report #2, August 1-15, 2004

During the period of August 2 to August 13, the Compubahn project leader
was on summer leave. Staff support for the project continued background
research in reviewing a host of documents provided by NRCS COTR.
Although the review of the documents will continue, the pertinent
sections for further development of the details (i.e., priorities and
questions) have been thoughtfully reviewed. The Compubahn team will
continue its group consultations in refining the analysis of the
information.

During this two-week period, the project leader resolved administrative
issues and invoice questions.

> Wardell Townsend
>
> Project Leader, NRCS Management Study
>
> Compubahn, Inc.
>
> August 15, 2004

###  Report #3, August 16-31, 2004

The Compubahn team conferred on the list of documents provided by the
NRCS COTR. The most recent documents received were the NRCS Management
Office organizational directories.

1.  ITD organizational chart (schematic)

2.  Strategic Assessment for Information Technology (September 2001)

3.  General Manual, National Headquarters, Office of the Chief

4.  General Manual, Sect. 404.77 Deputy Chief for Management

5.  Reorganization Functional Statements: Sect. 404.10 Office of the
    Chief

6.  NRCS Streamlining Cost-Savings Initiatives-July 13, 2004

7.  Service Center Modernization Initiative-Information Technology

8.  Office of the Deputy Chief for Management Organizational Directory

An impromptu meeting with Sam Thornton, special assistant to the Deputy
Chief, on August 31 provided helpful overview of the atmosphere for the
study at the division level of NRCS.

In communications on August 31, the NRCS COTR has asked that only
high-level interviews be held with the Rural Development (RD) and Farm
Service Agency (FSA) rather than detailed interviews. She highlighted
the focus on the program executive level and management organization of
NRCS. She also saw a benefit in interviewing the departmental policy
offices for the administrative management functional areas of NRCS.
These offices include human resources, chief information officer (and
field service administrative convergence), chief financial officer,
property and procurement, civil rights (and office of outreach), and
executive correspondence. Each of these offices provides policy guidance
and directions to all of the agencies in the Department of Agriculture.

The next step is to set a date and time for NRCS orientation regarding
the study; secure interviews with selected departmental staff, deputy
chiefs of NRCS, division directors in the NRCS Management Office.

> Wardell Townsend
>
> Project Leader, NRCS Management Study
>
> Compubahn, Inc.
>
> August 31, 2004

### Report #4, September 1-15, 2004

Compubahn secured office space at the NRCS Beltsville offices and worked
with the IT technical staff to get access to the intra-net. The informal
meetings have proven very helpful in further understanding the
atmosphere and culture of ITD. Our discussions with Susie Wu on
introducing the Department level staff and NRCS deputy chiefs to
Compubahn for the study and setting up the interviews would allow
Compubahn to make the interview appointments and keeping the process
flexible.

The Compubahn team began drafting interview questions for the
appropriate levels of interviewees. Compubahn identified department
level policy compliance and regulators; field service agency partners
(FSA and RD); NRCS principal customers (program deputy

chiefs); service provider managers (division manager in the office of
the deputy chief for management); and process owners (mid-level within
the divisions).

The list of proposed interviewees and the rationale was submitted to the
COTR for review. Mary Thomas augmented the list with 18 more possible
interviewees and provided rationale. Compubahn concurs with the
reasoning and is preparing a contract change order.

The Compubahn team gave further review and edited the interview
questions appropriate for the study approach and the category of
interviewee. The detailed project plan will be completed and submitted
to the COTR after the first series of interviews with the principal
customers in NRCS (deputy chiefs). The Compubahn team received
confirmation that the all-employees orientation session for the
management study would be held on September 16 by audio-conference. The
team reconstructed the slide presentation for an audio presentation.

> Wardell Townsend
>
> Project Leader, NRCS Management Study
>
> Compubahn, Inc.
>
> September 15, 2004

###   {#section-4 .unnumbered}

### Report #5, September 16-30, 2004

The Compubahn team (Wardell Townsend and Dr. Ashok Jain) met in the
offices of NRCS in Beltsville on September 16 to conduct the
all-employee audio-orientation. The slides for the presentation were
forwarded to all supervisory personnel the day before and they then
forwarded it to line staff. According to Susie Wu, there would be
approximately 100 people on-line participating in the conference call.
There were 19 people present in the conference room in Beltsville. Mary
Thomas opened the session and Dwight Holman made opening remarks. There
were thirteen questions asked and answered. There were three questions
asked in private after the close of the open session. Most of the
questions related to scheduling of interviews; who would be interviewed;
confidentiality; and feedback during the course of the study.

COTR, Mary Thomas, committed that Compubahn would prepare feedback for
the staff at the mid-point of the study. Mary Thomas provided feedback
to Compubahn after the orientation and said that she and Mr. Holman
thought the session went very well and they were pleased.

Scheduling interviews began immediately after the all-employee
orientation. The first levels of interviews occurred with
Department-level policy and regulatory overseers (#1s) and senior
management executives of the partnering field service agencies (#5s). By
the end of September all of these interviews were completed and the
notes transcribed for analysis.

As the #1 and #5 interviews were completing, interviews with the NRCS
Deputy Chiefs (#3s) were being scheduled and conducted. The #5s are
considered high level customers who provided interviewers with insights
and specifics on how they and their offices are being served and what
service expectations they had. These interviews were completed by the
end of September and preliminary analysis had allowed more accurate
development of interview questions for division managers under (#2s) the
Deputy Chief for Management and an augmenting list of 18 interviewees
(#4s) requested by NRCS.

Compubahn's review of the list of 18 additional interviewees and its
findings concurred with the justifications presented by NRCS. These
individuals (#4s) will offer greater insights and granularity as process
owners and service deliverers. There is also important institutional
knowledge among these interviewees.

Interviews with #2s begin during the first week in October. Compubahn is
aggressively approaching the timetable for completing the interviews and
then narrowing the assessment on the highest four priority processes for
business process analysis. Compubahn is on schedule to complete all of
its initial interviews by the end of October.

> Wardell Townsend
>
> Project Leader, NRCS Management Study
>
> Compubahn, Inc.
>
> September 30, 2004

### Report #6, October 1-15, 2004

After receiving the list of 18 additional interviewees from Mary Thomas
on October 4, in order to meet the December 30 completion date and to
develop the questions and integrate the data, the Compubahn Project Team
began assignments and timetables for completing the additional
interviews. Compubahn submitted its contract modification to NRCS on
October 4. The project team labeled this new group of interviewees as
Level 4 (process owners and service deliverers). On October 13, the
Level 4 list of interviewees was adjusted to 20; however, on October 17,
the list was further adjusted by NRCS to 21. In each instance, the
project team made easy accommodations for the changes.

By October 13 the project team had completed all of its Level 1, 2, 3,
and 5 interviews that included the following 22 interviews:

1.  Ruthie Jackson, OHRM, Human Resources\*

2.  Russ Ashworth and Glenn Haggstrom, OPPM, Property and Procurement

3.  Clyde Thompson, Civil Rights

4.  Alma Hobbs, Outreach

5.  Patricia Healy, OCFO, Finance

6.  Scott Charbo-policy, OCIO, Information Technology

7.  Rich Roberts-admin. Convergence, CIO

8.  MaryAnn Swigart, OES, Executive Secretariat\*\*

9.  Sherie Hinton Henry, Deputy Administrator for Management, RD

10. John Williams, Deputy Administrator for Management, FSA

11. Dana York, Associate Chief, NRCS\*\*\*

12. Jose Acevedo, Deputy Chief for Programs

13. Maurice Mausbach, Deputy Chief for Soil Survey and Res. Assessment

14. Lawrence Clark, Deputy Chief for Science and Technology

15. Kathy Gugulis, Deputy Chief for Strategic Planning and
    Accountability

16. Joe O'Leska, Financial Management

17. Ed Biggers, Management Services

18. Karen Karlinchak, Human Resources

19. Mary Thomas, Information Technology

20. Larry Holmes, Outreach,

21. Stephanie Edelen, Correspondence Management,

22. Andrew Johnson, Civil Rights

\*Replaced by Priscilla Carey, Deputy Assistant Sec. for Administration

\*\* Did not respond to 3 calls and 2 e-mails.

\*\*\* Removed on 9/28/04

The strategic approach of the project team was to complete a review of
the transcripts of the Level 1, 2, 3, and 5 interviews before drafting
an appropriate set of questions for the Level 4 (process owners and
service deliverers). Preliminarily, the basic elements for developing
the questions were completed on October 10 and needed only minor
adjustments prior to dissemination.

On Wednesday, October 13, Susie Wu sent an introductory message to the
Level 4 interviewees, and it included the list of questions for the
interviews.

October 13, 2004 Level 4 Interviewees

1.  Charles Adams, National Employee Development Staff, Fort Worth,
    Texas

2.  Vera Carey, Contract Officer

3.  Sheila Leonard, Grants & Agreements

4.  Yvonne Campbell, Records Manager

5.  Phyllis Williams, Directives Manager

6.  Jack Carlson, Assoc CIO

7.  Elizabeth Pigg, IT Planner

8.  Anita Byrd, IT Planner

9.  Ken Carpenter, Software Testing Lab

10. Scott Snover, manages CCE, ITC FTC

11. Wendall Oaks, SW Project Manager, ITC

12. Bob Langan, HR Team Leader

13. Cynthia Barnes, HR Specialist

14. Cynthia Beasley, Employee Relations team lead

15. Valerie Smith, HR specialist

16. Perry Rios, IT Support Service Team Leader

17. Robert Terry, Contracting Officer

18. Don Kapalka, IT Support Services Team Leader

19. Joyce Morgan, Program Assistant, ITD

20. Sharon Kidney, Program Assistant, AH and CW Division

> Wardell Townsend
>
> Project Leader, NRCS Management Study
>
> Compubahn, Inc.
>
> October 16, 2004

###  Report #7, October 15-31, 2004

The Compubahn Project Team has considered two additional interview lists
for Level 4 as it commenced with the interview process. Susie Wu,
assistant to the COTR, sent an introductory message to the interview
list on October 13. This courtesy introduction for the Project Team was
very helpful. The team began scheduling and conducting interviews. There
were several adjustments to the contract modification for the additional
interviewees with the final modification submitted on October 28, 2004.
The final list for Level 4 was as follows:

1.  Charles Adams, National Employee Development Staff, Fort Worth,
    Texas

2.  Caryl Butcher, Ethics Staff Leader, Beltsville, MD

3.  Vera Carey, Contract Officer

4.  Sheila Leonard, Grants & Agreements

5.  Yvonne Campbell, Records Manager

6.  Phyllis Williams, Directives Manager

7.  Elizabeth Pigg, IT Planner

8.  Anita Byrd, IT Planner

9.  Ken Carpenter, Software Testing Lab

10. Scott Snover, manages CCE, ITC FTC

> 11\. Wendall Oaks, SW Project Manager, ITC
>
> 12\. Bob Langan, HR Team Leader
>
> 13\. Cynthia Barnes, HR Specialist

14. Cynthia Beasley, Employee Relations team leader

15. Valerie Smith, HR specialist

16. Perry Rios, IT Support Service Team Leader

17. Don Kapalka, IT Support Service Team Leader, TX

By the end of October, all of the Level 4 interviews had been conducted
and a systematic analysis of the findings based on those interviews
revealed clear consistencies in service issues raised by customers and
providers. The Project Team has identified both thematic problems and
service delivery problems in several divisions under the Deputy Chief
for Management. Thematically, the "informal" nature by which the
divisions get their tasks

and functions accomplished do not allow for a consistent standard of
service performance and therefore does not appear to engender
performance accountability. The culture of "informality" has strong
beneficial aspects for human relations but may be a serious barrier for
business relationships and standards.

In general, where there are "pain points" in service deliveries that are
consistently identified by customers or service providers, there appears
to be human capital inadequacies and business process deficiencies that
negatively affect service delivery.

The Project Team has assessed that three divisions have principal
problems that require immediate attention. The Management Services
Division, Financial Services Division, and Human Resources Division have
teams or branches suffering from "human capital inadequacies and
business process deficiencies". The data also reflects an inadequate
organizational structure and management span of control for the
Information Technology Division.

The Project Team will meet with Dwight Holman and Mary Thomas to discuss
in more detail the findings of the study at this point and set a date
and time in the near future for the all-employee audio conference to
give an over view of the findings.

> Wardell Townsend
>
> Project Leader, NRCS Management Study
>
> Compubahn, Inc.
>
> November 1, 2004

###   {#section-5 .unnumbered}

### Report #8, November 1-15, 2004

The Compubahn Project Team jointly began reviewing the data received
during the course of interviews and documents forwarded by customers and
those available among public documents. At the end of the last reporting
period (October 16-31), the project team proposed interviewing three
specific employees who were on a list provided by COTR. The project team
recommended to the Compubahn CEO that the cost for incorporating three
additional interviews be absorbed by the company. It was agreed to and
NRCS finalized its selection of:

Joyce Morgan

Mike Gonzalez

Jack Carlson

The date for the all-employee's audio conference update on the status
was put off until the NRCS management team completed planning and
off-site conferencing between November 8 and 19. According to Susie Wu,
that period would be devoted to this internal project. The Compubahn
project team devoted time to team meetings in preparing the final report
outline, preliminary recommendations, all-employee presentation
strategy, and the executive sponsor's briefing.

> Wardell Townsend
>
> Project Leader, NRCS Management Study
>
> Compubahn, Inc.
>
> November 16, 2004

### Report #9, November 16-30, 2004

The Compubahn Project Team completed the last three interviews and began
group-drafting sessions on the broad elements of the study's findings. A
preliminary list of recommendations was based on these findings. Several
basic assumptions related to organizational vision and individual
performance plans for the deputy chief and the direct reports required
verification from the Deputy Chief for Management.

As a result of the 105-minute interview with the Deputy Chief for
Management on November 23, the project team incorporated the data
provided and moved forward with drafting.

During the course of the November 23 interview with the Deputy Chief,
the full list of recommendations were accepted and appeared to reflect
organizational needs. The issue of prioritization would be an important
issue for the Compubahn Project Team. The anticipated, but not yet
scheduled, all-employee audio conference providing an update on the
study was cancelled. Compubahn offered to provide a general update for
the COTR for circulation to the employees if desired.

At the end of November, there were several promised documents from
employees that had not yet been received by the project team. This data
would be ancillary but important background information.

The project team is targeting December 13 as the date for a rough draft
of the report for the COTR and Executive Sponsor.

> Wardell Townsend
>
> Project Leader, NRCS Management Study
>
> Compubahn, Inc.
>
> December 2, 2004

## Acronyms (Annexure 7)

  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------
  **Acronym**        **Definition**

  BCT                Budget Core Team

  CCE                Common Computing Environment

  CEO                Chief Executive Officer

  CFO                Chief Financial Officer

  CIO                Chief Information Officer

  COTR               Contracting Officer Technical Representative

  COTS               Commercial off-the Shelf Software

  CPAS               

  CT                 Compubahn Team

  FFIS               Foundation Financial Information System

  FMD                Financial Management Division

  FSA                Farm Service Agency

  GSA                General Service Administration

  HACU               Hispanic American Colleges and Universities

  HBCU               Historically Black Colleges and Universities

  HR                 Human Resources

  HRMD               Human Resources Management Division

  IAS                Integrated Acquisition System

  ICAMS              Integrated Combined Administrative Management System

  IT                 Information Technology

  ITC                Information Technology Center

  ITD                Information Technology Division

  ITS                Information Technology Services

  MSD                Management Services Division

  NFC                National Finance Center

  NHQ                National Headquarters

  NITPCC             National Information Technology Project Coordination
                     Committee

  NRCS               National Resource Conservation Service

  NTSC               National Technology Support Center

  OCIO               Office of CIO

  OIG                Office of the Inspector General

  OMB                Office of Management and Budget

  OPM                Office of Personnel Management

  PROTRACT           

  RD                 Rural Development

  RIAD               Resources Inventory & Assessment Division

  SLA                Service Level Agreement

  SLCM               System Life Cycle Management

  SOP                Service Operating Procedures

  SOW                Statement of Work

  USDA               United States Department of Agriculture
  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------