# Presentation: 027712

## FY02 ASA Presentation Lead and Manage ORS

**Presented by:****   **
- Shirl Eller, Director, Division of Intramural Research Services
- Office of Research Services
- National Institutes of Health
**18 November  2002**

## Slide 2

**Notes:**
Replace the template shown here with page 1 of your ASA template.   

To copy an Excel chart, diagram, graph, Visio chart, or MS Word narrative into PowerPoint:
1.  Copy selected chart/diagram/graph/ text in Excel/Visio/Word
2.  In PowerPoint, insert a new slide on which to paste your chart/diagram/graph.  Note when selecting a new slide on which to paste a graphic, you will want to select the slide type that only has a text box for a title, and the rest of the slide is blank. To insert a slide, choose “Insert”, then “New Slide” from the menu, select the type of slide to insert, and then click “OK”.
3.  Once you have positioned your cursor onto the new blank slide on which you want to import your graphic, choose “Edit” and then “Paste Special” from the menu.  By using “Paste Special” instead of just paste, you will help to keep the size of your file manageable.  
Resize the copied object if necessary.  Resizing the chart or graph in Excel first may give you better results.  You may want to try it both ways.

	In your presentation, please emphasize the value proposition and the service group strategy.  Have your customers had a chance to discuss with you the  the VP?  What elements of the value proposition were assessed in the ASA?  

## ORS leaders have 3 primary customer segments: 
ORS program staff
NIH community at large
NIH senior leaders/decision makers	
Groups surveyed/response rates:
ORS Leadership Group = 66% 
ORS Executive Committee = 100%
NIH Senior Leaders = 29%
	NIH OD; IC & Scientific Directors, EOs, ORSAC, FARB 

- ORS program staff
- NIH community at large
- NIH senior leaders/decision makers
- Groups surveyed/response rates:
- ORS Leadership Group = 66%
- ORS Executive Committee = 100%
- NIH Senior Leaders = 29%
- 	NIH OD; IC & Scientific Directors, EOs, ORSAC, FARB

**Customer Segmentation**

**Notes:**
Insert bullet statements summarizing your findings from your customer segmentation graphs, or insert the actual graphs if you desire.  

If you have more than one graph, you will need to add additional blank slides to your presentation, and import your graphics to those slides. To insert a slide, choose “Insert”, then “New Slide” from the menu, select the type of slide to insert, and then click “OK”.
Refer to page 4 of this presentation for directions on how to insert charts/diagrams/graphs from other programs into PowerPoint.  

Ideas for summarizing your Customer Segmentation Data:
Which segments are your primary customers?  
Which NIH customers are not currently your customers?  Why?
If you have multiple year data, how has your customer base changed over time?
What does the information show about who you are and are not serving?  What does this mean for your service area?
Have you chosen growth as your service strategy?  If so, how is this reflected in your chart (i.e., which segments will you target for growth)?

## ORS program managers’/supervisors’ perception of involvement in decision making and business planning.
Key external customers perception of the value ORS provides to the NIH.

- Key external customers perception of the value ORS provides to the NIH.

**Unique Customer Measures**

**Notes:**
If you added unique customer measures, insert bullet statements summarizing your findings here or the graphs if informative.  

For example, you may show a graph depicting repeat customers or new customers, or revenue from new customers or new services.

Refer to page 4 of this presentation for directions on how to insert charts/diagrams/graphs from other programs into PowerPoint.  

Delete this slide if you have no additional unique customer measures.

## Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Mean Ratings

**Strongly Agree**

**Neither**

**Strongly Disagree**

## Perceptions of Decision Making ORSEC FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings

**Strongly Agree**

**Neither**

**Strongly Disagree**

## Perceptions of Decision Making Leadership Group FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings

**Strongly Agree**

**Neither**

**Strongly Disagree**

## Conclusions of Decision Making

- EC members believe they have input into/authority to make decisions
- LG members believe they have input into/authority to make decisions in their own program areas
- LG members have lower perceptions of decision-making authority on improving ORS, ORS-wide initiatives, & future direction of ORS
- FY01 & FY02 ratings approximately the same for both groups
**Assumption: Expect LG perceptions to change with new organizational structure & governance model**

## Perceptions of Information AccessFY02 Mean Ratings

**Strongly Agree**

**Neither**

**Strongly Disagree**

## Perceptions of Information AccessORSEC FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings

**Strongly Agree**

**Neither**

**Strongly Disagree**

## Perceptions of Information AccessLeadership Group FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings

**Strongly Agree**

**Neither**

**Strongly Disagree**

## Conclusions - Information Access

- EC members believe they have easy access to information needed and that program managers receive timely information.
- LG members rate access to & timeliness  information slightly lower
- FY02 ratings slightly lower than FY01 ratings for both groups indicating need to focus on better communication tools
**Assumption: Expect LG perceptions to change with new organizational structure & governance model**

## Perceptions of Understanding of ORS Business Processes FY02 Mean Ratings

**Strongly Agree**

**Neither**

**Strongly Disagree**

## Conclusions - Understanding of Business Process

- LG members’ overall perceptions of their understanding of business processes slightly higher than EC members’ perceptions
- Most ratings near midpoint of scale indicating room for improvement
- Varied responses on 6 questions indicating  respondents have very different perceptions of program manager understanding of business processes

## Ratings of Satisfaction with Performance of ORS Leadership during FY02  

- Unsatisfied

- Outstanding

**Mean Rating**

## Conclusions – NIH Sr. Leader Survey

- Ratings of satisfaction with ORS leadership were all above the mid-point of the scale
- Most satisfied with how ORS advices NIH community on situations that impact daily activities
- Least satisfied with how ORS communicates with senior leaders about the determination of its fees
- Competence, handling of problems, reliability, responsiveness the highest rated dimensions that are important when considering ORS products/services
- Comments reinforced ratings data
- Positive about handling of campus and security-related matters
- Communicating methods for setting fees, managing facility issues needs improvement

## Our Service Group completed 2 deployment flowcharts that cut across all 4 of our discrete services
Budget Decision-making process
Minimize number of iterations and provide more time for program mangers to accurately compile data
Organizational Change Communications process
Improve communications down and across ORS
Apply lessons learned during successful DSFM realignment to current restructuring efforts

- Budget Decision-making process
- Minimize number of iterations and provide more time for program mangers to accurately compile data
- Organizational Change Communications process
- Improve communications down and across ORS
- Apply lessons learned during successful DSFM realignment to current restructuring efforts

**Conclusions from Deployment Flowcharts**

**Notes:**
Each Service Group was required to complete a deployment flowchart on every discrete service in their Service Group.  After reviewing these flowcharts, summarize what you learned from this analysis. 

Ideas for summarizing conclusions from your Deployment Flowcharts:
Did it lead to suggestions for changing the process?  
Did it lead to identifying process measures?  
Have you made any changes in your processes already based on what you learned?  
What impact should these changes have in process performance, customer satisfaction?  
How would you know if the changes achieved expected results?

If particularly useful, you may want to include a copy of a deployment flowchart.  Realize that in most cases, it will be difficult for your audience to readily see your chart in this format.   However, you could focus on a section that you changed. 

If you choose to insert any deployment flowcharts, refer to page 4 of this presentation for directions on how to insert charts/diagrams/graphs from other programs into PowerPoint.  

## Process Measures

- Budget Decision-making
- Track lead time program managers have for initial development
- Track type & number of questions at each stage
- Track number of iterations at each stage
- Study relationship between days allocated for development and number of iterations
- Assumption: More development time = more accuracy, fewer iterations

**Notes:**
Each Service Group was required to come up with a unique process measure for every discrete service.  List those measures here.  A simple way to do that is indicated above.  

Also summarize any data that was collected on these process measures, and the findings from that data.  If relevant, include graphs showing your process measures data.  

You should indicate how these unique measures helped you assess the performance elements of your team’s value proposition.   

For example, if you indicated that you provide timely and cost efficient services, then show the percentage of times that your services were delivered within agreed upon schedules.  Then, in the financial perspective you can show how your unit cost has changed over time, or how your rates compared to other service providers.  You may also show how your response time to service requests has changed over time.

## Process Measures

- Organizational Change Communications
- Track effectiveness of organizational change communications
- Use process flowchart to identify lessons learned from DSFM realignment communications and apply to current restructuring effort
- Track and classify questions received through ORS Employee Hotlines (e-mail and phone)
- Team developed automated web-based information management tool to collect and categorize data

**Notes:**
Each Service Group was required to come up with a unique process measure for every discrete service.  List those measures here.  A simple way to do that is indicated above.  

Also summarize any data that was collected on these process measures, and the findings from that data.  If relevant, include graphs showing your process measures data.  

You should indicate how these unique measures helped you assess the performance elements of your team’s value proposition.   

For example, if you indicated that you provide timely and cost efficient services, then show the percentage of times that your services were delivered within agreed upon schedules.  Then, in the financial perspective you can show how your unit cost has changed over time, or how your rates compared to other service providers.  You may also show how your response time to service requests has changed over time.

## Learning and Growth Perspective

- About 2 days sick leave per employee

- About 1 and 3/4 awards per employee

- About 8% turnover

- No EEO complaints, ER or ADR cases

**All data within ORS mid to low range  **

## Readiness Index

- Critically evaluate Managers and staff competencies and describe strategies for addressing gaps
- Critically evaluate tools and technology supporting discrete services and describe strategies for meeting deficits
- Forecast ability to meet future demands on service group with and without specific intervention
- Report on training infrastructure

## Proposed Approach to Readiness Index Part 1:Manager’s Competencies

## Proposed Approach to Readiness Index Part 2: Staff Competencies

## Proposed Approach to Readiness Index Part 3: Tools and Technology

## Proposed Approach to Readiness Index Part 4: Capacity

## Readiness IndexPart 5: Training infrastructure

- Is there a training plan for staff supporting this service group?  Yes  No
- Is the cost of the training plan within approved operating levels?  Yes  No
- What is the total budget for training?  ______
- What is the average and range of planned expenditure per person? Total _______   Average ________  Range

## ORS leaders attention is focused in three areas: 
Program activities = 64%
Corporate activities = 34%
Professional development = 2%
ORS leaders time is spent in three areas:
Management and service delivery = 89%
Supervision = 9%
Professional development = 2%

- Program activities = 64%
- Corporate activities = 34%
- Professional development = 2%
- ORS leaders time is spent in three areas:
- Management and service delivery = 89%
- Supervision = 9%
- Professional development = 2%

**Asset Utilization Measures**

**Notes:**

If you choose to insert graphs, refer to page 4 of this presentation for directions on how to insert charts/diagrams/graphs from other programs into PowerPoint.  

Ideas for Summarizing Asset Utilization Measures:
How did you define asset utilization?
How close are you in meeting your planned utilization?  Why?
How can you better plan asset utilization in the future?

## Slide 28

## Slide 29

## Various views of overhead as a percent of program budget
ORS Services Management & Support - percent of overhead to total program 
Division support as a percentage of Division budget
Division support as a percentage of program staff
ORS Senior Leader Compensation

- ORS Services Management & Support - percent of overhead to total program
- Division support as a percentage of Division budget
- Division support as a percentage of program staff
- ORS Senior Leader Compensation

**Unique Financial Measures**

**Notes:**
If you added any unique Financial measures, list them here.  Also include bulleted statements of conclusions from this data, or if insightful, insert relevant graphs.  

Refer to page 4 of this presentation for directions on how to insert charts/diagrams/graphs from other programs into PowerPoint.  

Delete this slide if you have no additional unique financial  measures.

## ORS OD & Division Support as a % of Total Operations

- Direct Program Activities in 000’s

- Total Operations in 000’s

- ORS OD as % of Total Operations

- Division Support as % of Direct  Operations

## Slide 32

## Slide 33

## Slide 34

## Develop tools to collect and analyze readiness information
Identify competencies 
Evaluate tools and technology
Develop strategies to address gaps
Develop and implement IDPs
Develop and implement corporate communications strategy 	
Information management tools
Processes for information collection and dissemination  
Use data to guide implementation of restructuring plan and new governance model  

- Identify competencies
- Evaluate tools and technology
- Develop strategies to address gaps
- Develop and implement IDPs
- Develop and implement corporate communications strategy
- Information management tools
- Processes for information collection and dissemination
- Use data to guide implementation of restructuring plan and new governance model

**Recommendations**

**Notes:**
Use this slide to summarize your recommendations.

Ideas for Recommendations:
How do you recommend making improvements for the future?
What recommendations can you implement without higher-level approval?
If you need approval from higher authority to implement a recommendation, clearly state who that would be, and the date by which you need the decision.

## Appendices

- Process maps
- Analysis of Lead and Manage Survey data

**Notes:**
It is recommended that you include all the items listed on this slide in your Appendices.  This will allow anyone reviewing your ASA to obtain the full picture of your data and how you came to your conclusions and recommendations.

Again, refer to page 4 of this presentation for directions on how to insert charts/diagrams/graphs from other programs into PowerPoint.  

## <footer>

- <date/time>

## Slide 38

## Slide 39

## FY02 ORS Customer Survey Data 

**FY02 ORS Customer Survey Data **
**for the Annual Self Assessments**
**Service Group 39: **
**Lead and Manage ORS**
**ORSEC and Leadership Group Surveys**
- 11 November 2002
- Condensed version

## Summary of Survey Results

- Survey distribution
- Customer segmentation
- FY02 results, comments, and comparisons with FY01
- Decision making
- Information access
- ORS processes
- Resources
- Conclusions
- Appendices
- Individual question results
- Training detail

## Lead and Manage ORSFY02 Survey Distribution 

- Number of Surveys Distributed	161
- 	ORSEC					  16
- 	Leadership Group		  	   	145
- 	NIH Sr. Leaders				109
- Number of Surveys Returned	111
- 	ORSEC					  15
- 	Leadership Group		  	   	  96
- 	NIH Sr. Leaders				  32
- Response Rate				69%
- 	ORSEC					100%
- 	Leadership Group		  	   	66%
- 	NIH Sr. Leaders				29%

## Lead and Manage ORSFY02 Customer Segmentation

## Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Mean Ratings

**Strongly Agree**

**Neither**

**Strongly Disagree**

## Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Comments

- ORS needs to implement some information management strategies, processes and applications.  Better communications up and down the line can lead to better decision making.
- Need to improve communication & education across the organization.  Overall, the staff doesn’t have an understanding of what many of the divisions do.  Had talked about tours of divisions – would be a good start.   Additionally, need to solicit input from stakeholders and then move to make a decision quickly – too many things hang out there for too long.  BUT, need to communicate the final decision to all appropriate parties; sometimes this loop isn’t closed making staff appear incompetent.
- Include Program level folks, aka branch chief in more information and decisions processes.  Some division directors keep ORS management much too close to their chests.  They prevent critical information from flowing up and down the organization.  Hold leaders accountable for action and acting on decisions made.  Clarify what decisions will be made by whom. Some should be executive – Steve’s, some by the senior leaders for all of ORS, some by Division directors for their organizations, some by the branch chiefs for all of ORS, some by branch chiefs for their own organizations.
- Make decisions concerning A-76 and FAIR  act and not evaluate to Nth degree and hold up recruitment/promotion actions.
- What is the Process?
- Seldom are the rank and file involved with decision making; getting them involved prior to decisions been made may prove to be beneficial.

## Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Comments (cont.)

- Keep ORS employees apprised of important issues affecting ORS through a web newsletter and always solicit comments.
- Let employees have inputs as much as possible.  This would be a more fair system in the decision making process and possibly meet the needs of both management and the customers.
- Better communication needs to be maintained.  Often decisions are made which when taken at face value have no impact on this Division but when implemented in fact do.  This happens because there is a general lack of understanding of the total services provided.
- Embrace diversity at all levels.
- To improve the decision making process, ORS must function as a corporation.  ORS must truly understand the service groups and what they do to make proper decisions relating to all ORS services.
- Decisions should be mission-driven and rooted in delegation of authority, with more emphasis on preservation and viability of assets and less emphasis on political expediency.
- Information needs to flow down.  Utilize the web more.
- It seems to me that the decisions have already been made up in ORS upper management and then they attempt to "sell" the decisions down the line, or give the rest of the ORS the illusion of having real input into the decisions.
- Transparency and accountability

## Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Comments (cont.)

- When making decisions consult with the individuals, who are closest to the effects or execution, of the decision. They may share potential outcomes of the final decision, that may yield better results, as opposed to decisions made by individual layers.
- Have decision making individuals understand the impact of their decisions in relation to the employees they affect. Keep employees informed and reduce time it takes to change process
- Continue in the direction you are currently heading.
- Understand better the services needed and the services provided.  There is a lot of talent here and we can change to provide the most up to date service required by the occupants we serve.
- At this time I feel that I have sufficient opportunity to make decisions about the program that allow it to function and meet the needs of the ORS.  My only suggestion is to continue to allow the existing structure to remain in effect since it works very well.
- Solicit more information from people before actually making a decision.
- Solicit feedback from your front line people to see if the decision made is workable, before going public with the idea.
- I recommend a section on the ORS web site dedicated to posting of employee suggestions and good ideas. Managers could periodically scan the entries not only for inspiration, but to gauge the overall attitudes of the workforce.

## Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Comments (cont.)

- Create the One-ORS which is not working.  A lot of decisions are made "behind closed doors" and do not include everyone it should.
- Improve communication, with consistent message.
- Limit micromanaging, actually delegate authority/responsibility.
- Use the "chain of command" concept. Have branch or section chiefs consult with next line of supervision before implementing policy. Hire and promote on basis of job qualifications only.
- Good headway is being made toward providing decision making authority at the lowest possible level. Simply continue with this concept.
- When information is requested that is needed in order to make appropriate decisions, ORS needs to allow an appropriate length of time to provide the information.  Too many times, the information is rushed and used out of context.

## Perceptions of Decision Making ORSEC FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings

**Strongly Agree**

**Neither**

**Strongly Disagree**

## Perceptions of Decision Making Leadership Group FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings

**Strongly Agree**

**Neither**

**Strongly Disagree**

## Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Comparison to FY01 (Mean Ratings)

**Input into Resource Allocation**

**Strongly Agree**

**Neither**

**Strongly Disagree**

## Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Comparison to FY01 (Mean Ratings)

**Input into Future Direction of ORS**

**Strongly Agree**

**Neither**

**Strongly Disagree**

## Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Comparison to FY01 (Mean Ratings)

**Input into Improving ORS Business Processes**

**Strongly Agree**

**Neither**

**Strongly Disagree**

## Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Comparison to FY01 (Mean Ratings)

**Authority to Make Decisions**

**Strongly Agree**

**Neither**

**Strongly Disagree**

## Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Comparison to FY01 (Mean Ratings)

**Program Manager Input into Program Area**

**Strongly Agree**

**Neither**

**Strongly Disagree**

## Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Comparison to FY01 (Mean Ratings)

**Program Manager Input into ORS Initiatives**

**Strongly Agree**

**Neither**

**Strongly Disagree**

## Perceptions of Information AccessFY02 Mean Ratings

**Strongly Agree**

**Neither**

**Strongly Disagree**

## Perceptions of Information AccessORSEC FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings

**Strongly Agree**

**Neither**

**Strongly Disagree**

## Perceptions of Information AccessLeadership Group FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings

**Strongly Agree**

**Neither**

**Strongly Disagree**

## Perceptions of Information Access FY02 Comparison to FY01 (Mean Ratings)

**Easy Access to Information**

**Strongly Agree**

**Neither**

**Strongly Disagree**

## Perceptions of Information Access FY02 Comparison to FY01 (Mean Ratings)

**Timely Receipt of Information by Program Managers**

**Strongly Agree**

**Neither**

**Strongly Disagree**

## Perceptions of ORS Processes FY02 Mean Ratings

**Strongly Agree**

**Neither**

**Strongly Disagree**

## Perceptions of ORS ProcessesFY02 Comments

- I think we need to revisit the principles, concepts and structures of our business planning process because recent meetings have revealed that there is either insufficient buy-in or resistance to the current process.
- Program managers should be more involved in the actual planning of the business process, not just the execution.  As with decision making, implementation of information management strategies, processes and applications and better communications can lead to better business planning.
- A business plan should be developed for every service group, and should include more than the budget.  A business plan should include the ASA template (i.e., value proposition, business strategy, objectives, performance measures and targets, and operational initiatives for the coming FY) and the budget.  So, it should convey what the service group is planning to accomplish (i.e., value proposition, objectives), how it is planning to accomplish it (i.e., strategy, initiatives, resource allocation), and how they will know the degree to which they were successful (i.e. performance measures, targets).  We should be careful to not give the impression that the budget is the business plan.
- Internally, need to continue education of budget analysts & get them more involved in the planning cycle past just collection of data.  Also, need better data collection tools (more user friendly; distinct lack of systems capability across the ORS), more intuitive structure in the model and much better reporting back to orgs (new tools & web page should help in dynamic report production and distribution .....fingers crossed).  Externally, need to handle change management better.  Do not have buy-in on process across ORS.  Need to also improve communication in terms of feedback of changes, how the data given is utilized, and good analytical, meaningful reporting.

## Perceptions of ORS Processes FY02 Comments (cont.)

- Financial decisions are being made less and less at the Division level.  It appears that decisions are sometimes backed into rather than consulting and deciding together.
- Include front line managers in business planning process.
- Please let's allow the ORS components to do their functions and service their customers rather than spending humongous amounts of time analyzing and reporting how they are (i.e. the ASA’s).
- Suggest we ask for our budget by direct appropriation rather than by including the ICs into our management responsibilities by charging them rent.
- Listen to your own staff as to whether a new initiative is worth investing massive amounts of time.
- Make some assessment of which offices are best candidates for ASA and not apply across the board. Some functions just do not lend themselves to ASA practices.
- I do not believe that the ASA is cost-effective, nor does it result in improved products/services.  At least in our case, we didn't find out anything we didn't already know.  For years we have had an ongoing improvement program--one that makes sense.
- What is the Process?
- Explain it to your providers in its simplest form before you sell it to your customers. An educated provider can help sell your plan in a most excellent way. An educated provider is like having a full tank of gasoline in your car; it will take you a long way.

## Perceptions of ORS Processes FY02 Comments (cont.)

- The program data and information required to fulfill business planning requirements must exist and be available. Making guesses, developing data and creating databases is a time consuming and oftentimes unproductive exercise.
- Hire more Budget analysts.  Too few and they are too busy.   I wasn't able to get much help on IAG's or get simple questions answered.
- Better understanding of what the customer is asking for and whether or not that is the most appropriate response to provide.  More focus is needed on how the customer perceives the ORS response.
- I truly believe in the ASA project and its goals. It seems very tedious and demanding but everything good has its price. However, I have heard many people complain about the negative impact that this project has at this time of the year.
- The ASA is a good tool for business planning and monitoring. However, my experience with the ASA process this year wasn't pleasant.  Direction from upper management and the facilitators appeared to be confused and inconsistent.
- Again ORS, as part of the business planning process, must have a better understanding of the ORS customer services to make good business planning decisions.
- ORS should receive all maintenance and operations funds from direct congressional appropriations to the NIH Director and eliminate the taps to IC.  This may help to ease the IC out of co-management of ORS responsibilities.
- The ability to add, modify and inactivate services hierarchy information in OROS and ASA needs to be developed and de-conflicted.

## Perceptions of ORS Processes FY02 Comments (cont.)

- ORS needs to spend less time wasted with doing ASA studies and business studies and get down to the job of actually providing the services that it needs to provide to its customers.
- Come up with a better system for developing the annual budgets.  Reduce the number of discrete services we are trying to track.
- Financial Planning - ORS should develop a cost accounting budget that relies heavily on actual man hours worked and a CAN # structure that directly relates to each ORS DS.
- The ASA model does not fit every service category.  Alternative mechanisms should be considered for evaluating the quality of our programs and identifying ways to improve and/or reduce cost.
- Eliminate redundancies.
- Continue with the performance measures and strategic planning currently in place.
- The business plan is very important but once again we must know exactly what is needed and how to challenge the current work force to fill those roles.
- I think there is a carriage before the horse issue.  It would seem to me that the bus. planning process should support the various ORS activities, but it often seems that the reverse is true.
- Spend less time on business planning and more time on tracking actual expenditures.
- Build the business around the core services that the customer needs - not around what the customers want. The business should provide the services the customer needs in a timely fashion and at a competitive price with value added.

## Perceptions of ORS Processes FY02 Comments (cont.)

- MAPB would be better equipped to develop business strategy if its previous and current market share could be ascertained. Please provide financial reports for FY01 and FY02 representing the total market within NIH for products and services.
- Get the OQM and the OBSF to work together.  It is very frustrating to have one office tell you it is not their problem, go talk to the other, and then the other says it is not theirs either.  Quit giving us such short deadlines.
- Less meetings and more substance. We have had 3 different consultants, none of which was prepared.
- Clarify the role of ASA process, and how it will be used in ORS' decision making processes.  Rework the ASA process as a collaboration between ORS and its offices and divisions, as opposed to a top down directive w/ no allowance for feedback from below.
- Get more individuals with diverse backgrounds and experience-sets involved in the process.  Through a broader-based concept, new initiatives may emerge that could help streamline and improve the way we do business.
- Provide consistent information and focus on finding solutions rather than finger pointing.  A good example of this is the ASA process.  The information provided by the training is not consistent with the follow on information provided by OQM and consultant.
- I believe the ASAs are driving people buggy.  I know that there is a timetable but the schedule is aggressive and not all areas can finish on schedule.  It's very difficult to conduct business as usual when you have multiple tasks and not enough resources, something will fall short.

## Perceptions of ORS ProcessesFY02 Comments (cont.)

- I think the ASA exercise can be a wonderful tool for describing, modifying, and justifying our current processes and organization, or designing new ones.  I feel that perhaps too much pressure has been placed on the presentations.
- While it is "nice" to think of ORS as a "business" the extension of many of the business practices do not apply to a government activity.  Lets stop studying ORS and its components to death.
- The ASA process should be a tool for the manager to improve his/her organization and should not be driven by the budget folks.
- ASA Process:  In addition to the consultants, OQM staff, what is the indirect cost (e.g.; ORS staff hrs. of non-OQM) used to produce this?
- The ASAs are forced down our throat without any buy-in from those of us who have to perform them.  If the ORS wanted them to go successfully and smoothly, then the OQM needed to meet and talk with the service areas and find out what they needed and wanted.
- Consider how all time consuming evaluations can be utilized if ORS is totally "restructured" through de-layering and A-76?
- Do ASAs, etc. really improve ORS and ORS services? Are they busy work? How are they translated to rank and file?

## Perceptions of Resources FY02 Mean Ratings

**Strongly Agree**

**Neither**

**Strongly Disagree**

## Perceptions of ResourcesFY02 Comments 

- Affected mostly by the increased spending on security in FY 2002 that adversely impacted the levels of resources available for other business activities.

## Other PerceptionsFY02 Comments

- We (EC) should spend most of our time between managing service performance at the service group level and proactively managing the ORS (e.g., improving its management infrastructure – performance management systems, finance, human capital).  Currently, it looks to me like we are managing crises on an on-going basis.   Crises will always happen and they must be addressed effectively, but they shouldn’t keep us from managing operations and the future of the ORS business.
- The EC works well, though occasionally it appears to be little more than a rubber stamp that needs to be worked on.
- Remember that we are here to protect NIH as an asset for the future as well to service the ICs.
- I sure do, stop using double talk in these surveys.  Start listening to your employees, and follow up on the listening.  Many examples of employees request are ignored.  I have proof that survey data is not fully analyzed by OQM.
- Get the Personnel Office to service our needs.
- Requiring all ORS employees to complete Customer Service training cannot possibly be cost-effective.  My group's customer service feedback has been overwhelmingly positive.  Why don't you target people and programs that have had problems in that area?
- Encourage better communication between service provider and the customers and allow more meaningful surveys rather than a global one that may not be applicable to some service groups.

## Other Perceptions FY02 Comments (cont.)

- View program areas as your customers. Ask "What can I provide of value to you”
- Work to change policies and regulations that impact favorably on program initiatives.
- The leadership and management of ORS is performed with an extremely high level of professionalism, insight and dedication.  Over the past few years I have come to understand more about the difficulty of this task and to appreciate how fortunate we all are to have such excellent leadership.
- ORS should have a central scheduling function with information on projects and operational activities (e.g., construction, environmental or building inspections, changes in traffic patterns, changes in access to the campus, parking resurface, moves of large number of people) that may impact the research, maintenance, operation and administration activities on campus.   The purpose of this function would be to improve inter service coordination to minimize the disruption or inconvenience to researches and other service providers.
- Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
- It's always a surprise how ORS management are continually changing evaluation programs over the years.  Is this to assure our continued confusion?  This is 6th survey completed for the ASA by this customer.
- I believe it will be very difficult for the Executive Committee to respond effectively or innovatively to the requirement for de-layering or reorganizing ORS.  They will be affected so personally by the final outcome they will find it difficult.

## Other Perceptions FY02 Comments (cont.)

- Filling vacancies takes forever.  In the meantime we overload existing staff.  By the time we hire someone, existing staff has burned out and leave, and we are back to square 1.  Review of manuscripts/publications also takes way too long, e.g., 2 months.
- I feel fortunate to work in an ORS Division that provides resources and support, however, I don't think all Divisions work this way. We have a ways to go with one ORS.
- The Overtime $ ceiling with alternative Comp. Time solution is counter-productive in terms of keeping staff available to provide business services and products.
- We are all so busy, so pushed for time, and work is strictly work and no time to get to know people outside of your immediate area.  What happened to social functions in ORS?
- We must keep in mind that ORS work is often driven by the needs and desires of the customer yet at the same time we are required to maintain certain requirements which may be counter to the customers’ need.
- ORS needs to understand that the people at lower levels were hired for their expertise and do know how to do their jobs and all the upper level management’s micromanaging needs to stop.
- The ORS web site is poorly designed.
- Our contractor chronically has difficulty getting invoices paid due to a dysfunctional Acquisition Management Branch.
- Our organization has benefited greatly by ORS management and has made good headway in improving operations and reputation in comparison to our previous management organization.

## Other Perceptions FY02 Comments (cont.)

- Please keep all employees informed of the A-76 process.  Employee morale dropped 100%.  I know ORS will do everything they can to be sure the process is fair to the government employee.
- I think that ORS senior management needs to be aware of and address lower echelon concerns.  For example, what does the "de-layering" issue mean to individuals who are currently first line supervisors?
- Don't make the awards process so complicated, with lengthy applications that deter a supervisor from the initiative in the first place.  Also, get the Division level out of the process for granting awards at the local (Branch) level.
- Incompetence is rampant within ORS.
- Get everyone in ORS onboard with change initiatives to improve our performance across the board.
- The ORS-IC Occupancy Agreement is poorly designed, and falls short of good customer service. Our customers require more than a warm, dry, lighted shell. Our customers need quick response to their needs, and solutions to their problems.
- Concerning the proposed restructuring of ORS, the position of MAPB should be reconsidered for the following reasons. MAPB is involved with many high profile projects across the NIH. As currently depicted in the proposed reorganization, MAPB is buried.

## Other Perceptions FY02 Comments (cont.)

- Stress "Teamwork" and the "One ORS/NIH" Concept and define expectations and how we are all accountable for this.  This could go as far as including a "Teamwork Element" in each person’s Performance Plan. This is crucial to our success as an organization.
- More effort needs to be made in understanding specifically the day to day role of the lower level managers and the service they provide to the customers.

## ConclusionsCustomer Segmentation

- About 65% of ORSEC time spent on ORS activities.
- About 15% of ORSEC time spent on issues external to NIH.
- Only 1% of ORSEC time spent on professional enrichment and formal training.
- The “Other” category comprises about 8% of ORSEC time and includes
- collaborative research
- journal editing
- miscellaneous meetings

## ConclusionsPerceptions of Decision Making

- Executive Committee members believe they have input into, and the authority to make, decisions concerning ORS.
- Leadership Group members believe they have input into decisions involving their own program areas and the authority to make them.
- Leadership Group members rate their input lower - especially for decisions on future direction of ORS, on improving ORS, and on ORS-wide initiatives.
- Leadership Group members believe they have input into decisions involving their own program areas and the authority to make them.

## ConclusionsPerceptions of Decision Making (cont.)

- In almost all cases, FY02 ratings are about the same as FY01 ratings.
- One exception is program manager input into decisions affecting their own program areas.  Mean ratings for both Executive Committee members and Leadership Group members are considerably higher in FY02.
- Another exception is Leadership Group input on ORS-wide initiatives.  Members perceive they have considerably less input into decisions on ORS-wide initiatives.

## ConclusionsPerceptions of Information Access

- Executive Committee members believe they have easy access to the information they need and that program managers receive timely information.
- Leadership Group members rate both their access to information and the timeliness of the information slightly lower than Executive Committee members.
- FY02 ratings are about the same or slightly lower than FY01 ratings.

## ConclusionsPerceptions of ORS Processes

- In all cases, Leadership Group member ratings of program manager understanding of ORS processes are slightly higher than Executive Committee member ratings.
- Most of the ratings hover around the midpoint of the scale indicating there is room for improvement - especially in the areas of business planning and the ABC cost accounting model.

## ConclusionsPerceptions of ORS Processes (cont.)

- One exception is that Leadership Group members believe program managers understand their program’s relationship to ORS as a whole.
- Ratings on these questions vary widely which indicates that respondents have very different perceptions on program manager understanding.

## ConclusionsPerceptions of Resources

- Both Executive Committee and Leadership Group member ratings hover near the midpoint of the scale indicating that not all program managers received needed resources to meet customer service level expectations.

## Appendix

**FY02 Individual Question Results**

## Q1:  Input into Resource Allocation Decisions FY02 Response Breakout

## Q2:  Input into Future Direction of ORS FY02 Response Breakout

## Q3:  Input into Improving ORS FY02 Response Breakout

## Q4:  Authority to Make DecisionsFY02 Response Breakout

## Q5:  Easy Access to InformationFY02 Response Breakout

## Q6:  Input into Program AreaFY02 Response Breakout

## Q7:  Input into ORS InitiativesFY02 Response Breakout

## Q8:  Timely Receipt of InformationFY02 Response Breakout

## Q9:  Understand Program Relationship to ORS as a WholeFY02 Response Breakout

## Q10:  Understand ORS Business Planning ProcessFY02 Response Breakout

## Q10:  Understand ORS Business Planning ProcessFY02 Response Breakout

## Q11:  Understand ORS Service HierarchyFY02 Response Breakout

## Q12:  Understand ABC Cost Accounting ModelFY02 Response Breakout

## Q13:  Understand ASA Relationship to Business PlanningFY02 Response Breakout

## Q14:  Received Needed ResourcesFY02 Response Breakout

## Appendix

**FY02 Training Detail**

## Lead and Manage ORSFY02 Formal Training

- Note:  Formal Training accounts for about 1% of ORSEC members’ time.