Architect of the Capitol: Management and Accountability Framework Needed for Organizational Transformation
Published: 2003-01-17T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) plays an important role in supporting the effective functioning of the Congress and its neighboring institutions. With a budget of $426 million, AOC is responsible for the maintenance, renovation, and new construction of all buildings and grounds within the Capitol Hill complex. GAO was mandated by the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2002, to conduct a comprehensive management review of AOC's operations to help identify improvements in strategic planning, organizational alignment, and strategic human capital management to help AOC better achieve its mission and to address long-standing program issues. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed AOC's legislative authority and internal documents, interviewed key AOC officials and senior managers, and conducted employee focus groups.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: AOC is an agency working to transform itself and has planned management improvement efforts, such as a new strategic planning process, to help it make this transition. GAO found that without AOC establishing a management and accountability framework, it might have difficulty leading and executing its organizational transformation. Leading organizations undergoing transformation efforts draw from the following management and accountability components: (1) demonstrating top leadership commitment to organizational transformation; (2) involving key stakeholders in developing an organizationwide strategic plan; (3) using the strategic plan as the foundation for aligning activities, core processes, and resources to support mission-related outcomes; (4) establishing a communications strategy to foster transformation and create shared expectations and build ; (5) developing annual goals and a system for measuring performance; and (6) managing human capital and information technology strategically to drive transformation and to support the accomplishment of agency goals. To support its transformation initiatives and to cope with shifting environments and evolving demands and priorities, AOC also should continue to develop its management infrastructure and controls. Establishing this management and accountability framework and further developing its management infrastructure and controls can also help AOC improve performance in program areas of long-standing concern to AOC's employees and congressional stakeholders--worker safety, project management, and recycling.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In response to the management review of the Office of the Architect of the  Capitol (AOC) mandated by the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act,  2002, this report discusses (1) improvements in strategic planning,  organizational alignment, and strategic human capital management that  would help AOC better achieve its mission and accomplish its strategic  goals, (2) actions that AOC can take in other key areas of its management  infrastructure, such as financial and information technology management,  to improve its performance and better accomplish its goals, and (3) best  practices and specific improvements in three key program areas of long- standing concern to AOC’s congressional stakeholders and employees— worker safety, project management, and recycling.  This report contains  recommendations to the Architect of the Capitol for establishing a strategic  management and accountability framework, including strong management  infrastructure and controls, to drive its agency transformation effort and to  address long-standing program issues.
Please call me at (202) 512-6806 if you or your staff members have any  questions concerning this report.  Major contributors to this report are  listed in appendix III.
subsections: section_title: Introduction
paragraphs: The Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) is responsible for  maintaining and caring for the buildings and grounds primarily located in  the Capitol Hill complex, such as the Capitol building, the House and  Senate office buildings, the Library of Congress, and the Supreme Court.  AOC is also responsible for making all necessary capital improvements  within the complex, including major renovations and new construction.  The historic nature and high-profile use of many of these buildings creates  a complex environment in which to carry out this mission. For example,  the U.S. Capitol building is, at once, a national capitol, museum, office  building, ceremonial site, meeting center, media base, and tourist  attraction. In making structural or other physical changes, AOC must  consider the historical significance and the effect on each of these many  uses. Further, AOC must perform its duties in an environment that requires  balancing the divergent needs of congressional leadership, committees,  individual members of the Congress, congressional staffs, and the visiting  public. The challenges of operating in this environment were compounded  by the events of September 11, 2001, and their aftermath, including the  October 2001 discovery of anthrax bacteria on Capitol Hill, and the  resulting need for increased security and safety.
Given the important role AOC plays in supporting the effective functioning  of the Congress and neighboring institutions, the Legislative Branch  Appropriations Act, 2002, mandated this review, and Senate and House  Appropriations Committee reports directed our review on certain  management shortcomings at AOC that needed attention, with a focus on  recommending solutions—strategic planning, organizational alignment,  strategic human capital management, and financial management. The  committees also asked us to assess information technology, and three key  program areas—worker safety, recycling, and project management—both  to illustrate the management issues we are addressing and to help AOC  identify best practices and areas for improvement in these important  programs. This report also discusses actions taken to date by AOC and our  recommendations for further enhancements. In April 2002, at the request of  the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Senate Committee on  Appropriations, we submitted a statement for the record for AOC’s  appropriations hearing that outlined our preliminary observations on what AOC needed to do to improve its management. This report completes our  review. The act also requires AOC to develop a management improvement  plan to address our recommendations.
We recognize that this report outlines a large and complex agenda for  achieving organizational transformation at AOC, and that AOC cannot  tackle all these changes at once. The experiences of successful major  change management initiatives in large private and public sector  organizations suggest that such initiatives can often take at least 5 to 7  years until they are fully implemented and the related cultures are  transformed in a sustainable manner. Nonetheless, this agenda provides the  broad landscape of issues confronting AOC and is therefore important to  crafting a comprehensive and integrated approach to addressing AOC’s  challenges and setting appropriate priorities, even though by necessity it  will have to be phased in over time. By drawing on the full potential of its  management team, AOC can begin to take immediate steps on a number of  actions, although we recognize that AOC will be able to implement some of  these actions more quickly than others.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: In fiscal year 2002, AOC operated with a budget of $426 million, which  included $237 million for capital expenditures associated with the  construction or major renovation of facilities within the Capitol Hill  complex. Organizationally, AOC has a centralized staff that performs  administrative functions; what AOC refers to as “jurisdictions” handle their  own day-to-day operations. These jurisdictions include the Senate Office  Buildings, the House Office Buildings, the U.S. Capitol Buildings, the  Library of Congress Buildings and Grounds, the Supreme Court Buildings  and Grounds, the Capitol Grounds, the Capitol Power Plant, the U.S.  Botanic Garden. There are over 2,300 employees in AOC; nearly 1 out of  every 3 employees is a member of a union.
New requirements to meet long-standing labor and safety laws have added  to the complexity of AOC operations. For example, the Congressional  Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA) applied 11 civil rights, labor, and  workplace laws to AOC as well as other legislative branch agencies. In  particular, meeting the obligations of labor laws, such as the Fair Labor  Standards Act of 1938 and the Federal Service Labor-Management  Relations Statute, while overcoming a history of poor labor-management  relations has been a struggle. CAA also requires AOC to meet standards set  by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, which applied new life  and fire safety codes, as well as other building codes, to the agency. CAA  established the Office of Compliance (OOC) to enforce the provisions of  the act through inspections, investigations, and prosecution of potential  violations. In addition, OOC provides education to employees and  employing offices, and administers dispute resolution procedures if  violations are found.
AOC has demonstrated a commitment to change through the management  improvements it has planned and under way. For example, consistent with  the preliminary observations we provided in our April statement, AOC has  recently  commenced a new strategic planning effort that focuses on developing   drafted congressional protocols patterned after our protocols,  conducted client surveys in the Capitol, House, Senate, and Library of   implemented a senior executive performance evaluation system,  improved budget formulation and execution processes,  begun preparations for producing auditable financial statements,  begun drafting a policy to establish an agencywide approach to   drafted a workplace safety and health master plan,  consulted with experts on how to structure its request for proposals for  developing a long term master plan for the Capitol Hill complex, and  improved recycling program coordination and client outreach.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2002, directed us to conduct a  comprehensive management study of AOC’s operations. Under this  mandate, we address three objectives: (1) What improvements in strategic  planning, organizational alignment, and strategic human capital  management would help AOC better achieve its mission and accomplish its  strategic goals? (2) What actions can the AOC take to improve its overall  management infrastructure in other key functional areas, such as financial  management and information technology management, to improve its  performance and better accomplish its goals? (3) What specific  improvement can AOC make in selected program areas, including worker  safety, project management, and recycling, vital to achieving its mission?
To address these objectives, we have been working constructively with  AOC managers to understand their complex operating environment and the  long-standing challenges they must address. In addition to the standard  audit methods described below, as part of our constructive engagement, we  provided AOC briefings and GAO reports on best practices in the areas we  reviewed. For example, at AOC’s request, GAO officials provided briefings  on our own approach to strategic planning and establishing congressional  protocols along with copies of our strategic planning and protocol  documents. In addition, we provided GAO reports on areas such as  strategic human capital management and world-class financial  management and other guidance on GAO’s human capital policies and  procedures. Finally, upon request we provided details of our focus group  methodology discussed below to assist AOC in replicating our approach in  AOC jurisdictions we did not cover.
For each of the management functions and the worker safety and health,  recycling, and project management programs, we reviewed AOC’s  legislative authority and internal AOC documents, including selected AOC  policies and procedures, internal and consultant reports on AOC  management issues, reports by the Inspector General and GAO, and other  reports on best practices.
To obtain management’s perspective on the objectives, we interviewed key  senior AOC officials, including the Architect; the Chief of Staff; the  Assistant Architect; the Chief Financial Officer; the General Counsel; the  Deputy Chief of Staff; the Director of Safety, Fire, and Environmental  Programs; the Director of the Office of Labor Relations; and the Acting  Chief of the Office of Design and Construction. We also interviewed AOC  officials at the next level of management responsible for strategic planning,  human resources, information technology, budget, accounting, project  management, architecture, engineering, construction, and recycling. We  also spoke to senior AOC managers and toured facilities in the following  AOC jurisdictions: U.S. Capitol Building, House Office Building, Senate  Office Buildings, Library Buildings and Grounds, Supreme Court, Capitol  Power Plant, and the U.S. Botanic Garden. We interviewed the Inspector  General to discuss the work his office had done on the management areas  we reviewed.
In addition to formal interviews, AOC allowed us to attend as observers a  number of key internal meetings, including two budget review meetings on  budget formulation and execution progress and issues for two  jurisdictions, three quarterly capital project review meetings to discuss the  status of AOC projects, an August 2002 National Academy of Sciences  workshop to discuss Capitol Hill complex-wide master planning efforts,  and a June 2002 workshop by DuPont Safety Resources on strategies for  safety excellence.
To obtain additional perspectives on the areas examined as part of our  review and as an initial effort to support AOC planned efforts to begin to  routinely obtain employee feedback, we used focus groups to gather  employee and supervisor perceptions, opinions, and attitudes about  working at AOC. For our focus groups at AOC, we were interested in  obtaining (1) employees’ views of what aspects of working at AOC were  going well or needed improvement, (2) whether employees had the  resources needed to perform their jobs, and (3) employees’ perspectives on  AOC’s worker safety program. We contracted with the firm of  Booz|Allen|Hamilton to conduct the focus groups and summarize and  analyze the results. We conducted 13 of these focus groups with employees  randomly selected from the House and Senate Office Building jurisdictions,  Capitol Power Plant, Senate Restaurants, and the Construction  Management Division. We selected employees from these parts of AOC in  accord with our specific review areas of worker safety and project  management and also because they contained some of the largest  employee populations. The other two focus groups consisted of randomly  selected employee supervisors from the House and Senate jurisdictions. In  all, we invited 200 employees to attend 15 focus groups and 127 employees  participated.
To obtain a better understanding of project management at AOC, we also  conducted a focus group with full-time AOC project managers. For the  focus group, we asked about what is working well at the AOC in project  management and where there might be areas for improvement. We also  discussed (1) the project management process at AOC, (2) the project  management environment, and (3) resources and tools used in performing  project management duties at AOC. We invited 14 project managers and 8  attended. A more detailed discussion of our focus group objectives, scope,  and methodology, including a list of our focus group questions is contained  in appendix I.
To further understand how project management works at AOC, we  conducted two in-depth case studies of projects currently under way—the  relocation of the Senate Recording Studio and the modernization of the  coal handling system at the Capitol Power Plant. We selected these case  studies using the following criteria: both were drawn from AOC’s “hot”—or  high priority—projects, one was a medium project and one was a large  project, and one had a project manager from the central Assistant  Architect’s office and the other from a jurisdiction. In addition both  projects were on a critical path to the completion of other high priority  AOC projects. Our methodology entailed reviewing relevant project  documents as well as interviewing key internal and external stakeholders  for the projects.
On November 20, 2002, we provided to the Architect of the Capitol a draft  of this report for comment. We received written comments from the  Architect. The Architect’s comments are reprinted in appendix II. AOC also  provided technical comments that were incorporated where appropriate.
In his written comments, the Architect stated that he is “dedicated to  preserving and enhancing the national treasures entrusted to my agency’s  care, and to providing high quality service to the Congress and our other  clients.” He further stated “the GAO testimony provided in April 2002 and  our discussions with GAO regarding the report resulted in our advancing  improvement efforts at the .” The Architect generally agreed with our  findings, conclusions, and recommendations and indicated that AOC is  developing an implementation plan to adopt recommended management  changes and that three themes—strategic planning, communications, and  performance management—will be the primary focus of its immediate  efforts. The Architect disagreed with our statement that AOC’s 5-year  Safety Management Plan was drafted independent of its broader strategic  planning effort. Although we believe that this statement was true at the  time of our review, AOC has subsequently made efforts to improve the  alignment between its draft strategic and worker safety plans. Therefore,  we deleted this statement. We performed our work in Washington, D.C.,  from November 2001 through September 2002 in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards.
Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Strategic Management Framework Needed to Achieve Transformation
paragraphs: The Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) recognizes that because of  the nature of the challenges and demands it faces, change will not come  quickly or easily. AOC therefore must ensure that it has the policies,  procedures, and people in place to effectively implement the needed  changes. That is, to serve the Congress, central AOC management needs  the capability to define goals, set priorities, ensure follow-through, monitor  progress, and establish accountability. The themes we discuss in this  chapter focus on building the capability to lead and execute organizational  transformation. Therefore, as a first priority, AOC needs to establish a  management and accountability framework by, among other things,  demonstrating top leadership commitment to organizational   involving key congressional and other stakeholders in developing its   using its strategic plan as the foundation for aligning its activities, core  processes, and resources to support mission-related outcomes;  establishing a communications strategy to foster change and create  shared expectations and build involvement;   developing annual goals and a system for measuring performance; and  strategically managing its human capital to drive transformation and to  support the accomplishment of agency goals.
subsections: section_title: AOC Needs to Undergo Organizational Transformation
paragraphs: Across the federal government, fundamental questions are being asked  about what government does; how it does it; and in some cases, who  should do the government’s business. The answers to these questions are  driving agencies to transform their organizational cultures. This  organizational transformation entails shifts from  hierarchical to flatter and more horizontal structures,  an inward focus to an external (customer and stakeholder) focus,  micro-management to employee empowerment,  reactive behavior to proactive approaches,  avoiding new technologies to embracing and leveraging them,  hoarding knowledge to sharing knowledge,  avoiding risk to managing risk, and  protecting turf to forming partnerships.
AOC confronts many of these same issues. For example, to serve its clients,  AOC is organized along jurisdictional lines—stovepipes that are not fully  matrixed. In this environment, AOC faces the challenge of how best to  marshal its jurisdiction-based resources to address the strategic planning,  performance management, human capital, project management, and other  functional issues that cut across the organization. AOC also faces the  challenge of how to shift from reacting to problems as they arise to getting  in front of the problems to address root causes, while still responding to  the day-to-day service needs of its clients. Change is always risky, but  continuing to address problems with only short-term tactical solutions can  be even riskier—AOC needs to develop the capacity to identify the risks to  achieving its goals and manage them before crises occur.
Making such fundamental changes in AOC’s culture will require a long- term, concerted effort. The experiences of successful major change  management initiatives in large private and public sector organizations  suggests that such initiatives can often take at least 5 to 7 years until they  are fully implemented and the related cultures are transformed in a  sustainable manner. As a result, it is essential to establish action-oriented  implementation goals over the long term and a time line with milestone dates to track the organization’s progress towards achieving those  implementation goals.
The nature and scope of the changes require the sustained and inspired  commitment of the top leadership. Top leadership attention is essential to  overcome organizations’ natural resistance to change, marshal the  resources needed to implement change, and build and maintain the  organizationwide commitment to new ways of doing business. On  September 9, 2002, the Comptroller General convened a roundtable of  executive branch leaders and management experts to discuss the Chief  Operating Officer concept and how it might apply within selected federal  departments and agencies as one leadership strategy to address certain  systemic federal governance challenges. There was general agreement in  the roundtable on a number of overall themes concerning the need for  agencies to do the following:  Elevate attention on management issues and organizational  transformation. The nature and scope of the changes needed in many  agencies require the sustained and inspired commitment of the top  political and career leadership.
Integrate various key management functions and transformation  responsibilities. While officials with management responsibilities often  have successfully worked together, there needs to be a single point  within agencies with the perspective and responsibility—as well as  authority—to ensure the successful implementation of functional  management and, if appropriate, transformation efforts.
Institutionalize accountability for addressing management issues and  leading transformation. The management weaknesses in some agencies  are deeply entrenched and long-standing and will take years of  sustained attention and continuity to resolve. In addition, making  fundamental changes in agencies’ cultures will require a long-term  effort.
In our April 2002 statement, we noted that we were exploring options to  strengthen AOC’s executive decision-making capacity and accountability,  including creating a Chief Operating Officer (COO) position, which could  be responsible for major long-term management and cultural  transformation and stewardship responsibilities within AOC. On July 25,  2002, the Senate passed S.2720, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act,  2003, in which it established a Deputy Architect of the Capitol/COO. This  official was to be responsible for the overall direction, operation, and  management of AOC. In addition to developing and implementing a long- term strategic plan, including a comprehensive mission statement and an  annual performance plan, the bill requires that the Deputy Architect be  responsible for proposing organizational changes and new positions  needed to carry out AOC’s mission and strategic and annual performance  goals. Regardless of whether the Congress decides to pursue a COO  position for AOC, concerted efforts will be needed to elevate, integrate, and  institutionalize responsibility for transformation at AOC.
subsections: section_title: Successful Organizations Align Their Activities, Core Processes, and Resources to Support Mission-Related Outcomes
paragraphs: In our prior work, we have concluded that for strategic planning to be done  well, organizations must involve their stakeholders and align their  activities, core processes, and resources to support mission-related  outcomes. We found that leading results-oriented organizations  consistently strive to ensure that their day-to-day activities support their  organizational missions and move them closer to accomplishing their  strategic goals. In practice, these organizations see the production of a  strategic plan—that is, a particular document issued on a particular day— as one of the least important parts of the planning process. This is because  they believe strategic planning is not a static or occasional event. It is,  instead, a dynamic and inclusive process. If done well, strategic planning is  continuous and provides the basis for everything the organization does  each day. Therefore, it is important for an organization to go through the  strategic planning process first, and then align the organization to  accomplish the objectives of that plan. Figure 1 shows how an agency’s  strategic plan serves as the foundation for other strategic management  initiatives, such as organizational realignment; performance planning,  management, and reporting; and improvements to the capacity of the  organization to achieve its goals.
Since 1997, AOC and a number of its subsidiary offices and jurisdictions  have attempted to implement strategic planning processes. In 1997, the  Architect led the first effort to produce an AOC-wide strategic plan that laid  out AOC’s mission, vision, core values, strategic priorities, and goals and  objectives. Similarly, a number of business units within AOC, such as the  Human Resources Management Division, the Office of Inspector General,  and the House Office Buildings jurisdiction have developed their own  strategic plans, and the Capitol Buildings jurisdiction is developing a new  master plan for the Capitol, but these plans do not flow directly from, and  therefore are not necessarily consistent with, an AOC-wide plan.
According to AOC officials, turnover in key planning staff and inability to  reach agreement on how to measure performance led AOC management to  discontinue the AOC-wide strategic planning effort. Subsequently, in 2001  AOC shifted to a scaled-back strategic planning approach that focused on  tasks to be completed in a number of key priority areas: (1) develop a  process and establish realistic goals and priorities, (2) improve employee  support by, for example, addressing space and equipment needs and  improving communication about where the organization is going,  (3) improve safety, (4) improve project delivery, and (5) focus on quality  assurance. In our April 2002 statement, we stated that AOC needed to  refocus and integrate its strategic planning efforts to identify and  implement mission-critical goals for key results.
Consistent with the preliminary observations in our April 2002 statement,  AOC renewed its organizationwide strategic planning process. AOC formed  a task force of senior managers to develop a “straw” strategic plan that  outlines AOC’s mission; vision; core values; and long-term, mission-critical  goals for fiscal years 2003 through 2007. When completed, AOC’s strategic  plan should provide the starting point and serve as a unifying framework  for AOC’s various business unit and jurisdictional planning efforts. The  plan will also position AOC to answer questions such as what fundamental  results does AOC want to achieve, what are its long-term goals, and what  strategies will it employ to achieve those goals.
section_title: AOC Needs to Involve Key Congressional and Other Stakeholders in Developing Its Strategic Plan
paragraphs: Successful organizations we studied ensure that their strategic planning  fully considers the interests and expectations of their stakeholders. Among  the stakeholders of AOC are the appropriations and oversight committees  and individual members of the Congress and their staffs, the management  and staff of the Supreme Court, the Library of Congress, and the  Congressional Budget Office, AOC employees, and, of course, the  American public.
AOC strategic planning efforts have not yet involved such outreach. To  date, AOC’s task force of senior managers has developed a straw 5-year  strategic plan that outlines AOC’s mission, vision, core values, and high  level goals and objectives for the four strategic focus areas its has  identified: strategic management and business initiatives, human capital,  facilities management, and project management. Consistent with our  constructive engagement with AOC, we have provided several best practice  briefings to the agency’s leadership as requested. A senior GAO executive  in GAO’s Office of External Liaison briefed the Architect of the Capitol and  other AOC senior managers on October 8, 2002, on our continuing process  to update and revise our strategic plan. The briefing emphasized the need  for continual stakeholder involvement. As a result, according to AOC, it  recently defined its key stakeholders and a methodology for obtaining their  feedback on the strategic plan.
In moving forward with its strategic planning efforts, it will be critical that  AOC fully engage its stakeholders and obtain their buy-in to provide a  strong foundation for any organizational or operating changes that may be  needed to implement the plan. In contrast to previous strategic planning  initiatives, AOC needs to move beyond a focus on actions to be completed  quickly to a broader focus on the mission-critical, long-term goals needed  to serve the Congress. Thus, stakeholder involvement will be especially  important for AOC to help it ensure that its efforts and resources are  targeted at the highest priorities. Just as important, involving stakeholders  in strategic planning efforts can help create a basic understanding among  the stakeholders of the competing demands that confront most agencies,  the limited resources available to them, and how those demands and  resources require careful and continuous balancing.
section_title: An AOC-Wide Communications Strategy Will Help Achieve Mission- Critical Goals
paragraphs: An effective communications strategy is a key success factor for  organizations undergoing transformation. In a September 24, 2002, forum  convened by the Comptroller General on mergers and transformation  issues, there was consensus among the participants that communication is  essential to organizational transformation. As we discussed in our April  2002 statement, for successful implementation of strategic planning and  change management, AOC must develop a comprehensive communications  strategy for its internal and external customers. The Architect of the  Capitol agrees that improving communications is one of his top priorities.  As AOC continues to develop its strategic plan, it should consider how it  can build such a communications strategy to help to achieve the  organization’s mission. It is also important for AOC to assess ways that it  can measure the success of this strategy.
AOC continues to strengthen its internal communications by broadening  participation in a series of regular meetings among its senior managers for  decision making and routine sharing of information. For example, AOC has  expanded participation in its management council meetings (biweekly  meetings of AOC’s senior managers to address agency business issues and  priorities) to include jurisdictional superintendents and office directors.
In our April 2002 statement, we noted that AOC could strengthen its  internal communications by developing a communications strategy that  would help AOC’s line employees understand the connection between what  they do on a day-to-day basis and AOC’s goals and expectations, as well as  seek employee feedback and develop goals for improvement. We further  stated that one way of implementing such a strategy is to conduct routine  employee feedback surveys and/or focus groups. In addition, we continue  to believe that AOC could benefit from knowledge sharing to encourage  and reward employees who share and implement best practices across the  various jurisdictions, teams, and projects.
The need for an organizationwide communications strategy is borne out by  the results of the focus groups that we conducted with AOC employees and  supervisors from June through July 2002. When we analyzed the results of  the focus groups, several themes became apparent. One of the themes  cited by focus group participants involved supervisory communications  and employee relations—specifically, that communications from  supervisor to employee is insufficient. AOC plans to followup on our  efforts by seeking employee feedback through focus groups and surveys. In  a May 23, 2002, memorandum from the Architect to AOC’s employees  announcing the focus groups we conducted, the Architect stated that AOC  planned to gather the views of employees from the jurisdictions that we did  not cover. Moreover, in its draft strategic plan, AOC noted that employee  surveys is one strategy it plans to use to help achieve the human capital  strategic goal of attracting, developing, and retaining diverse, satisfied, and  highly motivated employees.
AOC must continue to improve its external communications and outreach  by (1) further developing congressional protocols, (2) improving its  accountability reporting, and (3) continuing to measure customer  satisfaction with its services organizationwide. In our April 2002 statement,  we encouraged AOC to consider developing congressional protocols,  which would help ensure that AOC deals with its congressional customers  using clearly defined, consistently applied, and transparent policies and  procedures. After working closely with the Congress and after careful pilot  testing, we implemented congressional protocols in 1999. In response to  our preliminary observations concerning the need for such protocols at  AOC, on June 17, 2002, GAO’s Director of Congressional Relations and her  staff briefed the Architect of the Capitol and AOC’s senior managers on  lessons learned from GAO’s development of congressional protocols. They  shared key lessons and success factors from our experiences in developing  the protocols—that it is a time-consuming process that involves (1) the  personal commitment and direction from the agency head, (2) senior  management participation and buy-in, and (3) continuous outreach to and  feedback from external stakeholders. As a result of our preliminary  observations and our best practices briefing, AOC drafted an initial set of  congressional protocols modeled after our congressional protocols. AOC  noted that these protocols need to be finalized and distributed. In doing so,  and consistent with the approach for AOC’s strategic plan, AOC needs to  continually involve its stakeholders in developing these protocols.
Although AOC is not required to comply with the 1993 Government  Performance and Results Act (GPRA) because it is a legislative branch  agency, we believe that AOC could adopt the reporting elements of GPRA  to strengthen accountability and transparency by annually reporting  program performance and financial information. For example, although  GAO is a legislative branch agency, since fiscal year 1999, we have annually  produced performance and accountability reports as well as our future  fiscal year performance plan. Such results-oriented accountability  reporting would help AOC communicate what it has accomplished, as well  as its plans for continued progress to its external stakeholders.
In tandem with AOC’s efforts to gather internal feedback from its  employees, we noted in April 2002 that AOC’s communications strategy  should also include tools for gauging customer satisfaction with its  services. Customer feedback is an expectation for AOC’s senior managers  and conducting client surveys is one proposed method in AOC’s draft  strategic plan to achieve the strategic objective related to facilities  management. In June 2002, AOC made a concerted effort to gather the  views of some of its clients through a building services customer  satisfaction survey for the Senate, House, Capitol building, and Library of  Congress jurisdictions, which it plans to conduct annually. The Architect of  the Capitol indicated to the survey participants that he will use the results  of the survey to initiate service improvements based on the priorities they  identify. AOC surveyed a total of 1,883 congressional staff members and  received 275 responses. The results of the survey were shared with the  jurisdictions’ superintendents. AOC plans to report the results to the  congressional leadership and members of the Congress and to the Library  of Congress. In response, the jurisdictional superintendents are developing  “action plans” to address areas of concern that were raised in the surveys.  Continued AOC efforts to routinely measure customer satisfaction AOC- wide with both its congressional customers as well as other customers,  such as visitors to the Capitol Hill complex, will help AOC identify its  service quality strengths, performance gaps, and improvement  opportunities.
section_title: AOC Should Develop Annual Goals and Measure Performance
paragraphs: Another key action AOC needs to take is developing annual performance  goals that provide a connection between the long-term strategic goals in  the strategic plan and the day-to-day activities of managers and staff  members. Measuring performance allows an organization to track the  progress it is making toward its goals, gives managers crucial information  on which to base their organizational and management decisions, and  creates powerful incentives to influence organizational and individual  behavior.
AOC’s draft strategic plan for 2002 through 2007 describes a number of  strategic objectives and outcomes for each of its four focus areas. For  example, under Facilities Management, AOC has as a strategic objective to  “provide safe, healthy, secure, and clean facilities to our clients.” One of the  outcomes described for this focus area is “satisfied visitors and occupants.”  The draft plan also lists a performance goal methodology. In the case of  Facilities Management, the methodology is “client surveys,” as we  discussed above. According to the draft plan, AOC’s strategic plan is to be  supplemented by more detailed functional plans that are developed along  the same planning time line. These plans are to contain the tactical level  actions, performance targets, and milestone data necessary to carry out  agency-level strategies. The draft plan states that AOC will use both  quantitative and qualitative performance goals and measures to  demonstrate progress toward its strategic goals and objectives.
As AOC moves forward in developing its performance goals and measures,  it should consider the practices of leading organizations we have studied  that were successful in measuring their performance. Such organizations  generally applied two practices. First, they developed measures that were  (1) tied to program goals and demonstrated the degree to which the desired  results were achieved, (2) limited to the vital few that were considered  essential to producing data for decision making, (3) responsive to multiple  priorities, and (4) responsibility linked to establish accountability for  results. Second, the agencies recognized the cost and effort involved in  gathering and analyzing data and made sure that the data they did collect  were sufficiently complete, accurate, and consistent to be useful in  decision making.
Developing measures that respond to multiple priorities is of particular  importance for programs operating in dynamic environments where  mission requirements must be carefully balanced. This is the case for AOC  where the role of protecting and preserving the historic facilities under its  control may occasionally conflict with its role of providing maintenance  and renovation services to occupants who use the facilities to conduct  congressional business. For example, according to AOC officials, following  elections, new members of the Congress may ask AOC to modify office  suites containing historic architectural features. In those cases, AOC must  balance the members’ needs for functional office design with its  responsibility for protecting the architectural integrity of the rooms.  Consequently, AOC, like other organizations, must weigh its mission  requirements against its priorities. AOC could better gauge its success by  first employing a balanced set of measures that encompasses its diverse  responsibilities and requirements, such as maintaining historic facilities  and satisfying customers and then benchmarking its results both  internally—across its jurisdictions—as well as against other leading  organizations with comparable facility management operations.
section_title: AOC Should Revisit Link between Its Performance Management Systems and Mission-Critical Goals in Its Strategic Plan
paragraphs: Once AOC has reached agreement with its stakeholders on its strategic  plan, AOC should revisit both its senior executive and employee  performance management systems to strengthen individual accountability  to organizational goals and performance. AOC also has not yet aligned and  cascaded its performance expectations with its mission-critical goals at all  levels of the organization. As our September 2002 report on managing  senior executive performance using balanced expectations noted, leading  organizations use their performance management systems to achieve  results, accelerate change, and facilitate communication throughout the  year so that discussions about individual and organizational performance  are integrated and ongoing. Thus, effective performance management  systems can be (1) strategic tools for organizations to drive internal change  and achieve external results and (2) ways to translate organizational  priorities and goals into direct and specific commitments that senior  executives will be expected to achieve during the year. As we have  reported in the past, another critical success factor for creating a results- oriented culture is a performance management system that creates a “line  of sight” showing how individual employees can contribute to overall  organizational goals.
In June 2002, AOC implemented a senior executive performance  management system—informed by our human capital policies and  flexibilities and structured around the Office of Personnel Management’s  Executive Core qualifications—based on six performance requirements:  results-driven, leading change, leading people, equal employment  opportunity, business acumen, and building coalitions and  communications. The senior executive performance management system is  based on a balanced measures approach—an approach to performance  measurement that balances organizational results with customer,  employee, and other perspectives. As a part of this system, AOC instructed  its senior executives to incorporate the agency’s strategic goals and  responsibilities into their performance requirements and individual  commitments for subsequent evaluation by the Architect. The results- driven performance requirement for AOC’s senior executives provides the  basis for results-oriented accountability. The senior executive performance  management system—once aligned with the strategic goals and objectives  in AOC’s strategic plan, will serve as an important means for helping AOC  to achieve its desired organizational results.
In June 2000, AOC implemented a performance management system— Performance Communication and Evaluation System —for its General  Schedule (up to GS-15) and Wage Grade employees (non-bargaining-unit  employees). According to the Director of HRMD, approximately 875  bargaining unit and trades employees—about 38 percent of AOC’s  workforce—were not covered by these systems. As a next step, AOC  should align its employee performance management system with its senior  executive system to strengthen individual accountability to organizational  goals and performance. For example, as we discuss later in the report,  although the incentive to focus on safety has been built into the  performance appraisal system for employees, it is not addressed in the  senior executive performance evaluation system. While AOC supports this  concept, AOC’s senior officials stated that they must balance the need to  move forward in aligning these systems with the need to provide continuity  in the employee performance management system currently in place.
section_title: A Competency-Based Approach Can Help AOC Meet Its Human Capital Goals and Objectives
paragraphs: The establishment and integration of organizational competencies into  performance management systems is another mechanism to create  accountability for achieving mission-critical goals. Competencies, which  define the skills or supporting behaviors that employees are expected to  exhibit as they effectively carry out their work, can provide a fuller picture  of an individual’s performance. Competencies can also help form the basis  for an organization’s selection, promotion, training, performance  management, and succession planning initiatives. Our August 2002 report  on other countries’ performance management initiatives found that the  United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand are using competencies in  their public sector organizations to provide a fuller assessment of  individual performance. GAO has also introduced a competency-based  performance management system for analysts and specialists, driven by a  best practice review of multidisciplinary professional service organizations  in both the private and public sectors.
AOC should consider developing core and technical competencies as the  basis for its performance management systems. Agencywide core and  technical competencies can serve as guidance for employees as they strive  to meet organizational expectations. The core competencies should be  derived from AOC’s strategic plan and workforce planning efforts and  reflect its core values. All employees should be held accountable for  achieving core competencies as AOC moves to transform its culture. As we  reported in April 2002, AOC has added to its professional workforce by  hiring new jurisdictional superintendents, deputy superintendents, budget  and accounting officers, a Chief Financial Officer, a Director of Facilities  Planning and Programming, and worker safety specialists. As AOC works  toward developing a cadre of managerial and professional employees, the  development of specific technical competencies can assist the agency in  creating and developing a successful leadership and managerial team.
AOC has made progress in establishing supervisory, management, and  executive competencies. AOC’s Human Resources Management Division  (HRMD) has also developed a competency model for its professional and  administrative staff. HRMD intends to use this competency model to  “reinforce its strategic focus … and outline the workforce requirements  necessary to develop a highly competent cadre of human resources staff  dedicated and committed to providing high-quality, timely and responsive  human resources services to managers and employees of the AOC.” As  AOC’s efforts move forward, it will identify opportunities to refine and/or  develop technical competencies in other managerial and professional areas  critical to achieving its mission, including project management, worker  safety, financial management, and information technology. AOC can draw  from best practices guidance and professional associations and  certifications to assist it in developing these technical competencies. Some  tools available to identify appropriate competencies are offered by the  Joint Financial Management Improvement Program for financial  management, and the Project Management Institute for project  management.
After AOC has established its core and technical competencies, it can use  these competencies as the basis for the performance requirements of its  performance management systems for both senior executives and  employees. The combination of a competency-based performance  management system linked to mission-critical goals could provide AOC  with a world-class mechanism for holding its workforce accountable for  achieving its mission.
section_title: AOC Needs to Determine Agency Workforce Needs and Assess Progress by Collecting and Analyzing Workforce Data
paragraphs: AOC does not currently collect and analyze workforce data in a  comprehensive way that would allow it to determine its workforce needs  and to measure its progress in achieving its human capital strategic goals  and objectives. The ability to collect and analyze data will greatly enhance  AOC’s ability to acquire, develop, and retain talent, while allowing it to  effectively plan for the needs of its workforce.
High-performing organizations use data to determine key performance  objectives and goals that enable them to evaluate the success of their  human capital approaches. Reliable data also heighten an agency’s ability  to manage risk by allowing managers to spotlight areas for attention before  crises develop and identify opportunities for enhancing agency results.  Collecting and analyzing data are fundamental building blocks for  measuring the effectiveness of human capital approaches in support of the  mission and goals of an agency. AOC needs to develop a fact-based,  comprehensive approach to the collection and analysis of accurate and  reliable information across a range of human capital activities. AOC  recognizes the need to comprehensively collect and analyze workforce  data and has requested about $1 million in its fiscal year 2003 budget for an  automated system to assist it in recruitment, classification, workforce  management, and succession planning.
Appropriate data sources and collection methods are necessary to measure  progress in meeting AOC’s human capital goals and objectives. For  example, in order for AOC to determine if it is meeting equal employment  opportunity (EEO) and diversity requirements—one of its strategic  objectives—it must first establish a reliable data gathering method. We  found that AOC does not have comprehensive procedures in place to track  its progress to assess whether it is achieving its goal of a diverse  workforce. Based on reliable data, AOC can then monitor its progress in  meeting EEO requirements and develop appropriate intervention strategies  if it is not.
section_title: Strategic Workforce Planning Would Help AOC Identify Workforce Needs and Develop Strategies to Fill Gaps
paragraphs: AOC can benefit from strategically identifying its current and future  workforce needs and then creating strategies to fill any gaps. AOC  recognizes the need to conduct workforce planning; however, it has not yet  initiated this effort. According to the principles embodied in our Model of  Strategic Human Capital Management, effective organizations  incorporate human capital critical success factors, such as integration and  alignment, and data-driven human capital decisions as strategies for  accomplishing their mission and programmatic goals and results.  Strategic workforce planning and analysis is one such approach that can  help AOC to effectively align its resources with agency needs.
Workforce planning efforts linked to strategic program goals and objectives  can help the organization to identify such needs as ensuring a diverse labor  force, succession planning for scarce skill sets, and other competencies  needed in the workforce. For example, in AOC’s draft strategic plan, human  capital is one of the four strategic planning focus areas. The strategic goal  associated with the human capital focus area is to attract, develop, and  retain diverse, satisfied, and highly motivated employees with the skills,  talents, and knowledge necessary to support the agency’s mission. AOC  established several strategic objectives to achieve this goal. One of the  objectives is to develop a human capital plan designed to acquire, develop,  and retain a talented workforce while integrating and aligning human  capital approaches, equal opportunity requirements, and organizational  performance. Specifically, an effective strategic workforce planning effort  will entail  determining how many employees AOC needs to accomplish its   assessing the skills and competencies of the employees currently  available to do this work (develop an employee skills and competencies  inventory);  determining gaps in the number, skills, and competencies of the  employees needed to do this work;  developing a training and recruitment plan for filling the gap, including a  focus on the diversity and EEO goals of the organization;   creating a succession plan to address workforce gaps created by  employees exiting the organization; and  evaluating the contribution that the results of these strategic workforce  planning efforts make to achieving mission-critical goals.
AOC does not currently have workforce planning efforts under way,  although it does recognize the need to strategically plan for its workforce  and has requested funding for four positions in its fiscal year 2003 budget to  create an organization and workforce management team within the Office  of the Architect. The purpose of this proposed team is to conduct  workforce planning and analysis. The team would work collaboratively  with AOC’s HRMD, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and other agency  managers to focus on skill mix, resource needs, and succession planning.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: AOC faces many challenges as it seeks to better serve the Congress. This  report lays out a complex agenda for organizational transformation at AOC  that includes developing the capacity to lead and execute change and  becoming a more results-oriented, matrixed, client-focused, and proactive  organization. AOC has indicated that it is committed to the long-term effort  necessary to improve its service to the Congress and has already begun to  make some improvements in areas such as strategic planning, client  outreach, and accountability of senior management for achieving results.  To make lasting improvements, AOC must continue on this path by   demonstrating top leadership commitment to long-term change;   involving key congressional and other stakeholders in developing its   using its strategic plan as the foundation for aligning activities, core  processes, and resources to support mission-related outcomes;  establishing a communications strategy to foster change and create  shared expectations and build involvement;   developing annual goals and a system for measuring performance; and  strategically managing its human capital to drive transformation and to  support the accomplishment of agency goals.
AOC’s needs to improve its executive decision-making capacity and  accountability in order to help (1) elevate attention on management issues  and transformation, (2) integrate various key management and  transformation efforts, and (3) institutionalize accountability for  addressing management issues and leading transformation.
One option for addressing the transformation issues that AOC faces is to  create a COO or similar position that would be accountable for achieving  change at AOC.
Making such fundamental changes in AOC’s culture will require a long- term, concerted effort. In developing a management improvement plan to  address the recommendations in this report, it is essential that AOC work  with key congressional and other stakeholders to establish action-oriented  implementation goals over the long term, and a time line with milestone  dates to track the organization’s progress towards achieving those  implementation goals.
section_title: Recommendations for Agency Action
paragraphs: In order to adopt the elements of the management and accountability  framework—strategic planning, organizational alignment,  communications, performance measurement, and strategic human capital  management—and build on efforts under way at AOC, we recommend that  the Architect of the Capitol  improve strategic planning and organizational alignment, by involving  key congressional and other external stakeholders in AOC’s strategic  planning efforts and in any organizational changes that may result from  these efforts;  develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external  communications, by  providing opportunities for routine employee input and feedback,  completing the development of congressional protocols by involving   improving annual accountability reporting through annual  performance planning and reporting, and  continuing to regularly measure customer satisfaction AOC-wide;   strengthen performance measurement and strategic human capital   developing annual goals and measuring performance,  creating a “line of sight” by linking AOC’s senior executive and  employee performance management systems to mission-critical  goals,  establishing agencywide core and technical competencies and  holding employees accountable for these competencies as a part of  the performance management system,  developing the capacity to collect and analyze workforce data, and  identifying current and future workforce needs and developing  strategies to fill gaps.
In developing a management improvement plan to address the  recommendations in this report, we also recommend that the Architect of  the Capitol establish action-oriented implementation goals over the long  term and a time line with milestone dates to track the organization’s  progress towards achieving those implementation goals. The Architect  should work with key congressional and other stakeholders to develop this  plan.
section_title: Matters for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: The Congress should consider ways in which to elevate, integrate, and  institutionalize accountability for addressing management issues and  leading organizational transformation at AOC. One option would be to  create a statutory COO or similar position for AOC to improve its executive  decision-making process and accountability.
To help ensure that AOC implements its management improvement plan,  the Congress should consider requiring AOC to provide periodic status  reports on the implementation of its plan, including progress made and  milestones not met, and any adjustments to the plan in response to internal  or external developments.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: In his comments on this chapter, the Architect agreed with our  recommendations and discussed the current efforts AOC has under way in  response, including the development of a plan to implement our  recommendations. For example, AOC is currently conducting an  agencywide strategic planning effort—with stakeholder involvement— focused on developing mission-critical goals and action plans for mission- critical programs, such as facilities management, project management, and  human capital. AOC has also formed a team to develop a comprehensive  communications strategy to improve its internal and external  communications. To strengthen transparency and accountability, as we  recommended AOC plans to produce an annual performance plan that  outlines the specific actions, milestones, and performance measures  planned to achieve its goals for that year and an annual accountability  report on progress achieved. In the area of strategic human capital  management, AOC stated that it would implement our recommendations in  a phased approach that will entail firmly establishing its overall strategy  before aligning individual performance management programs to that  strategy. AOC plans to explore the benefits of expanding the use of core  and technical competencies agencywide, but wants first to ensure that the  use of competencies is appropriate for all occupations and jurisdictions.  The Architect’s comments are reprinted in appendix II.
section_title: Management Infrastructure and Controls Needed to Support Organizational Transformation Initiatives
paragraphs: The effectiveness with which the Office of the Architect of the Capitol  (AOC) can use the management reforms discussed in chapter 2—strategic  planning, organizational alignment, performance management, improved  internal and external communications, and strategic human capital  management—to achieve organizational transformation will depend in part  on its ability to focus on management improvement in its day-to-day  operations. A key factor in helping an agency to better achieve its mission  and program outcomes and identify and manage risks while leveraging  opportunities is to implement appropriate internal control. Internal  control is a major part of managing an organization. It comprises the plans,  methods, and procedures used to meet missions, goals, and objectives and,  in doing so, supports performance-based management. Internal control  also serves as the first line of defense in safeguarding assets and preventing  and detecting errors and fraud. In short, internal control, which is  synonymous with management control, helps government program  managers achieve desired results through effective stewardship of public  resources. Effective internal control also helps in managing change to cope  with shifting environments and evolving demands and priorities. As  programs change and as agencies strive to improve operational processes  and implement new technological developments, management must  continually assess and evaluate its internal control to assure that the  control activities being used are effective and updated when necessary.
Other aspects of AOC’s management infrastructure will also require  continued management attention to support its new focus on achieving  reforms in mission-critical areas of facilities management, project  management, strategic planning, and human capital management. AOC will  need to further develop and consistently apply transparent human capital  policies and procedures in the areas of leave, awards, and overtime and  examine discrepancies in job classification and pay levels across the  agency. AOC must continue improving its approach to budgeting and  financial management to support effective and efficient program  management. Finally, AOC will need to adopt an agencywide approach to  information technology (IT) management to position itself to optimize the  contribution of IT to agency mission performance.
subsections: section_title: Standards for Internal Control Can Provide a Strong Foundation for Organizational Transformation
paragraphs: AOC has made a number of important and positive efforts to improve its  internal control. For example, in response to our 1994 report that AOC’s  personnel management system did not follow many generally accepted  principles of modern personnel management, AOC developed and  implemented basic personnel policies and procedures that are designed to  meet the guidelines set forth by the Architect of the Capitol Human  Resources Act and the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA).  More recently, AOC has been developing standard policies and procedures  to address various worker safety hazards. In the area of financial  management, AOC has contracted for the development of AOC-wide  accounting policies and procedures. For information security, in March  2002, AOC completed a partial risk assessment of its systems environment  focusing on systems controlled by its Office of Information Resource  Management (OIRM), and used that assessment to develop a security plan  to address the identified vulnerabilities. These efforts are helping AOC to  construct a sound foundation on which to build a high-performing  organization.
However, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government  reflects a broader approach to control that addresses, for example, how an  agency demonstrates its commitment to competence, how it assures  effective and efficient operations, how it communicates the information  needed throughout the agency to achieve all its objectives, and how it  monitors performance. As AOC moves forward in addressing the  management reforms we discuss in this report, it should consider how  adopting these standards for internal control could provide a strong  foundation for institutionalizing the organizational transformation under  way.
Internal control should provide reasonable assurance that the objectives of  the agency are being achieved in the following categories:  effectiveness and efficiency of operations, including the use of the  entity’s resources;  reliability of financial reporting, including reports on budget execution  and financial statements and other reports for internal and external use;  and  compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
A subset of these objectives is the safeguarding of assets. Internal control  should be designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention  of or prompt detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of  an agency’s assets.
subsections: section_title: Internal Control Is a Continuous, Built-in Component of Operations
paragraphs: Internal control is not one event, but a series of actions and activities that  occur throughout an entity’s operations and on an ongoing basis. Internal  control should be recognized as an integral part of each system that  management uses to regulate and guide its operations rather than as a  separate system within an agency. In this sense, internal control is  management control that is built into the entity as a part of its  infrastructure to help managers run the entity and achieve their aims on an  ongoing basis.
People are what make internal control work. The responsibility for good  internal control rests with all managers. Management sets the objectives,  puts the control mechanisms and activities in place, and monitors and  evaluates the control. However, all personnel in the organization play  important roles in making it happen.
section_title: Framework for Internal Control
paragraphs: Five standards provide a general framework for the minimal level of quality  acceptable for internal control in government and provide the basis against  which internal control is to be evaluated:  Control environment. Management and employees should establish  and maintain an environment throughout the organization that sets a  positive and supportive attitude toward internal control and  conscientious management. For example, as AOC implements its new  strategic planning process, it will need to demonstrate a positive and  supportive attitude toward performance-based management by using  the plan as the basis for all its programmatic decisions.
Risk assessment. Internal control should provide for an assessment of  the risks the agency faces from both external and internal sources. For  example, as part of AOC’s ongoing strategic planning process, AOC  needs to continually assess the risks to achieving its objectives, analyze  the risks, and determine what actions should be taken.
Control activities. Internal control activities help ensure that  management’s directives are carried out. The control activities should  be effective and efficient in accomplishing the agency’s control  objectives. As AOC identifies areas for management improvements, it  also needs to define the policies, procedures, techniques, and  mechanisms it will use to enforce management’s directives. For  example, as AOC works to improve its information systems acquisition  management to standardize its acquisition processes, it will need to  establish control activities to ensure the processes are applied  consistently and correctly for each acquisition project.
Information and communications. Information should be recorded  and communicated to management and others within the entity who  need it and in a form and within a time frame that enables them to carry  out their internal control and other responsibilities. For example, as  AOC develops new performance and financial information to support  program management, the information needs to be communicated in a  way that meets users needs and time frames.
Monitoring. Internal control monitoring should assess the quality of  performance over time and ensure that the findings of audits and other  reviews are promptly resolved. For example, as AOC develops new  performance and financial information, it should ensure that this  information is both useful to and used by program managers for  purposes of managing program performance.
section_title: Strengthening Human Capital Policies, Procedures, and Processes
paragraphs: AOC is working towards transforming its culture and instituting regularized  personnel policies, procedures, and processes, but there are still areas for  improvement. In addition to internal control standards, we have found that  there are key practices that can assist agencies in effectively using human  capital flexibilities. In broad terms, human capital flexibilities represent the  policies and procedures that an agency has the authority to implement in  managing its workforce to accomplish its mission and to achieve its goals.  These practices include educating managers and employees on the  availability and use of flexibilities, streamlining and improving  administrative processes, and building transparency and accountability  into the system.
Comments from a majority of our focus group participants indicate that  supervisors are not perceived to have applied awards, overtime, and leave  policies consistently; that there was supervisory favoritism; and that grade  and pay levels are not consistent across jurisdictions and shifts. AOC has  been addressing these concerns by developing a comprehensive leave  policy and a strategy for communicating this policy, reviewing perceived  inequities in job classification, and issuing specific guidelines and  procedures for its employee awards program. AOC should continue to  develop consistent and transparent human capital policies and procedures  and communicate them. AOC has various offices and an employee council  engaged in improving employee relations. AOC’s senior managers could  benefit from comprehensively collecting and analyzing data from these  groups to allow it to determine its employee relations needs, and to  measure its progress in achieving its strategic human capital goals and  objectives. AOC has recently established its Office of the Ombudsperson,  but should realign the office’s reporting relationship directly to the  Architect to ensure that it is adhering to professional standards of  independence.
subsections: section_title: AOC Should Continue to Develop and Communicate Consistent Human Capital Policies and Procedures
paragraphs: Effective organizations establish clear and consistent human capital  policies and procedures with clearly stated expectations for both  employees and supervisors and ensure that there is accountability for  following these procedures accordingly. According to internal control  standards, such consistent procedures help to create a control  environment that encourages employee trust in management.
A majority of our focus group participants perceived that supervisors  applied awards, overtime, and leave policies inconsistently and that there  was supervisory favoritism. For example, some employees stated that  supervisors determine on their own when an employee is entitled to sick or  annual leave and are not consistent when allowing some employees to take  off time from work. Others remarked that there were varying procedures  for signing into work and grace periods for lateness were not consistently  applied for every employee. Several employees commented that access to  working overtime was uneven and felt as if only favored employees had the  opportunity to work overtime. In addition, several employees believe that  favoritism resulted in uneven and unfair distribution of work, and that  hiring and promotions frequently are not based on qualifications and  experience but on personal connections.
AOC has been addressing employees’ concerns by developing a  comprehensive leave policy and a strategy for communicating this policy.  According to AOC’s Director of HRMD, AOC has drafted an agencywide  comprehensive leave policy—which it expects to issue in November  2002—and is developing a strategy to communicate this policy internally.  The issuance of a comprehensive agencywide leave policy is one way in  which employees’ perceptions of inconsistent treatment by supervisors  could be diminished. The policy could also provide a mechanism to hold  supervisors and senior managers accountable for its fair and consistent  application.
Inconsistencies in grade and pay levels across jurisdictions and shifts was  another area of concern noted by a majority of the focus group  participants. The perception expressed in focus groups was that employees  in other AOC jurisdictions in similar positions and in other federal agencies  were classified at higher grade levels, even though their job duties were  similar. AOC’s HRMD Director told us that the division is aware that many  AOC employees are concerned about possible misclassification and has  received many requests from employees to review job classifications.  According to AOC’s Employment and Classification Branch Chief, most of  the employees who have raised concerns about how their jobs are  classified have been upgraded. As a result, AOC is engaged in an ongoing  initiative to review certain position descriptions that have not been  updated for some time across jurisdictions and to reclassify them, if  needed.
Employee rewards and recognition programs are an important human  capital flexibility that is intended to provide appropriate motivation and  recognition for excellence in job performance and contributions to an  agency’s goals. In our December 2002 report on the effective use of human  capital flexibilities, we report that agencies must develop clear and  transparent guidelines for using flexibilities and then hold managers and  supervisors accountable for their fair and effective use, and that agency  managers and supervisors must be educated on the existence and use of  flexibilities. The Architect’s Awards Program, which is AOC’s employee  rewards and recognition program, is in its second year of operation.
However, several implementation issues remained to be resolved. For  example, a majority of the focus group participants felt that the program is  not applied consistently across the jurisdictions and shifts for all  employees. Some focus group participants also mentioned that they were  promised awards by their supervisors for their good work on projects but  never received them. Other views expressed by some members of the focus  groups were that awards might be distributed, but only to certain members  of a project team, even though everyone in the unit had worked on the  same project or that supervisors did not always want to fill out the  paperwork needed to make an award.
In March 2002, AOC issued a policy containing responsibilities and  procedures, for the administration of the employee rewards and  recognition program. However, as borne out by our focus group results,  supervisors may be applying this policy inconsistently. AOC can strengthen  and gain support for this program by holding managers and supervisors  accountable for the fair and effective use of its rewards and recognition  program as a useful tool for motivating and rewarding employees.
section_title: AOC Management Should Comprehensively Collect and Analyze Data from Employee Relations Groups
paragraphs: In April 2002, we stated that to improve labor-management relations, we  would explore the relationships between AOC’s various offices engaged in  addressing employee relations. Several AOC offices and one employee  group provide employees with assistance in resolving disputes or in dealing  with other employment-related issues. These offices not only work to  resolve disputes, but are also in a position to alert management to systemic  problems and thereby help correct organizationwide issues and develop  strategies for preventing and managing conflict.
The Equal Employment Opportunity and Conciliation Program Office  was created to include an affirmative employment program for  employees and applicants and procedures for monitoring progress by  AOC in ensuring a diverse workforce. The office serves to promote a  nondiscriminatory work environment and works to resolve employment  concerns informally.
AOC’s Office of the Ombudsperson, formerly called the Employee  Advocate, was staffed in 2002 and provides advice and counsel to non- bargaining-unit employees concerning employment policies,  employment practices, or other employment-related matters.
The AOC Employee Advisory Council (EAC), created in 1995, has  renewed its efforts to ensure its role of providing a voice for AOC  employees on workplace and safety issues, and is another avenue for  non-bargaining-unit employees to bring their concerns to management.  The EAC consists of AOC employees, and its purpose is to help address  AOC policy, procedures, work products and methods, and other issues  that relate to the overall efficiency and safety of the agency, as well as  the fair treatment of employees.
It is not clear whether there is a coordinated approach to tracking  agencywide patterns of employee relations issues among these offices and  the EAC. If this information were to be collected and analyzed by AOC’s  senior managers, it could provide a useful source of information to alert  management of the status of employee relations. The advantages of an  agencywide tracking method need to be balanced in a way so as not to  compromise employee confidentiality. As discussed in chapter 2, AOC has  established a strategic human capital goal and corresponding objectives  related to acquiring, developing, and retaining a talented and diverse  workforce. We believe that AOC senior managers could benefit from  gathering and analyzing these data, in conjunction with results from the  additional employee focus groups that AOC plans to conduct, to help  determine how well it is meeting its human capital strategic goal and  objectives.
In assessing the functions of these employee relations groups, we also  assessed the Ombudsperson position at AOC to determine whether it  adhered to the standards of practice for ombudsmen established by  professional organizations. Ombudsmen provide an informal option to deal  pragmatically with conflicts and other organizational climate issues. In  April 2001, we reported that ombudsmen are expected to conform to  professional standards of practice that revolve around the core principles  of independence, neutrality, and confidentiality. In our discussion with the  AOC Ombudsperson, she stated that she was familiar with the standards  for ombudsmen and that she provided services confidentially and neutrally.  According to AOC officials, the AOC Ombudsperson reports to the  Administrative Assistant to the Architect of the Capitol or his or her  authorized designate, but not directly to the Architect. In our April 2001  report, the Ombudsman Association Standards of Practice define  independence as functioning independent of line management, with the  ombudsman having a reporting relationship with the highest authority in an  organization. In addition, the American Bar Association’s ombudsman  standards for independence discuss that the ombudsman’s office must be  and appear to be free from interference in order to be credible and  effective. If the Ombudsperson were to directly report to the Architect and  not through another senior manager, the core principle of independence  would be strengthened.
section_title: Continue Improving Financial Management to Support Program Management
paragraphs: AOC faces significant challenges in building sound budget and financial  management functions into the culture of the organization. Accurate and  reliable budget formulation and execution and reliable financial accounting  and reporting are important basic functions of financial control and  accountability and provide a basis for supporting good program  management. In the past, AOC has lacked reliable budgets for both projects  and operations and has lacked internal policies and procedures to  effectively monitor budget execution. In addition, AOC has lacked  accounting policies and procedures needed to properly account for and  report financial information especially in accounting for, controlling, and  reporting assets, including inventory. Moreover, AOC has not prepared  auditable financial statements.
A Chief Financial Officer (CFO) position was established at AOC, which  the Architect filled in January 2002, in response to direction from the  Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Senate Committee on Appropriations  that AOC begin essential financial management reforms. The new CFO is  a member of the Architect’s Senior Policy Committee and, in carrying out  his role in establishing a foundation of financial control and accountability  at AOC, he is responsible for the activities of the Budget Office, the  Accounting Office, and the Financial Systems Office. Among his first  actions, the new CFO assembled a financial management team with the  experience needed to establish a strong foundation of financial control and  accountability by filling key budget and accounting officer positions.
As discussed in our executive guide on best practices in financial  management, a solid foundation of control and accountability requires a  system of checks and balances that provides reasonable assurance that an  entity’s transactions are appropriately recorded and reported, its assets  protected, its policies followed, and its resources used economically and  efficiently for the purposes intended. The CFO, who has endorsed the  executive guide as a road map for making improvements to financial  management at AOC, has recognized the need for this foundation of  financial control and accountability as well as the challenges his  organization faces in establishing such checks and balances AOC-wide.  Those challenges include  developing and implementing effective budget formulation and  execution policies and procedures that govern capital projects and  operating activities AOC-wide,  developing and implementing formal financial accounting and reporting  policies and procedures and related operating procedures,  developing and implementing internal controls and monitoring the  reliability of financial information and safeguarding of assets,  implementing and operating the new financial management system, and  preparing auditable comprehensive entitywide financial statements.
In response to these challenges, the CFO has set a goal for AOC to prepare  auditable AOC-wide financial statements for the first time for fiscal year  2003 and has made measurable progress in this and other areas in  establishing a sound foundation of control and accountability at AOC. For  example, some of the financial management team’s achievements to date  include  deploying phase two of the new accounting system AOC-wide, including  continuing system support and periodic training;  revising budget formulation guidance to include requirements for  specific minimum detail needed to justify capital projects requested and  support construction cost estimates;  conducting an AOC-wide budget execution review to evaluate the  effectiveness of AOC’s budget execution;  conducting an AOC-wide inventory to establish a basis for closing  accounting records for fiscal year 2002 and a establishing a beginning  balance for fiscal year 2003;   developing a basis for valuing and classifying certain AOC assets,  including property and equipment; and  contracting for the development of AOC-wide accounting policies and  procedures needed to establish internal control and prepare first-time  financial statements.
A significant factor in the achievements to date is the experience the new  financial team brings to AOC in carrying out the fundamentals of sound  financial management and the fact that the initiatives fall under the direct  control of the CFO. However, much work remains to be done on an AOC- wide basis. Going forward, the CFO faces challenges, including  having program managers routinely provide critical project justification  and cost information and obligation plans;  establishing AOC-wide accounting and control procedures, such as  controls over the receipt and use of inventory; and  finding a way to interface financial information with the AOC Project  Information Center system.
Implementing these and other financial-control and accountability-related  initiatives will require the buy-in and support of key non-financial managers  and staff. As the finance team seeks to build a foundation of financial  accounting and control into the organization’s culture, top management  must demonstrate a commitment to making and supporting the needed  changes throughout the organization. As noted in our executive guide,  leading organizations identified leadership as the most important factor in  successfully making cultural changes.
section_title: AOC Could Benefit from an Agencywide and Disciplined Approach to IT Management
paragraphs: IT can be a valuable tool in achieving an organization’s mission objectives.  Our research of leading private and public sector organizations shows that  these organizations’ executives have embraced the central role of IT to  mission performance. More specifically, these executives no longer  regard IT as a separate support function, but rather view and treat it as an  integral and enabling part of business operations. As such, they have  adopted a corporate, or agencywide, approach to managing IT under the  leadership and control of a senior executive, who operates as a full partner  with the organization’s leadership team in charting the strategic direction  and making informed IT investment decisions.
Complementing a centralized leadership of IT management, leading  organizations have also implemented certain institutional or agencywide  management controls aimed at leveraging the vast potential of technology  in achieving mission outcomes. These management controls include using  a portfolio-based approach to IT investment decision making, using an  enterprise architecture, or blueprint, to guide and constrain IT investments,  following disciplined IT system acquisition and development management  processes, and proactively managing the security of IT assets.
AOC currently relies heavily on IT in achieving its mission objectives. As  an example, AOC uses the Computer Aided Facilities Management system  to request and fulfill work orders for maintenance of the Capitol and the  surrounding grounds. In addition, it uses the Records Management system  to archive architectural drawings pertaining to the U.S. Capitol, Library of  Congress, Botanic Garden, and other buildings. According to AOC’s Chief  Administrative Officer, the agency’s reliance on IT will increase in the  future.
Despite the importance and prevalence of IT at AOC, the agency’s current  approach to managing IT is not consistent with leading practices, as is  described in the following five sections. Until AOC embraces the central  role of IT to mission performance and implements an agencywide and  disciplined approach to IT management, it is not positioned to optimize the  contribution of IT to agency mission performance.
subsections: section_title: AOC Needs a Senior Executive with Agencywide Responsibility and Authority for IT Management
paragraphs: Our research of private and public sector organizations that effectively  manage IT shows that these organizations have adopted an agencywide  approach to managing IT under the leadership of a chief information officer  or comparable senior executive, who has the responsibility and authority  for managing IT across the agency. According to the research, these  executives function as members of the leadership team and are  instrumental in developing a shared vision for the role of IT in achieving  major improvements in business processes and operations to effectively  optimize mission performance. In this capacity, leading organizations also  provide these individuals with the authority they need to carry out their  diverse responsibilities by providing budget control and management  support for IT programs and initiatives.
Currently, AOC does not have a senior-level executive who is responsible  and accountable for IT management and spending across the agency, and  AOC does not centrally oversee IT, according to AOC’s OIRM Director.  Rather, budget and acquisition authority is vested in each AOC  organizational component that is acquiring a given IT asset. With such a  decentralized approach to IT management and spending, AOC does not  have an individual focused on how IT can best support the collective needs  of the agency, and thus is not positioned to effectively leverage IT as an  agencywide resource.
section_title: AOC Should Have an Agencywide, Portfolio- Based Approach to IT Investment Management
paragraphs: If managed wisely, IT investments can vastly improve mission  performance. If not, IT projects can be risky, costly, and unproductive  investments. Our best practices guide, based on research of private and  public sector organizations that effectively manage their IT investments,  outlines a corporate, portfolio-based approach to IT investment decision  making that includes processes, practices, and activities for continually  and consistently selecting, controlling, and evaluating competing IT  investment options in a way that promotes the greatest value to the  strategic interest of the organization.
The first major step to building a sound IT investment management process  is to be able to measure the progress of existing IT projects to identify  variances in cost, schedule, and performance expectations, and take  corrective action, if appropriate, and to establish basic capabilities for  selecting new IT proposals. To do this, the organization needs to establish  and implement processes and practices for (1) operating an IT investment  board responsible for selecting, controlling, and evaluating IT investments  and that includes both senior IT and business representatives, (2) providing  effective oversight for ongoing IT projects throughout all phases of their  life cycle, (3) identifying, tracking, and managing IT resources, (4) ensuring  that each IT project supports the organization’s business needs, and (5) establishing criteria for selecting new IT proposals.
The second major step toward effective IT investment management  requires that an organization continually assess proposed and ongoing  projects as an integrated and competing set of investment options. That is,  the organization should consider each new investment part of an integrated  portfolio of investments that collectively contribute to mission goals and  objectives. To do this, the organization needs to establish and implement  processes and practices for (1) developing and implementing criteria to  select investments that will best support the organization’s strategic goals,  objectives, and mission, (2) using these criteria to consistently analyze and  prioritize all IT investments, (3) ensuring that the optimal IT investment  portfolio with manageable risks and returns is selected and funded, and (4) overseeing each IT investment within the portfolio to ensure that it  achieves its cost, benefit, schedule, and risk expectations.
AOC has not satisfied the components of either of these two major steps,  and as a result does not currently have an agencywide, portfolio-based  approach to IT investment management. For example, AOC has not  developed the processes and established the key management structures,  such as an investment review board, needed to manage and oversee IT  investments. However, according to the OIRM Director, he has several  activities under way to facilitate the agency’s movement to such an  approach, should AOC choose to do so. These include  developing an IT capital planning and investment guide that is to define  key elements of a portfolio-based approach to IT investment  management and acquiring an automated tool to facilitate its  implementation,  introducing new IT budget categories and collecting corresponding  fiscal year 2004 budget information to track and control IT  investments, and   reassessing the role of its Information Technology Standards and  Architecture Committee, including how and when the committee  reviews projects, what projects are reviewed, and what information is  provided to the committee.
Because the OIRM Director could not provide us with drafts or more  detailed information on these activities, characterizing them as under  development, we could not determine the extent to which these activities  address the basic tenets of effective IT management. However, these  activities are currently limited because they are confined to OIRM, which is  not positioned to implement effective IT investment management on its  own. Achieving an agencywide, portfolio-based approach to IT investment  management needs the full support and participation of AOC’s senior  leadership. Until this occurs, AOC will continue to be limited in its ability to  effectively leverage IT to achieve mission goals and objectives.
section_title: AOC Needs to Establish the Management Foundation to Effectively Develop an Enterprise Architecture
paragraphs: Our experience with federal agencies has shown that attempting to  modernize IT environments without an enterprise architecture to guide and  constrain investments often results in systems that are duplicative, not well  integrated, unnecessarily costly to maintain and interface, and ineffective  in supporting mission goals. Managed properly, architectures can clarify  and help optimize the interdependencies and interrelationships among  related corporate operations and the underlying IT infrastructure and  applications that support them. The development, implementation, and  maintenance of architectures are recognized hallmarks of successful public  and private organizations that effectively leveraged IT in meeting their  mission goals.
An enterprise architecture—as defined in federal guidance, and as  practiced by leading public and private sector organizations—acts as a  blueprint and defines, both in logical terms (including business functions  and applications, work locations, information needs and users, and the  interrelationships among these variables) and in technical terms (including  IT hardware, software, data communications, and security) how the  organization operates today, how it intends to operate tomorrow, and a  road map for transitioning between the two states. This guidance also  defines a set of recognized key practices (management structures and  processes) for developing and implementing an enterprise architecture.  Among other things, these practices include the following:  The head of the enterprise should recognize that the enterprise  architecture is a corporate asset for systematically managing  institutional change by supporting and sponsoring the architecture  effort and giving it a clear mandate in the form of an enterprise policy  statement. Such support is crucial to gaining the commitment of all  organizational components of the enterprise, all of which should  participate in developing and implementing the enterprise architecture.
The enterprise architecture effort should be directed and overseen by an  executive body, empowered by the head of the enterprise, with  members who represent all stakeholder organizations and have the  authority to commit resources and to make and enforce decisions for  their respective organizations.
An individual who serves as the chief enterprise architect, and reports to  either a chief information officer or comparable senior executive,  should lead the enterprise architecture effort and manage it as a formal  program. A formal program entails creating a program office,  committing core staff, implementing a program management plan that  details a work breakdown structure and schedule, allocating resources  and tools, performing basic program management functions (e.g., risk  management, change control, quality assurance, and configuration  management), and tracking and reporting progress against measurable  goals.
The enterprise architecture should conform to a specified framework.
AOC does not have an enterprise architecture or the management  foundation needed to successfully develop one. Thus far, AOC’s  architecture activities are confined to OIRM, and they consist of meeting  with peer agencies, such as the U.S. Capitol Police, to learn about their  architecture development experiences, and selecting a framework to use in  developing the architecture. OIRM officials also told us that they are  finalizing an approach for developing the architecture.
AOC has much to do and accomplish before it will have either the means  for developing an architecture or the architecture itself. Central to what  remains to be done is AOC’s executive leadership providing a clear  mandate for the architecture and for managing its development consistent  with recognized best practices and federal guidance. To do less risks  producing an incomplete architecture that is not used to effectively guide  and direct business and technology change to optimize agencywide  performance.
section_title: AOC Should Define and Implement Institutional Processes for Acquiring and Developing IT Systems
paragraphs: Our experience with federal agencies has shown that the failure to  implement rigorous and disciplined acquisition and development processes  can lead to systems that do not perform as intended, are delivered late, and  cost more than planned. The use of disciplined processes and controls  based on well-defined and rigorously enforced policies, practices, and  procedures for system acquisition and development can reduce that risk.  Such processes for managing system acquisition/development are defined  in various published models and guides, such as Carnegie Mellon  University’s Software Engineering Institute’s Capability Maturity ModelSM.  Examples of key processes from this model include the following:   Requirements management describes processes for establishing and  maintaining a common and unambiguous definition of requirements  among the acquisition team, the system users, and the software  development contractor. Requirements management includes  documenting policies and procedures for managing requirements,  documenting and validating requirements, and establishing baselines  and controlling changes to the requirements.
Test management describes processes for ensuring that the  software/system performs according to the requirements and that it  fulfills its intended use when placed in its intended environment. Test  management includes developing a test plan, executing the plan,  documenting and reporting test results, and analyzing test results and  taking corrective actions.
Configuration management describes processes for establishing and  maintaining the integrity of work products throughout the life cycle  process. Configuration management includes developing a  configuration management plan; identifying work products to be  maintained and controlled; establishing a repository or configuration  management system for tracking work products; and approving,  tracking, and controlling changes to the products.
Quality assurance describes processes for providing independent  verification of the requirements and processes for developing and  producing the software/system. Quality assurance includes developing a  quality assurance plan, determining applicable processes and product  standards to be followed, and conducting reviews to ensure that the  product and process standards are followed.
Risk management describes processes for identifying potential  problems before they occur and adjusting the acquisition to mitigate the  chances of the problems occurring. Risk management includes  developing a project risk management plan; identifying and prioritizing  potential problems; implementing risk mitigation strategies, as required;  and tracking and reporting progress against the plans.
Contract tracking and oversight describes processes for ensuring that  the contractor performs according to the terms of the contract. Contract  tracking and oversight includes developing a plan for tracking  contractor activities, measuring contractor performance and conducting  periodic reviews, and conducting internal reviews of tracking and  oversight activities.
OIRM has defined some of these key processes, but it has not defined  others, and some that are defined are not complete. Moreover, the  processes that have been defined have not been adopted and implemented  agencywide. In 1995, OIRM developed its Information Systems Life Cycle  Directive that defines policies and procedures for software development  and acquisition. This directive fully addresses the tenets of two key process  areas—requirements management and test management—and partly  addresses the tenets of two other areas— quality assurance and  configuration management. For example, for quality assurance, the  directive includes the need to conduct quality assurance reviews to ensure  that product and process standards are followed; however, it does not  address the need to first identify the process and product standards to be  followed or the development of a quality assurance plan. Similarly, for  configuration management, the directive includes requirements for  developing and executing a plan; identifying work products to be  maintained and controlled; and tracking, controlling, and releasing work  products and items. However, it does not include requirements for a  repository or for a configuration management system that supports  tracking and controlling changes to work products. Finally, the directive  does not address two key process areas—risk management and contract  tracking and oversight.
The OIRM Director told us that OIRM plans to improve its directive and  acquire tools to facilitate its implementation. These efforts, if properly  implemented and adopted, could allow AOC to institutionalize disciplined  processes for system development and acquisition management. Until AOC  implements agencywide, disciplined processes for managing the  development and acquisition of IT systems, it risks investing in systems  that do not perform as intended, are delivered late, and cost more than  planned.
section_title: AOC Should Develop an Effective Information Security Program
paragraphs: Effective information security management is critical to AOC’s ability to  ensure the reliability, availability, and confidentiality of its information  assets, and thus its ability to perform its mission. If effective information  security practices are not in place, AOC’s data and systems are at risk of  inadvertent or deliberate misuse, fraud, improper disclosure, or  destruction—possibly without detection. Our research of public and  private sector organizations recognized as having strong information  security programs shows that their programs include (1) establishing a  central focal point with appropriate resources, (2) continually assessing  business risks, (3) implementing and maintaining policies and controls,  (4) promoting awareness, and (5) monitoring and evaluating policy and  control effectiveness.
AOC has taken important steps to establish an effective information  security program, but much remains to be done. In May 2001, the OIRM  Director established and filled an IT security officer position. The officer’s  responsibilities include planning and coordinating security risk  assessments, developing IT security policies, conducting security training,  and evaluating the effectiveness of IT security policies and controls. In  March 2002, the Security Officer completed a partial risk assessment of  AOC’s systems environment focusing on systems that are controlled by  OIRM, and used that assessment to develop a security plan to address the  identified vulnerabilities. The plan contains steps to develop user access  and network administrator account policies, as well as a security  awareness and training program.
However, the Security Officer has since resigned and the position is vacant.  Moreover, because the Security Officer was the only staff member  dedicated to these tasks, the OIRM Director stated that AOC has yet to  begin addressing the tasks outlined in the security plan. Currently, AOC is  attempting to hire a new security officer and plans to hire an information  systems security specialist. Until AOC addresses the elements of an  effective security program, it will not be in a position to effectively  safeguard its data and information assets.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The effectiveness with which AOC can use the elements of the  management and accountability framework—strategic planning,  organizational alignment, improved internal and external communications,  performance management, and strategic human capital management—to  achieve organizational transformation will depend in part on its ability to  focus on management improvement in its day-to-day operations. A key  factor in helping AOC to better achieve its mission and program outcomes  and identify and manage risks while leveraging opportunities is to  implement and strengthen appropriate internal controls. As it transforms  the agency, AOC will need to ensure that it adopts management controls by  (1) further developing and consistently applying transparent human capital  policies and procedures, (2) continuing to improve its approach to  budgeting and financial management to support effective and efficient  program management, and (3) adopting an agency wide approach to IT  management to position itself to optimize the contribution of IT to agency  mission performance.
section_title: Recommendations for Agency Action
paragraphs: In order to continue to develop a management infrastructure and  strengthen appropriate management controls, we recommend that the  Architect of the Capitol take the following actions: Strengthen AOC’s human capital policies, procedures, and processes by  continuing to develop and implement agencywide human capital  policies and procedures, and holding management and employees  accountable for following these policies and procedures;   assessing ways in which AOC management could better gather and  analyze data from the various employee relations offices and EAC while  maintaining employee confidentiality; and  establishing a direct reporting relationship between the Ombudsperson  and the Architect, consistent with professional standards.
Continue to improve AOC’s approach to financial management by  developing strategies to institutionalize financial management practices  that will support budgeting, financial, and program management at AOC.  Such strategies could include developing performance goals and measures  and associated roles aimed at increasing the accountability of non-financial  managers and staff, such as jurisdictional superintendents, program  managers, and other AOC staff—whose support is critical to the success of  AOC’s financial management initiatives—and ensuring that these staff  receive the training needed to effectively carry out their roles and  responsibilities.
Adopt an agencywide approach to IT management by doing the following:  Establishing a chief information officer, or comparable senior executive,  with the responsibility, authority, and adequate resources for managing  IT across the agency, who is a full participant in AOC’s senior decision- making processes, and has clearly defined roles, responsibilities, and  accountabilities.
Developing and implementing IT investment management processes  with the full support and participation of AOC’s senior leadership.  Specifically, the Architect must develop a plan for developing and  implementing the investment management processes, as appropriate,  that are outlined in our IT investment guide. At a minimum, the plan  should specify measurable tasks, goals, time frames, and resources  required to develop and implement the processes. The Architect should  focus first on the management processes associated with controlling  existing IT projects and establishing the management structures to  effectively implement an IT management process.
Developing, implementing, and maintaining an enterprise architecture  to guide and constrain IT projects throughout AOC. The Architect  should implement the practices, as appropriate, as outlined in the Chief  Information Officer Council’s architecture management guide. As a  first step, the Architect should establish the management structure for  developing, implementing, and maintaining an enterprise architecture  by implementing the following actions:   developing an agencywide policy statement providing a clear  mandate for developing, implementing, and maintaining the  architecture;  establishing an executive body composed of stakeholders from AOC  mission-critical programs offices to guide the strategy for developing  the enterprise architecture and ensure agency support and resources  for it; and  designating an individual who serves as a chief enterprise architect to  develop policy and lead the development of the enterprise  architecture, and manage it as a formal program.
Requiring disciplined and rigorous processes for managing the  development and acquisition of IT systems, and implementing the  processes throughout AOC. Specifically, these processes should include  the following:  quality assurance processes, including developing a quality  assurance plan and identifying applicable process and product  standards that will be used in developing and assessing project  processes and products;   configuration management processes, including establishing a  repository or configuration management system to maintain and  control configuration management items;  risk management processes, including developing a project risk  management plan, identifying and prioritizing potential problems,  implementing risk mitigation strategies, as required, and tracking and  reporting progress against the plans; and  contract tracking and oversight processes, including developing a  plan for tracking contractor activities, measuring contractor  performance and conducting periodic reviews, and conducting  internal reviews of tracking and oversight activities.
Establishing and implementing an information security program.
Specifically, the Architect should establish an information security  program by taking the following steps:  designate a security officer and provide him or her with the authority  and resources to implement an agencywide security program;   develop and implement policy and guidance to perform risk   use the results of the risk assessments to develop and implement   develop policies for security training and awareness and provide the   monitor and evaluate policy and control effectiveness.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: In his comments on this chapter, the Architect generally agreed with our  recommendations and discussed the relevant efforts AOC has under way in  the areas of human capital policies, financial management, and IT  management. For example, the Architect stated that AOC has formed a  team including representatives from all key offices and employee groups to  explore the development of a confidential process to track employee  relations issues agencywide. In the area of financial management, the  Architect underscored a number of initiatives under way, including the  piloting of financial management training for line managers and staff and  indicated that AOC’s implementation plan will include a strategy for  incorporating financial management best practices throughout AOC.
Finally, the Architect stated that IT is a key enabler of AOC’s strategy for  organizational improvement and that OIRM will work closely with the  Senior Policy Committee to establish an agencywide approach to IT  management. The Architect cautioned that fully implementing the  information technology framework that we laid out will take considerable  time, but that AOC’s implementation plan will include a more specific  approach to developing and implementing this framework. The Architect’s  comments are reprinted in appendix II.
section_title: Strategic Management Framework Important for Addressing Long-standing Worker Safety, Project Management, and Recycling Issues
paragraphs: In the preceding chapters, we discussed the need for the Office of the  Architect of the Capitol (AOC) to put in place the management and  accountability framework needed for organizational transformation— leadership, strategic planning, organizational alignment, communications,  and performance measurement—and the management infrastructure of  financial, information technology, and other controls that support the  transformation. The management and accountability framework needed  for transformation and the management infrastructure of financial,  information technology, and other controls cut across AOC’s programs and  influence its performance in all areas critical to achieving its mission.  Improvements in these areas can also ameliorate the performance of  program areas of long-standing concern to AOC’s employees and  congressional stakeholders—worker safety, project management, and  recycling. In recent years, AOC has had among the highest worker injury  rates in the federal government. Furthermore, AOC’s annual appropriations  for capital projects have increased substantially in recent years, placing  AOC at greater risk of project delays and cost overruns. Finally, high rates  of contamination of recyclable materials continue to detract from  accomplishing the environmental goals of AOC’s recycling programs.
AOC has made recent progress in all these areas. However, significant  opportunities exist to build on this progress to bring about significant,  lasting performance improvements. For example, the Architect has  declared that safety is the agency’s number one priority and established a  target for reducing injuries. Nonetheless, relating safety to other pressing  priorities and developing a clear strategy for how working safely will  become the cultural norm, is still a work in progress at AOC. Similarly, AOC  has adopted industry best practices for project management, but  implementation is uneven and hampered by weaknesses in leadership,  performance and financial management, priority setting, communication,  and strategic management of human capital. Finally, although AOC has  recently made improvements to the House and Senate recycling programs,  contamination of recycled materials remains high, and the goals for the  overall program remain unclear.
subsections: section_title: AOC’s Worker Safety Efforts Are Substantial, but AOC Needs to Develop a Strategic Approach to Achieve a Safer Workplace
paragraphs: Worker safety at AOC has been the subject of congressional scrutiny for the  past several years because AOC had higher injury and illness rates than  many other federal agencies and substantially higher rates than the federal  government as a whole, as seen in table 1.
The Architect responded to these concerns by declaring safety the agency’s  top priority and undertaking a number of initiatives that correspond to the  components of an effective safety program, as identified by safety experts  and federal safety agencies. These core components include management  commitment, employee involvement, identification, analysis and  development of controls for problem jobs, education and training, and  medical management. Key among AOC’s activities is the planned  development and implementation, by 2005, of about 43 specialized safety  programs on topics ranging from handling asbestos to working safely in  confined spaces. These programs are designed to help AOC comply with  federal safety and health regulations. Fifteen of these specialized programs  have been approved; none have yet been fully implemented across all of  AOC’s jurisdictions.
AOC’s efforts are commendable and AOC employees who participated in  our focus groups noted positive changes in worker safety. As a next step,  AOC needs to integrate the safety goals in its draft Safety Master Plan with  AOC’s strategic goals in its overall strategic plan, and to develop  performance measures to assess its progress in achieving these goals. The  Director of AOC’s Safety, Fire, and Environmental Programs, who oversees  AOC’s workplace safety program, has acknowledged that the two strategic  planning efforts must be further integrated. Also, AOC has established  mechanisms to foster employee involvement, such as encouraging  employees to report job-related injuries and hazards. Building on these  efforts, AOC needs to establish a formal mechanism for reporting to ensure  complete reporting of hazards. AOC’s approach to identifying, analyzing,  and developing controls for problem jobs is inconsistent and does not  ensure that all workplace hazards are being addressed. Moreover, AOC has  provided a significant amount of training to its employees, but the training  activities could be better linked to AOC’s safety goal of changing its  workplace culture to increase staff awareness, commitment, and  involvement in safety and health. Finally, AOC’s medical management  activities could be better coordinated with the worker safety program, so  that information about workplace injuries and illnesses could be more  widely shared and used to better target prevention efforts.
subsections: section_title: Effective Safety and Health Programs Depend on a Set of Core Components
paragraphs: Safety experts and federal safety agencies agree that, to build an effective  safety program, organizations must take a strategic approach to managing  workplace safety and health. This objective is generally accomplished by  establishing a safety program built upon a set of six core program  components, which, together, help an organization lay out what it is trying  to achieve, assess progress, and ensure that safety policies and procedures  are appropriate and effective. The six core components of an effective  safety and health program are (1) management commitment, (2) employee  involvement, (3) identification of problem jobs, (4) analysis and  development of controls for problem jobs, (5) education and training, and  (6) medical management. Table 2 lists these components, along with a  description of the key activities upon which each component is built.
Our April 2002 statement assessed AOC’s efforts in implementing the first  four components. Since that time, we have assessed AOC’s activities in the  remaining two areas: education and training and medical management. We  also met with DuPont Safety Resources and the Department of Defense to  discuss best practices in worker safety.
section_title: Management Commitment: Safety Program’s Importance Has Been Communicated, but Goals Need to Be Integrated with Agency Goals and Performance Measures Need to Be Developed
paragraphs: AOC has undertaken a number of actions that demonstrate its commitment  to worker safety. As a next step, it needs to develop safety program goals  that are integrated with broader agency goals. In an effort to highlight the  importance of worker safety, the Architect proclaimed safety to be the  agency’s top priority in fiscal year 2001, and established the goal of  reducing total injuries and illnesses by 10 percent each year through fiscal  year 2005. As we reported in April 2002, AOC further demonstrated its  commitment by devoting additional resources to safety, such as increasing  staffing levels in its central safety office and assigning safety staff to seven  of its eight jurisdictions. Additionally, AOC has consulted with the  Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration  (OSHA) on how to record illnesses and injuries and with the congressional  Office of Compliance on how to comply with OSHA requirements. AOC has  also contracted with DuPont Safety Resources to provide a baseline  assessment of AOC’s safety activities and to provide best practices  briefings for AOC senior executives and safety specialists for adopting a  safety culture, including key components of an effective safety and health  program. AOC has also contracted with the Department of Health and  Human Services’ Public Health Service (PHS), which is developing AOC’s  43 specialized safety programs, providing safety training, and identifying  hazards associated with AOC job tasks. AOC is developing a 5-year Safety  Master Plan that, when completed, is to be used as a road map to identify  its safety goals and philosophy, establish priorities, assign responsibilities,  and identify project and funding needs. AOC employees who participated  in our focus groups also noted positive changes in communicating worker  safety. Many participants felt that AOC takes safety-related incidents  seriously and that there has been an increased emphasis on safety.
To achieve a safer workplace, AOC needs to integrate the safety goals in its  draft Safety Master Plan with the strategic goals in its draft Strategic Plan.  The Director of AOC’s Safety Program has acknowledged that as a next  step, the two strategic planning efforts must be integrated. Private sector  best practices indicate that an organization needs safety goals that are  consistent and integrated with other organizational goals. Safety goals  should be well integrated into the organizational culture so that it becomes  second nature for employees to perform all tasks safely, and so that there is  little tolerance for unsafe work practices.
AOC has not yet developed performance measures to assess progress in  achieving these safety goals. AOC officials have indicated that the  development and implementation of the 43 specialized safety programs is  their primary focus, and they plan to implement all of these programs by  fiscal year 2005. Although 15 of these programs have been written and  approved by the Architect, the standard operating procedures that are  needed to fully implement these programs in the jurisdictions have not  been approved. AOC’s draft Safety Master Plan currently provides  information about the development and expected approval dates for the  remaining programs, but does not provide other milestones or performance  measures for the full implementation of these programs in the jurisdictions,  including the anticipated time frames for developing and approving the  standard operating procedures. Identifying interim milestones would help  AOC assess its progress in achieving its fiscal year 2005 completion target  and underscore for AOC employees and external stakeholders the  importance AOC places on worker safety.
The only performance measure that AOC has developed for assessing the  worker safety program is a 10 percent reduction in injuries. This measure  was based on a general sense of how much of a reduction would be  achievable overall and how high the goal should be to motivate  improvements. As we reported in April 2002, AOC is measuring its progress  in achieving this reduction using the number of claims for compensation  for workplace injuries and illnesses under the Federal Workers’  Compensation Program. However, it provides an incomplete picture of the  overall level of safety because the number of claims in any organization can  be affected by factors not directly related to safety, such as poor morale  among employees or a lack of knowledge about how or when to file a  claim. Also, the use of these data as a measure of safety program  performance is not directly comparable to key measures used in the private  sector, which uses “OSHA recordables” to assess worker safety.We  reported in April 2002 that AOC had begun to collect these data on a limited  basis. Since that time, AOC has begun to develop a more standardized  approach to collect and track OSHA recordables. AOC is also trying to  formalize partnerships with the Office of Compliance and OSHA to provide  technical assistance that could facilitate standardizing these data.
Moreover, AOC employees at all levels need to be held accountable for  achieving the safety goals. For example, the first goal in AOC’s draft Safety  Master Plan—providing a safe and healthful environment through the  identification and elimination of hazards—has as an objective to ensure  that all facilities, processes, and equipment include safety considerations in  their design, development, and implementation to eliminate hazards. Yet, at  this stage, AOC has not fully linked employee performance with the  achievement of these safety goals and objectives. For example, there was a  recurring observation made by focus group participants that time  constraints to complete jobs and supervisory pressure adversely affect  attention to safety. Although the incentive to focus on safety has been built  into the performance appraisal system for employees, it is not addressed  for senior managers and does not apply to employees who do not  participate in AOC’s performance appraisal system.
We also reported in April 2002 that AOC needed to clearly define roles,  responsibilities, and authorities of safety personnel at the central and  jurisdictional levels. According to the central and jurisdictional safety  staffs, AOC has now clearly defined their respective roles and  responsibilities. However, it is still unclear how they are being held  accountable for achieving the safety program’s goals. The central safety  office staff are responsible for the overall management of the 43 specialized  programs, and they rely on the jurisdictional safety specialists to develop  the specific procedures necessary for AOC to fully implement these  programs. The jurisdictional safety specialists report to jurisdictional  superintendents and not to the Director of Safety, Fire, and Environmental  Programs, and they have other safety responsibilities and tasks, such as  training and investigating accidents and injuries. Because jurisdictional  safety specialists must focus on safety priorities as established by  superintendents and line managers in their jurisdictions, they have limited  time to spend on developing procedures to implement the specialized  safety programs.
section_title: Employee Involvement: AOC Has Established Mechanisms for Involvement, but Complete Reporting of Hazards Is Not Assured
paragraphs: AOC has a number of mechanisms to obtain employee involvement in its  safety program and encourages employees to report injuries and hazards.  AOC now needs to establish a formal reporting mechanism in order to  provide assurance that these safety data are complete. AOC has established  employee safety committees at both the jurisdictional and senior  management levels. The jurisdictional committees, referred to as  Jurisdictional Occupational Safety and Health committees, include  frontline employees and jurisdictional specialists who perform a variety of  activities ranging from training to accident investigations. The senior  management committee, referred to as the Safety, Health, and  Environmental Council, or SHEC, consists of superintendents and AOC  safety staff. This committee meets quarterly and addresses various topics  on an ad hoc basis. As we reported in April 2002, establishing these  committees is a positive step toward achieving employee involvement. In  its baseline assessment of AOC, DuPont Safety Resources cited these  mechanisms as a strength of the agency’s worker safety program.
Employee involvement also includes establishing procedures for  employees to report job-related illnesses, injuries, incidents, and hazards  and encouraging them to do so. In April 2002, the Architect issued a  memorandum encouraging employees to report all injuries and illnesses,  regardless of severity. Many of the focus group participants indicated that  they generally felt comfortable reporting injuries, incidents, and hazards.  However, there were participants in some focus groups who indicated that  they were hesitant to report hazards because they were not sure how  seriously their supervisors would treat these reports. Many participants  commented that they did not feel protected from safety and health hazards.  For example, some participants said that they were not adequately  prepared to deal with hazardous substances. In that respect, policies and  procedures for reporting accidents should also apply to hazards and other  conditions that may lead to accidents. The recent implementation of a  performance appraisal system that holds frontline employees under this  system accountable for observing and promptly reporting safety issues to  supervisors is a very encouraging step. If effectively implemented, this  appraisal system will also help ensure that employees will be encouraged  to report hazards, that supervisors will take those reports seriously, and  that senior managers will be accountable for acting on these reports.
section_title: Identification, Analysis, and Development of Controls for Problem Jobs: AOC’s Inconsistent Approach Does Not Ensure a Risk-Based Approach to Addressing Workplace Hazards
paragraphs: AOC has a number of procedures in place to identify the underlying  hazards that make jobs dangerous and to develop remedies for those  hazards. However, these efforts are inconsistent and do not ensure that  corrective actions are taken to eliminate hazards and prevent future  injuries and illnesses. A comprehensive, consistently implemented system  is critical to providing AOC with the assurance that its efforts are risk  based—targeted directly toward identifying and abating those factors  leading to the most severe and frequent incidents, accidents, and hazards.
We reported in April 2002 that AOC has provided some assurance that  accidents are being investigated and hazards addressed by placing safety  specialists in several jurisdictions. Yet, there is no consistent AOC-wide  system for conducting investigations and follow-up to ensure that workers  across the jurisdictions are receiving the same level of protection. In the  absence of an AOC-wide system, we found that some of the jurisdictions  have (1) developed their own specific procedures for conducting  investigations, (2) involved different staff members in the investigations,  and (3) developed their own forms to gather accident or incident data.  However, there were a few focus group participants who questioned  whether sufficient controls existed to ensure that supervisors acted on all  reports, particularly those that are not documented. We found that only two  of AOC’s eight jurisdictions have procedures for tracking hazard reports  and the follow-up actions taken to address those reports, even when there  has not been an accident. In the absence of consistent AOC-wide processes  for conducting investigations, we found generally ad hoc or infrequent  efforts to use existing information from either the internal workers’  compensation database or from other sources to look for common problem  areas to identify potentially hazardous jobs.
Because AOC has not yet established an agencywide procedure to ensure  that all jurisdictions perform at least a basic level of investigation and data  gathering, it does not have the means for assuring that actual and potential  causes of accidents will be abated. DuPont Safety Resources also found  that AOC could improve its investigation process, and in 1998, the Office of  Compliance recommended that AOC develop a system to routinely  investigate accidents or hazardous situations and to ensure that hazards  are corrected.
AOC has recognized the need to have better information on problem jobs  and is beginning to make several improvements in this area. For example,  AOC has contracted with PHS to conduct agencywide job hazard analyses.  Eventually, this information on job hazards will be integrated with the  agency’s Computer Aided Facility Management System, although AOC has  not set a date for when this will be accomplished. Also, AOC has procured a  data system—the Facility Management Assistant system—that it plans to  use for recording and monitoring the results of inspections. According to  AOC safety officials, this system should help safety personnel identify  potential problem areas. However, this system is not scheduled for full  implementation until later in fiscal year 2003. Finally, as a part of its long- term effort to develop its 43 specialized safety programs, AOC has included  at least 2 programs, scheduled to be implemented by the end of fiscal year  2005 that will address “Mishap Prevention and Reporting” and “Hazard  Abatement and Inspections,” but these programs have yet to be developed  or approved. In the meantime, at the recommendation of DuPont Safety  Resources, AOC has convened several work groups composed of safety  and other relevant staff to help improve accident and near-miss reporting  and investigations, which we hope will guide AOC’s efforts to develop an  agencywide system for conducting investigations and follow-up.
section_title: Education and Training: Activities Could Be More Supportive of Improving the Safety Culture; Effectiveness Evaluated in Achieving a Safer Workplace
paragraphs: AOC has adopted a compliance-based approach to providing safety training  to its employees. However, this type of training is not sufficient, in itself, to  achieve AOC’s long-range goal of instilling safety as a basic organizational  value. In fiscal year 2001 alone, AOC reported that it provided over 13,000  hours of formal training to its employees. Most of this training is driven by  federal safety and health regulations, which provide the basis for AOC’s 43  specialized safety programs. This safety training, covering such topics as  asbestos management, is offered by or through AOC’s HRMD. AOC safety  specialists and supervisors have also provided informal training—such as  general safety awareness talks—to frontline staff in the jurisdictions. These  efforts were acknowledged in our focus groups, as almost all of the focus  group participants reported receiving safety training in the last 12 months.
In addition to helping AOC achieve compliance, training should support  AOC’s safety goal of changing workplace culture to increase staff  awareness, commitment, and involvement in safety and health. Comments  from DuPont Safety Resources’ representatives and some AOC safety  specialists suggest that in order to change the safety culture, AOC could  target its safety awareness training so that it better motivates employees at  all levels to incorporate safety into all aspects of their work. Many focus  group participants reported that they did not understand how some of the  training provided was pertinent to their work. Once AOC has gathered the  safety data it needs to help it assess the areas of highest risk for hazards,  injuries, accidents, and illnesses, AOC’s safety training could also be  targeted to address these high-risk areas.
A comprehensive approach to evaluate the effectiveness of training  includes assessments of changes in employee behaviors and how the  training influences organizational results. While AOC performs quality  control assessments for each course offered, it has not evaluated the  overall effectiveness of its training activities to determine if they are  helping AOC achieve a safer workplace and improving the safety culture. In  this regard, as noted above, the majority of the formal training provided is  required by federal safety and health regulations, and although AOC  routinely obtains feedback from employees and subject matter experts on  the quality of individual courses, there is little effort to evaluate whether  these courses are having an impact on AOC employees’ work habits, so it is  not clear to AOC if this training is effective in achieving this objective.
AOC safety and HRMD staffs have not yet established a systematic process  to identify training needs for individual employees to help ensure the safety  program’s success. Instead jurisdictional safety specialists, working with  HRMD, are developing this training on an ad hoc basis. For example,  according to the House jurisdiction safety specialist, supervisors needed  additional skills to fully understand their role in the safety program. The  House jurisdiction worked through HRMD and the National Safety Council  of Maryland to deliver this type of training to supervisors in the House.
Also, the procedures and responsibilities for monitoring training  requirements for the safety program are not well defined. Currently, the  HRMD staff, the central safety office staff, jurisdictional safety specialists,  and frontline supervisors share responsibilities for monitoring safety  training. HRMD maintains a central record of AOC-sponsored training  courses and employees’ training attendance but does not identify when  employees need training. As a result, jurisdictional safety specialists and  frontline supervisors must determine when employees need required  training and ensure that they receive such training. For example,  jurisdictional safety specialists are tracking this information themselves  using individual systems, thus leading to inconsistencies across  jurisdictions and potentially duplicative record-keeping activities. AOC’s  draft Safety Master Plan refers to a “tickler” that, once developed, is to be  included in the central training system and will identify training needs for  individual employees. This tool, in addition to a system that inventories  employees’ certifications and licenses, should be valuable in helping AOC  employees stay abreast of their safety training needs and requirements.
section_title: Medical Management: Activities Can Be Better Coordinated with AOC’s Safety Program So Potentially Useful Information Can Be Routinely Shared
paragraphs: AOC’s medical management activities are carried out by several offices  with no central coordination, so valuable information about workplace  injuries and illnesses is not routinely shared or best used to target  prevention efforts. Overall, AOC’s medical management activities are  aimed at reducing the incidence and severity of work-related injuries and  illnesses and controlling workers’ compensation costs, which have  changed little over the last several years. (See figure 2). AOC has partnered  with the congressional Office of the Attending Physician (OAP) to conduct  OSHA-mandated medical examinations for AOC employees exposed to  hazardous substances, while HRMD has developed a return-to-work  program that offers modified-duty assignments to enable recovering  employees to return to work as soon as practical. HRMD also provides  active outreach to AOC employees to keep them informed about their  rights and duties with respect to the federal workers compensation  program. In addition, HRMD follows up on reports of program abuses  through private investigations and ongoing contact with the Department of  Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs.
Although these activities generally support AOC’s safety program, we have  observed a lack of clarity regarding the roles of the many offices involved  in these efforts. Medical management activities typically involve a number  of separate entities, including human resources staff, health care providers,  occupational health and safety experts, employees, and managers. To be  effective, these activities require a high level of coordination among these  entities. However, the lack of clarity at AOC has led to a limited exchange  of important information that could be used to improve the safety  program’s performance.
In particular, the role of OAP could be more clearly defined and expanded,  in accordance with the 1998 Memorandum of Understanding between  AOC and OAP. OAP provides primary care and emergency, environmental,  and occupational health services in direct support of members of the  Congress, their staffs, pages, visiting dignitaries, and tourists. As specified  in the Memorandum of Understanding, OAP conducts OSHA-mandated  medical examinations for AOC employees exposed to hazardous  substances, provides first aid for many AOC employees, and approves  modified-duty assignments for recovering AOC employees. However, the  Memorandum of Understanding allows a broader role for OAP in  providing medical expertise, which could potentially include providing  valuable data on the hazards causing injuries and illnesses at AOC,  providing trend information on the results of medical examinations, and  helping AOC standardize reporting procedures. According to the Director  of AOC’s Safety, Fire, and Environmental Programs, as many as 30 percent  of AOC’s reported injuries are probably not serious enough to warrant  medical treatment. However, it is difficult to determine the severity of  reported injuries without better injury data, underscoring the need for  standardized reporting procedures. OAP could be instrumental in helping  AOC develop these procedures.
AOC central safety staff and HRMD could coordinate more to facilitate the  exchange of information to further control workers’ compensation costs.  In particular, HRMD staff uses injury data primarily for processing workers’  compensation claims, but the central safety office does not systematically  or routinely analyze these data to better understand and address the causes  of injuries and illnesses. Also, superintendents do not routinely receive  data on the costs associated with injuries in each jurisdiction, so they are  not fully aware of them. Having these data would help AOC hold these  managers accountable for reducing these costs. Furthermore, although  HRMD encourages supervisor involvement in identifying and overseeing  modified-duty assignments that would enable AOC to engage injured  workers in productive work to reduce injury costs, some jurisdictional staff  we spoke with generally do not feel it is their responsibility to do so. One  way to ensure that information is fully disclosed and analyzed is to provide  a regular forum, such as a work group of superintendents, HRMD staff,  OAP staff, and safety specialists, to discuss new and ongoing claims. This  strategy has been adopted by the Department of Defense (DOD) and has  proved to be useful in managing workers’ compensation claims and costs,  according to DOD officials who specialize in this area. By focusing  management attention on workers’ compensation claims and costs, AOC  may provide a clearer incentive for staff at all levels to be more actively  involved in modified-duty assignments and in other safety activities.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: AOC has taken significant steps toward implementing the necessary  components of an effective worker safety and health program, and the level  of effort it has devoted to worker safety is unquestionable. However,  achieving a safer workplace at AOC will depend in part on AOC’s ability to  integrate the safety goals in its draft Safety Master Plan with the strategic  goals in its draft Strategic Plan to bring about long-term cultural change so  that there is little tolerance for unsafe work practices. AOC’s potential to  realize success is greater if it develops safety goals and measures that are  fully integrated with AOC’s other agencywide goals; this is the best way to  ensure that management and employees are clear about where safety  stands in relation to the many other work priorities AOC faces every day.  For example, in order to ensure that AOC achieves its fiscal year 2005  completion target for the 43 specialized safety programs, we believe that  identifying interim milestones and measures would help AOC assess its  progress in achieving its target.
AOC could also benefit from having clearly defined and documented  policies and procedures for reporting hazards, much like those that exist  for injuries and illnesses, for this is the best way to ensure that AOC fully  understands problem areas. There is also merit to having consistent  procedures for conducting investigations and follow-up, so AOC will be  assured that potential hazards are being addressed consistently in all  jurisdictions.
Regarding its safety training and medical management activities, AOC has  made initial efforts to incorporate the knowledge and skills of various  offices to help the safety program. Nonetheless, there are untapped  resources within AOC that could be better utilized to help the safety  program achieve its goals. For example, training that is more directly  linked to AOC’s goal of adopting a safety culture, as well as more effective  assessments of that training, will help AOC achieve its goals more  efficiently. Also, AOC could benefit from a clearer definition of  responsibilities for tracking and recording training that is received. AOC  could also make better use of OAP’s resources. There are a number of  additional functions OAP can provide for AOC that we believe are  consistent with the current Memorandum of Understanding, such as  providing valuable data on the hazards causing injuries and illnesses at  AOC. We also believe that a senior-management group that routinely  discusses workers’ compensation claims and costs will help highlight these  issues to all managers, and ultimately make managers more accountable  for reducing these costs. By taking advantage of these opportunities, AOC  could ensure that these medical management activities are better linked to  the goals of the safety program and the overall mission of the agency.
section_title: Recommendations for Agency Action
paragraphs: To enhance AOC’s ongoing efforts to establish a strategy for the worker  safety program by establishing safety program goals that are fully  integrated with AOC’s agencywide goals, we recommend that the Architect  of the Capitol  identify performance measures for safety goals and objectives, including  measures for how AOC will implement the 43 specialized safety  programs and how superintendents and employees will be held  accountable for achieving results;  establish clearly defined and documented policies and procedures for  reporting hazards similar to those that apply to injury and illness  reporting;  establish a consistent, AOC-wide system for conducting investigations   establish a safety training curriculum that fully supports all of the goals  of the safety program and further evaluate the effectiveness of the  training provided;  assign clear responsibility for tracking and recording training received  by AOC employees, including maintaining an inventory of employees’  certifications and licenses;   clarify and explore the possibility of expanding the role of OAP in  helping AOC meet its safety goals, consistent with the broad  responsibilities laid out in the 1998 Memorandum of Understanding  between AOC and OAP; and  establish a senior management work group that will routinely discuss  workers’ compensation cases and costs, and develop strategies to  reduce these injuries and costs.
section_title: AOC Has Identified Best Practices for Project Management, but Implementation Is Uneven
paragraphs: AOC is responsible for the maintenance, operation, preservation, and  development of the buildings and grounds primarily located within the  Capitol Hill complex. The historic nature and high-profile use of many of  these buildings create a complex environment in which to carry out this  mission. As a part of that mission, AOC is responsible for making all  necessary capital improvements within the complex, including major  renovations and new construction. Over the next few years, four high- profile capital projects are expected to cost over a half billion dollars: the  $265 million Capitol Visitors’ Center project, the $122.3 million Supreme  Court Modernization project, the $81.8 million West Refrigeration Plant  Expansion project, and a combined $72 million for the House and Senate  Perimeter Security projects initiated following the events of September 11,  2001.
The magnitude of AOC’s recent projects and the recent growth in annual  appropriations highlights the importance of managing this large portfolio of  projects according to leading industry practices. As shown in figure 3,  AOC’s annual appropriations for capital projects has increased over the last  10 years from $23.6 million in fiscal year 1994 to $190.3 million in fiscal year  2003. AOC’s capital appropriations peaked in fiscal year 2001 at $279  million due to a $244 million emergency supplemental appropriation  following the terrorist attacks—over a 700 percent increase above the  original capital appropriation. The growth in capital appropriations is most  evident in the last 5 years: the average capital appropriation from fiscal  years 1999 through 2003 was $186.5 million, while the average capital  appropriation over the previous 5 years was $35.6 million.
AOC’s Office of the Chief of Design and Construction (OCODC) is  responsible for the planning, design, and construction of capital projects  vital to achieving the agency’s mission. The office also provides technical  assistance to AOC jurisdictions as they handle their day-to-day operations.  The office is divided into separate divisions that provide the direct and  indirect services that are required throughout a project’s life cycle:  (1) Architecture Division, (2) Engineering Division, (3) Construction  Management Division, and (4) Technical Support Division. The office also  has a Planning and Programming Division, which is not currently staffed,  and there is a proposal for a separate Project Management Division.
As of May 2002, OCODC had a total of 128 full time equivalents, excluding  Davis-Bacon workers assigned to the Construction Branch. Responsibility  for the management of individual projects, including schedule, budget,  scope, and quality, primarily falls to architects and engineers who are  assigned as project managers. However, AOC jurisdiction staff can also be  assigned as project managers for capital projects within their jurisdictions.  As of July 2002, AOC had 83 individuals—58 from the Office of Design and  Construction and 25 from AOC jurisdictions—listed as project managers in  some capacity. The majority, however, are not dedicated solely to the task  of project management. AOC supplements its staff by contracting for many  of the design, construction, and construction management services.
AOC divides capital projects into four categories:   small capital projects—those valued at less than $250,000 and estimated  to take an average of 1 year to complete;  medium capital projects—those valued from $250,000 to $5 million and  estimated to take an average of 3 years to complete;   large capital projects—those valued at more than $5 million and  estimated to take an average of 5 years to complete; and,   large capital projects with construction managers—those valued at  more than $20 million and estimated to take an average of more than 5  years to complete.
As of June 2002, AOC’s workload consisted of 30 small capital projects, 94  medium capital projects, 12 large capital projects, and, 4 large capital  projects with construction managers. This does not include hundreds of  other projects, such as floor plan redesigns, sketches, and jurisdiction- funded projects that are a core part of OCODC responsibilities.
subsections: section_title: AOC Has Recognized the Need to Improve Its Project Planning and Delivery Processes
paragraphs: AOC recognizes that a disciplined project management process can help it  complete capital projects on schedule, on budget, within scope, and of the  highest quality. In 1999, AOC initiated several reviews of its project  planning and delivery processes by independent consultant firms. The goal  of the reviews was to streamline the agency’s processes and staff  organization based upon “best practices” drawn from AOC and industry, as  well as to address a management concern that a lack of continuity in  project management resulted in a loss of effectiveness and efficiency in  overall project delivery. As a result of these initiatives, AOC sought to  create a consistent process to which all projects and project managers  adhere, create a system where project managers are dedicated to individual  projects from “cradle-to-grave”—that is, from a project’s initiation to its  completion, and increase the use of consultants to reduce the burden on in- house staff.
According to AOC, the best practices process took a year to develop and a  year to implement. The policies and procedures are codified in various  manuals produced and updated by AOC since 1999, two of which have  recently been finalized. Since then, AOC has continued to review its best  practices initiatives. For example, the consulting firm CenterLine  Associates is assessing how the best practice standards and procedures  have been applied across five capital projects. The effort is expected to  identify improvements that can be incorporated into AOC standards,  policies, and procedures, as well as identify areas to be covered in future  project-delivery training sessions. AOC is also implementing a formal  process for planning and budgeting for its capital projects, adapted from  the DOD’s military construction budgeting process, that is intended to  clearly define requirements and priorities, and requires that requests be  reviewed, validated, and approved before submission to the Congress. This  formal process augments the policy requiring a 100 percent complete  design before AOC requests construction funds.
As AOC moves forward with its project management initiatives and  consistent with the strategic management framework discussed in chapter  2, AOC needs to ensure that it has the overall infrastructure in place to  effectively implement and take full advantage of the best practices that are  designed to improve project planning, design, and construction  management:   master planning for the Capitol Hill complex,  transparent process to prioritize projects,   strategy and tools to communicate,   outcome-oriented goals and performance measures,   proper alignment of staff and resources, and   strategic human capital management.
Without these elements, AOC and the Congress have no assurance that the  project management initiatives are being employed to their fullest  potential. Consequently, AOC cannot be assured that the capital projects it  is managing can be completed on schedule, on budget, and within scope  and are of high quality and meet the needs of their customers.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership Commitment
paragraphs: As with other critical management issues, the sustained commitment of top  leadership will be vital to the success of AOC’s project management  initiatives. On an ongoing basis, AOC leadership must set the clear  expectation that staff adhere to the established best practice policies and  procedures and then hold project management staff and contractors  accountable for meeting this expectation. However, several project  managers stated that they rely more heavily on their own experiences than  on the specific policies and procedures laid out in the project manager  manuals. One AOC official with project management responsibilities  specifically noted, with respect to the best practices, that he did not know  “if any of it was required,” but that if something was required he would be  doing it.
AOC officials responsible for overall project management can also show  leadership by initiating a shift in the way AOC supervises its projects from  solely focusing on crisis management to more active oversight. Several  senior OCODC officials noted that their principal supervisory role is to  resolve problems faced by project management staff. Interaction between  project managers and senior management then is often limited to times  when they “kick problems upstairs.” This reactionary approach leaves open  the possibility that other risks or opportunities exist that are not being  addressed. We are not suggesting, however, that AOC supervisors engage in  micromanagement of the project managers’ day-to-day activities. Rather,  more active supervision would help ensure that project managers are held  accountable for following best practices, achieving measurable results or  outcomes, meeting the needs of clients, and communicating routinely with  project stakeholders—both internal and external.
section_title: Master Planning for the Capitol Hill Complex
paragraphs: AOC’s best practice initiatives are intended to begin with a planning  process that incorporates four sets of plans: a 20-year master plan, a 10- year facility assessment, a 5-year capital spending plan, and a 1-year  jurisdiction plan. All capital projects are supposed to be consistent with  those planning efforts, except for projects requested by individual  members of the Congress outside of the normal budget cycle. However,  AOC does not yet have a master plan or a facility assessment plan, nor does  AOC have formalized capital spending or jurisdiction plans.
In July 2001, at the direction of the Senate Committee on Appropriations,  AOC contracted with the National Academy of Sciences (National  Academy) to hold a planning workshop to determine the scope of a Capitol  Hill complex Master Plan. Based on the results of the workshop, which  was held September 23 through 24, 2002, AOC will develop a request for  proposal for the master plan. While these initial efforts are positive steps,  the overall effort has been slow to take shape given that the workshop took  place over a year after the Senate’s directive. Moreover, as stated in chapter  2, AOC needs to tie its various long-term planning initiatives, including the  master planning effort, to the agencywide strategic planning effort and  obtain stakeholders’ input throughout the process. This message was  reinforced by participants in the National Academy’s workshop, who  explained that the master plan must be guided by a vision statement for the  Capitol Hill complex, which is developed with stakeholder input and  consistent with AOC’s strategic plan.
A key component of a master plan is building condition assessments  (BCA), which are systematic evaluations of an organization’s capital assets.  Such assessments will help AOC to “evaluate deferred maintenance and  funding requirements; plan a deferred maintenance reduction program;  compare conditions between facilities; establish baselines for setting goals  and tracking progress; provide accurate and supportable information for  planning and justifying budgets; facilitate the establishment of funding  priorities; and develop budget and funding analyses and strategies.”
A number of AOC executives agreed that BCAs are a necessary first step to  a comprehensive preventive maintenance program. However, according to  AOC officials, AOC has never completed formal condition assessments of  the facilities it is responsible for maintaining. Senior AOC and jurisdiction  executives also stated that preventive maintenance of AOC’s assets has  never been a major focus. According to AOC officials, AOC’s recent pilot  effort to conduct an assessment of the Capitol Building was unsuccessful  due to miscommunication of expectations between the agency and the  contractor performing the assessment. Without BCAs, the agency has no  assurance that it has fully documented the Capitol Hill complex’s  preventive maintenance needs and cannot develop an overall plan with  which to address those needs. As a result, AOC is unable to assure the  Congress that the facilities in the Capitol Hill complex will be effectively  and efficiently maintained and preserved consistent with the historic and  high-profile nature of those facilities.
AOC recently formed a condition assessment team with representatives  from each of the larger jurisdictions to develop a detailed statement of  work that specifies exactly what is required of a BCA contractor. When  conducted, the BCAs must be carried out consistently across all  jurisdictions to help ensure that all assets are evaluated in the same manner  and that AOC-wide priorities can be set and trade-offs made. The project  manager focus group participants also pointed out that the BCAs will  require substantial involvement from employees of many of the  jurisdictional shops who will be asked to provide technical information,  logistical support, and other forms of assistance to the assessment teams.  Therefore, AOC must also plan for and set aside resources required by AOC  jurisdictions for the effort. According to the National Research Council,  using a risk-based approach, the initial assessments should focus on life,  health, and safety issues and on critical building system components  needed to operate effectively.
AOC also needs staff dedicated to ensuring that the master plan and  building condition assessments are successfully completed. AOC officials  told us they had hired a new Director of Facilities Planning and  Programming in early December 2002. AOC officials stated that they are in  the process of hiring an assistant planner and an assistant programmer.  Because these individuals and the office would be the champions for the  master planning and building condition assessment efforts, it is important  that AOC fully staff the office with qualified individuals.
section_title: Transparent Process to Prioritize Projects
paragraphs: An agencywide strategic plan and a complexwide master plan will help  AOC determine priorities and then communicate them both internally to  employees and externally to clients. In the absence of a strategic plan and a  master plan to help determine overall priorities, AOC does not have a  transparent process to prioritize its current projects. In the near term, a  transparent process that incorporates stakeholder input would allow AOC  to prioritize projects in a well documented manner. In the long term, AOC  would be able to integrate the guidance of the strategic plan and master  plan within a transparent priority setting process.
AOC assigns a priority designation for each of the projects in its  appropriations request—1-A, 1-B, 1-C, and 2-A, 2-B, and so on through 3-C  at the lowest end of the priority scale. These priorities are further  categorized as Life Safety, Americans with Disabilities Act, Security,  Cyclical Maintenance, Improvement, and Technology-Management  Systems. According to an OCODC official, each jurisdiction prioritizes  capital projects and safety programs on a building-by-building basis for the  coming fiscal year. Priorities are determined based on the subjective  decisions made by jurisdiction officials and not on predefined criteria. The  priorities are then converted into the 1-A, 1-B, etc., priority designations by  the Budget Office staff.
However, based on our review, it is not clear that project managers use this  prioritization scheme to guide their day-to-day activities. The only  practical, day-to-day prioritization of projects we found being used was a  “hot projects” list. Projects were placed on the list by a group of senior  OCODC officials who based their decisions on two undefined, subjective  criteria: (1) time sensitivity and (2) high dollar volume. According to one  AOC official, however, the process for placing priority projects onto the list  is neither formal nor consistently applied. In fact, the official stated that the  current hot project list needs to be updated to reflect fiscal year 2003  projects.
We also found a general consensus among AOC officials and project  managers that prioritization of projects is a major weakness at the agency.  Many lamented that AOC is unable to manage client requests for projects  effectively. More specifically, AOC lacks a process that can communicate,  both internally and externally, the trade-offs in prioritizing one project over  another or how individual projects fit within a broader AOC framework.  The confusion about overall agency priorities has also led to confusion  about what individual priorities should be.
section_title: Strategy and Tools to Communicate
paragraphs: Upon establishing priorities, AOC must then incorporate the  communication of priorities and progress of projects within an agencywide  communications strategy. Internally, that means AOC needs to  communicate its priorities to staff and provide details on how related  projects are linked to one another. However, we found that AOC lacks the  project management tools necessary to assist in doing these tasks. For  example, officials responsible for overall project management use the  Project Information Center (PIC) system to prioritize work and ascertain  the progress of individual projects. However, PIC is not capable of  producing a unified document that shows schedules of active projects,  their interrelationships, and required staffing. Without a resource-loaded  master project planning document, it is difficult to determine the effect of  priority changes and to quantify project manager staffing requirements.
AOC also needs to communicate the agency’s overall priorities to its clients  and report progress on projects of importance to clients. The strategic and  master planning efforts and BCAs discussed above will assist AOC in  determining its project priorities. As discussed in chapter 2, an effort to  establish congressional protocols could also help the agency determine  how those priorities should be communicated, as well as how individual  project priorities will be reported.
AOC has made strides in communicating with its clients on the progress of  projects. For example, AOC has developed a web site that includes a  Capitol Hill complex map of several ongoing projects. However,  opportunities exist for additional progress in how AOC communicates with  clients and reports progress to the Congress. Also, at the direction of the  Senate Committee on Appropriations, AOC has begun issuing quarterly  capital project reports on the status of all ongoing capital projects.  However, the reports we reviewed described the status of all ongoing  capital projects without highlighting those projects that were behind  schedule, over budget, or otherwise of interest to clients. AOC needs to  begin to incorporate stakeholder feedback to better structure this reporting  mechanism. For example, in our April 2002 statement, we discussed the  possibility of using a “reportable events” approach to accountability  reporting that is based on predefined, risk-based events that would trigger  a report to the Congress and prompt immediate attention.
However, the information reported is only as good as the information  entered into the PIC system, which is the source of all project-related  information. We have found that the data produced by the system and  reported out by AOC are questionable because project managers do not  consistently update the information in PIC. For example, a majority of the  participants in the project manager focus group said they failed to  consistently put information into the system because they viewed PIC as an  administrative burden that provided no direct benefit to their own day-to- day activities. Additionally, our case studies showed that the project  managers do not always keep PIC completely updated. For example, the  Senate Recording Studio project had a current working estimate listed in  PIC that was nearly double the amount appropriated for the project.  Although we were told that the estimate was outdated, the information had  not been updated in the PIC system. AOC officials recognize the inadequate  data entry into PIC. In response, an OCODC official has recently met with  all of AOC’s project managers to reinforce the importance of keeping PIC  updated and to instruct them on how and what needs to be entered. While  this is a positive step designed to improve the documentation of project  information, AOC would benefit from more routine, systematic reviews of  PIC data to uncover pervasive problems and their root causes.
section_title: Outcome-Oriented Goals and Performance Measures for Project Management
paragraphs: As we discussed in chapter 2, AOC needs to work with its stakeholders to  determine its long-term strategic goals for project management and  develop annual performance goals that provide a connection between long- term goals and the day-to-day activities of its managers and their staff. This  effort will enable AOC to track its progress, provide critical information for  decision making, and create incentives for individual behavior by providing  a basis for individual accountability.
In its draft strategic plan, AOC has identified facilities management and  project management as two “focus areas,” and defined strategic goals for  each focus area. However, AOC has not yet clearly defined the outcome- oriented goals and performance measures in each focus area. For example,  as an outcome within the project management focus area, AOC lists  “Projects and related services are executed and delivered on time and on  budget.” To further clarify its goals, AOC could define terms such as  “projects and related services” and establish quantitative performance  measures for outcomes such as “on time” and “on budget.” Because AOC  lacks specific measures, it is unclear whether AOC will be able to assess its  current performance baseline, or how AOC will seek to improve. For  example, it is unclear to internal and external AOC stakeholders if AOC’s  goal is to improve on time delivery by a percentage point, or if it is to  achieve some undefined standard. As AOC moves forward and establishes  goals and measures for project management, it will be in a better position  to consider how to balance competing needs, such as client satisfaction  and quality against the need to meet deadlines and stay within budgets.
section_title: Alignment of Project Management Staff and Resources to Achieve Mission- Critical Goals
paragraphs: In June 2002, AOC officials responsible for overall project management  identified several changes that were needed to improve the delivery of  capital projects. Primarily, AOC recognized that the current “soft matrix”  approach of assigning mostly architects and engineers as project managers  who are assisted by task leaders from various sub-disciplines was  ineffective because, according to an AOC report on a proposed staff  realignment within the Office of the Assistant Architect, there was no  “clear objective, no supervisory authority that can exercise accountability  over the Project Managers, and no clear lines of communication.” AOC  officials responsible for project management proposed to senior AOC  executives the creation of a new and independent Project Management  Division, led with strong leadership, to “improve accountability, enforce  organizational discipline, focus on client service needs, and tailor the skills  of existing staff to necessary tasks.”
The proposed staff realignment, which is in its early stages of  implementation, is a good step within the framework of implementing best  practices, particularly the concept of dedicated, cradle-to-grave project  managers. However, AOC must ensure that this and other interim steps  ultimately support the agency in meeting mission-critical goals and  objectives as it develops the agencywide strategic plan. Moving forward  with this realignment will require AOC to determine which individuals have  the skills to be dedicated projects managers, as well as to identify the  specific projects they should manage. Officials within OCODC recognize  that not all of the architects and engineers who are currently assigned as  project managers have the requisite skills for the job. With qualified staff,  however, the realignment will ultimately address accountability issues by  clarifying roles and responsibilities and creating true cradle-to-grave  project management staff. Many of the project managers in our focus group  stated that they are currently being asked to wear “too many hats,” which  often distracts them from their primary duty to manage projects, and  wanted AOC to move more quickly to a dedicated project management  staff environment. We also observed that the initially slow progress of the  Relocation of the Senate Recording Studio project and the Coal Handling  Modernization project improved once dedicated project managers were  assigned.
However, a missing component of the realignment proposal is the role of  supervisors in the new project management division. AOC has not yet  defined who will supervise the project managers, the number of  supervisors that will be needed, nor the approach they will take with  respect to supervision. AOC needs to evaluate all of these issues and  integrate the role of day-to-day supervisors into the new Project  Management Division.
section_title: Strategic Human Capital Management
paragraphs: As discussed in chapter 2, strategic human capital management can  transform an agency into a results-oriented organization by aligning  employee performance with goals and by providing tools to better plan its  workforce needs. AOC has taken initial steps to address the strategic  workforce analysis criteria set forth in chapter 2, by identifying its project  management workforce needs in its staff realignment proposal. That plan  detailed tactical approaches to reassigning current project management  staff and determining where additional staff would be placed within a  restructured OCODC. Consistent with the strategic human capital  challenges it faces in other areas, AOC has opportunities to strengthen its  efforts for its project management workforce as well. Developing a set of  core technical competencies for project management and implementing a  training and development program for those competencies are two areas  requiring particular attention.
AOC has not developed project management-specific technical  competencies that define for what project managers will be held  accountable. Defined competencies are important for ensuring that the  right people are employed in the right positions and that they are routinely  held accountable for their work. As a basis for developing these  competencies, AOC can refer to standards developed by leading  professional organizations. For example, the Project Management Institute  (PMI) has published A Guide to the Project Management Body of  Knowledge (PMBOK) that organizes the components of project  management into nine knowledge areas: project integration management,  project scope management, project time management, project cost  management, project quality management, project human resources  management, project communications management, project risk  management, and project procurement management. Other entities have  successfully used these knowledge areas as the basis for developing  technical competencies. For example, the Australian government uses  PMBOK as the basis for its National Competency Standards for Project  Management.
As a next step, AOC could identify and implement training programs that  are linked to the core and technical competencies required of project  managers. Doing so is an essential component of building an effective and  professional project management staff. To date, it is unclear whether AOC’s  training fully supports the implementation of best practices throughout the  agency. For example, some project manager focus group participants noted  that they were not given initial orientation that familiarized them with AOC,  including services provided by other offices, or that familiarized them with  their ultimate client—the Congress. And if AOC is to effectively implement  best practices, newly hired project managers must be trained in the policies  and procedures and all project managers must receive ongoing best  practice training as policies and procedures are revised. We found that  neither of the project managers for the case studies we reviewed was  provided best practice training when they were first hired, and one was not  provided a copy of the project manager manual. AOC officials also stated  that they have not yet provided updated best practices training sessions for  project managers, although they said they plan to use the ongoing best  practices assessments mentioned above to tailor such training.
Finally, AOC should require professional development certification and  training, although this may not need to be provided internally by AOC. PMI  administers a globally accepted and recognized professional certification  program for project managers, which requires a specific level of education  and experience, adherence to a code of professional conduct, successful  completion of an examination, and ongoing continuing education  requirements.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: As AOC moves forward with its project management initiatives, several  elements are critical to the thorough implementation of best practices that  are designed to improve project planning, design, and construction  management. Project management could be improved by demonstrating  top leadership commitment to change, planning, establishing outcome- oriented goals, and strategically managing human capital to achieve those  goals. A Capitol Hill complex-wide master planning effort, including  building condition assessments, will help AOC establish long-term  priorities. Similarly, a transparent process to prioritize agency capital  projects will help AOC clarify its short-term (1 to 5 years) focus. As a part  of a broader communication strategy, effective reporting mechanisms will  help AOC convey these long- and short-term priorities, as well detail the  progress of projects to stakeholders. Clearly defining project-management- related measures will also help AOC achieve mission-critical strategic and  annual performance goals. Finally, the alignment of project management  staff and resources in accordance with best practices policies and  procedures will help institutionalize those practices and help AOC meet  mission-critical goals. Without these elements, AOC and the Congress have  no assurance that the project management initiatives are being employed  to their fullest potential. Consequently, AOC cannot be assured that the  capital projects it is managing can be completed on schedule, on budget,  and within scope and are of high quality and meet the needs of their  customers.
section_title: Recommendations for Agency Action
paragraphs: To improve project management—project planning, design, and  construction—at AOC, we recommend that Architect of the Capitol  develop a Capitol Hill complex master plan and complete condition  assessments of all buildings and facilities under the jurisdiction of AOC;  develop a process for assigning project priorities that is based on clearly  defined, well documented, consistently applied, and transparent  criteria;  develop tools to effectively communicate priorities and progress of  projects, as a part of a broader communication strategy;  define project-management-related performance measures to achieve  mission-critical strategic and annual performance goals; and  align project management staff and resources with AOC’s mission- critical goals.
section_title: AOC Needs to Build on Current Efforts by Adopting a Strategic Approach to Recycling
paragraphs: Programs that separate and collect recyclable materials from the waste  stream produce numerous benefits. It is estimated that recycling 1 ton of  paper saves 17 mature trees, 3.3 cubic yards of landfill space, 7,000 gallons  of water, 380 gallons of oil, 4,100 kilowatt hours of energy, and 60 pounds of  air pollutants. Recently, AOC has taken several steps to improve the  effectiveness of its office recycling programs; however, it could increase  the benefits derived from its recycling program by taking a more strategic  approach. Such an approach would include revisiting and clarifying  recycling mission and goals as part of an AOC planned environmental  strategy, measuring and monitoring performance against goals to gauge and  improve program effectiveness, and reexamining the roles and  responsibilities of the recycling program staff to ensure accountability for  achieving recycling goals. We provide observations on how AOC could  improve recycling results by organizationally replicating its own and  others’ best practices.
subsections: section_title: AOC Has Taken Steps to Improve Effectiveness of Recycling Programs
paragraphs: AOC is responsible for implementing recycling programs for much of the  Capitol Hill complex. Consistent with the preliminary observations in our  April 2002 statement, AOC, both centrally and at the jurisdiction level, has  taken recent steps to improve the overall effectiveness of its recycling  programs. Some of the steps include  adopting a consultant’s recommendation to simplify the Senate’s  recycling program to improve participation and increase effectiveness,  developing a draft set of performance indicators and starting to collect   increasing recycling promotion and education efforts,  surveying recycling clients in the House to determine if the program is  meeting their needs, and  sharing information on recycling promotion and education strategies  among the House and Senate recycling program managers.
section_title: AOC’s Recycling Program Has Made Limited Progress in Achieving Typical Recycling Goals
paragraphs: Office recycling programs can have a variety of environmental and  financial benefits. A typical goal is reducing to the extent possible the  amount of solid waste sent to landfills. Another typical goal is generating as  much revenue as possible from the sale of the recyclable materials  collected. A key to achieving either goal is making the recycling program as  easy as possible for employees to use. Generally, the less sorting, decision  making, and walking required by individual participants, the more  successful the program will be. Although the two goals of waste reduction  and revenue generation are not mutually exclusive, the relative importance  placed on these goals generally affects the design of the recycling program  implemented.
Specifically, a recycling program with the goal of generating revenue,  commonly referred to as a source separation program, is more  complicated, expensive, and difficult to implement than a program  designed for waste reduction. This is because separating a greater variety  of recyclable materials at the source requires more resources for educating  clients and the recycling staff, collecting the recyclable materials, and  monitoring for compliance. The complexity of source separation,  unfortunately, also increases the likelihood of contamination of the  recyclable materials collected (potentially recyclable materials are mixed  together with other categories of recyclables or wet waste), reducing their  value and increasing the volume of waste sent to landfills. Given the  complexity and potential performance problems with a source separation  program, an organization needs to analyze the costs and benefits of such a  program compared to other, simpler options to determine whether such a  program will be cost-effective.
High levels of contamination have prevented the House and Senate  recycling programs from substantially achieving either waste reduction or  revenue generation. AOC’s recycling contractor does not pay for high-grade  (e.g., white copy) paper with greater than 5 percent contamination or  mixed-grade (e.g., glossy or colored) paper with greater than 10 percent  contamination. From fiscal years 2001 through 2002, AOC did improve its  recycling results. According to General Services Administration (GSA)  data, the rate of contamination of recyclable paper products collected  dropped from 70 percent in fiscal year 2001 to 55 percent in fiscal year 2002  in the House jurisdiction and from 60 percent to 37 percent in the Senate  jurisdiction. However, although AOC avoided the cost of disposing of the  waste, the contaminated materials generated no revenue. The recycling  contractor may sort and recycle some of this contaminated waste, but  some potentially recyclable materials may be too contaminated and will  ultimately go to a landfill.
During fiscal year 2002, the Senate jurisdiction implemented a consultant’s  recommendation to change from a source separation to a simpler  combined-paper recycling program. According to the consultant’s report,  simplifying the program by reducing the amount of source separation  required could both increase revenue and decrease the contamination  levels. In contrast, the House jurisdiction continues to operate a more  complex source-separation program. Similar to the conclusions made in  the review of the recycling program operations for the Senate program, a  recently completed consultant study of the House program made the point  that a mixed-paper program is easier to administer and usually leads to  increased participation, decreased contamination, and less collection time.  However, the consultant’s report did not recommend making any changes  to the House’s program at this time because it found the existing program  to be “user-friendly” and accepted. Nonetheless, given the high rates of  contamination in the House recycling program, AOC needs to closely  monitor contamination to determine if a simpler program design is  warranted.
section_title: AOC Needs to Revisit and Clarify Recycling Mission and Goals as Part of Its Planned Environmental Strategy
paragraphs: AOC’s goals for its recycling programs are unclear. AOC has not  documented any mission and goals for its recycling programs. We found  various references—albeit indirect and inconsistent—to AOC recycling  goals. For example, a 1999 audit by the AOC Inspector General, indicated  that AOC is pursuing the goal of waste reduction. A similar goal is indicated  in the position description of the AOC Resource Conservation Program  Manager. In contrast, the position descriptions for the House and Senate  recycling program managers state that these managers are responsible for,  among other things, increasing the financial returns of their programs.
If AOC’s goal is to generate as much revenue as possible through a source  separation program, then based on the high rate of contamination it will  need to design a program that is much more aggressive in terms of the  education, training, and equipment it provides to participants and the  collection staff. However, if the goal is reducing the volume of waste sent to  landfills, then AOC should implement a simpler program, requiring as little  separation as possible to increase participation and compliance as was  done in the Senate. In addition, AOC has made some effort to expand its  recycling program to other facilities within the Capitol Hill complex, such  as the Botanic Garden, the Page Dormitory, and—in response to our recent  suggestion—the Capital Power Plant. Furthermore, according to AOC  officials, AOC recycles fluorescent lamps, batteries, scrap metal, and some  computer equipment and has required its contractors to recycle their  construction debris. However, it has no formal plans to expand its recycling  programs to include other types of recyclable materials, such as waste  from its own landscaping or construction activities. Incorporating these  materials into its overall recycling program could improve AOC’s overall  performance in reducing waste sent to landfills. However, AOC  management stated that adequate resources are not presently available to  carry out such expanded recycling programs, although it has requested  funding for an additional position in fiscal year 2003 to assist the recycling  program manager, allowing for further expansion of the recycling program.
AOC recycling program staff recently discussed their view that the mission  of their recycling programs ought to be primarily reducing waste sent to  landfills rather than maximizing recycling revenues. AOC management  stated that it would be important to obtain input from congressional  stakeholders before making any changes to the mission or goals of the  program. Furthermore, clarifying the goals of the program is something  AOC management would address only as part of the long-term  environmental management plan for the Capitol Hill complex that it plans  to undertake after completing its Safety Master Plan. Consistent with the  communication strategy we outline in this report, AOC will need to seek  input from its stakeholders to determine the most appropriate mission and  goals for its recycling program(s). Whether the resulting program is Capitol  Hill complex-wide or is tailored to meet the specific requirements of the  House or Senate, AOC needs to clarify whether the primary focus of the  recycling program is to reduce the total amount of waste sent to landfills,  to generate a desired level of revenue, or both.
section_title: AOC Needs to Develop a Performance Measurement, Monitoring, and Evaluation System That Supports Accomplishment of Recycling Mission and Goals
paragraphs: As discussed in our April 2002 statement, to support the accomplishment of  AOC’s recycling mission and goals, a performance measurement system  should (1) show the degree to which the desired results were achieved,  (2) be limited to the vital few measures needed for decision making, (3) be  responsive to multiple priorities, and (4) establish accountability for  results. Also, as part of its responsibility for handling waste from  government facilities, including recyclable materials, the GSA has  developed a guide that describes a number of steps an agency can take to  measure and monitor recycling efforts that could be useful to AOC in  developing its system. These steps are listed in table 3.
In response to the Senate Committee on Appropriations’ requirement for  quarterly updates on the recycling program in the Senate, AOC developed a  performance measurement system that it is using to monitor both the  Senate and the House recycling programs. Initially, the indicators on  which AOC collected data included, among other things, a two-digit  increase in tonnage recycled, revenue generated from the sale of  recyclables, market prices for various recycled materials, customer  satisfaction, education of participating offices, results of desk side  container inspections, status of equipping offices with recycling containers,  rate of office participation, and training of recycling collection staffs.
Consistent with the preliminary observations in our April 2002 statement,  AOC significantly reduced the number of indicators it is collecting and  reporting to two: total tonnage collected by type of material and total  tonnage contaminated. This more focused approach to measuring the  effectiveness of its program is noteworthy. As AOC revisits its program  mission, goals, and design, it will have opportunities to reexamine and  refine its performance measurement efforts to ensure that it has the right  set of performance measures to support program monitoring and decision  making.
The absence of AOC recycling program goals does not allow measures to  be linked to a desired level of performance and thus AOC cannot  demonstrate the extent to which performance is achieved. For example,  AOC seeks to decrease contamination rates for recyclable materials  collected, but does not state a goal for a desired level of contamination  against which to measure progress. As shown in table 3, steps 2 and 3, AOC  should determine how much waste the Capitol Hill complex generates  overall and analyze how much of that waste could be recycled. AOC  officials have told us that they plan to conduct such an analysis as part of  its future, long term environmental management plan and use the  information to form the basis of AOC’s overall waste reduction goals.
Furthermore, AOC should develop its performance measurement system  with input from recycling program staff members to ensure that the data  gathered will be sufficiently complete, accurate, and consistent to be useful  in decision making. As AOC clarifies its goals and performance measures  for its recycling program, it will likely identify opportunities to create a  balanced set of measures that respond to multiple priorities, such as  increasing customer satisfaction while also achieving recycling  performance goals. Consistent with our preliminary observations, AOC  recycling program staff has begun surveying its clients to obtain feedback  on their satisfaction with the program. This performance information could  be a useful addition to the set of measures AOC is currently collecting and  monitoring.
After establishing its mission and goals and building a performance  measurement system, the next key step for AOC is to put performance data  to work. As shown in table 3, steps 4 through 8 and step 10 provide  guidance on ways to monitor and evaluate program performance. AOC has  proposed a quarterly monitoring system. Such monitoring of performance  against goals will enable AOC program managers to identify where  performance is lagging, investigate potential causes, and identify actions  designed to improve performance.
section_title: Reexamine Roles, Responsibilities, and Number of AOC Recycling Program Staff Members
paragraphs: The roles and responsibilities of AOC’s recycling program staff members  have evolved in recent years, without the guidance of a clearly defined  mission and goals. In revisiting its recycling program mission and goals,  AOC should also reexamine the roles and responsibilities of its program  staff members to ensure that they are performing the right jobs with the  necessary authority. AOC recently changed the responsibilities of its  recycling program management positions to incorporate a greater focus on  program planning and evaluation. However, according to these staff  members, much of their time is spent in day-to-day program  implementation activities, leaving little time to fulfill their expanded roles.
The AOC Resource Conservation Manager, originally responsible for only  the AOC hazardous waste program, currently is responsible for planning  and developing policies and programs for an AOC-wide approach to waste  management, analyzing waste removal programs, developing and  presenting briefing and training materials on agency recycling efforts, and  serving as the administrator and technical representative for the recycling  collection contract. However, according to the Resource Conservation  Manager, about half of her effort is devoted to hazardous waste  management activities. She has little time and no staff to carry out the  broad, agencywide planning and evaluation activities required by the  position.
In fiscal year 2001, AOC replaced its recycling coordinator position with a  Recycling Program Manager position in the House and Senate jurisdictions.  These positions are responsible for working with other Capitol Hill  complex recycling specialists to carry out agencywide recycling, planning  and developing recycling policies and programs, reviewing program  effectiveness and monitoring implementation (e.g., compliance  inspections), and analyzing the financial returns of waste recycling  contracts. However, the House Recycling Program Manager told us that her  current focus has been primarily on implementation activities, such as  providing recycling equipment to offices, limiting the time available to  focus on other responsibilities, such as program monitoring and evaluation.  However, according to this manager, the recent hiring of an assistant to  focus on operations will allow her to devote more time to recycling  program management activities.
As previously stated, AOC needs to provide a results-oriented basis for  individual accountability. With respect to recycling, AOC has neither  established clear goals nor assigned accountability for achieving results.  Because program implementation occurs in the House and Senate  jurisdictions, AOC needs to incorporate its desired recycling goals into its  performance management system and cascade those goals down through  the jurisdictions to the individuals responsible for program  implementation.
Overlapping responsibilities for planning, education, monitoring, and  evaluation between the Resource Conservation Manager and jurisdiction  recycling program managers raise questions about the appropriate number  of staff members and mix of responsibilities needed to carry out AOC’s  recycling programs at the central and jurisdictional levels. For example, the  jurisdiction recycling managers focus primarily on the implementation of  the recycling program, including equipping offices, educating participants,  and collecting recyclable materials. Furthermore, the AOC Resource  Conservation Manager has little time and no staff to carry out broad  management and oversight responsibilities. As a result, little capacity  exists to carry out the planning, development, monitoring, and evaluation  of AOC’s recycling programs on an AOC-wide basis.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Although the Architect of the Capitol has managed an office recycling  program in the House and Senate jurisdictions for more than a decade, high  levels of contamination present in the materials collected has prevented it  from fully realizing either the environmental or financial benefits that it  could have achieved. Adopting a more strategic approach to recycling— clarifying AOC’s recycling mission and goals to assess whether it has the  right program design, organization, and implementation strategies in place  to achieve desired results, measuring and monitoring performance against  goals, and reexamining the roles and responsibilities of the recycling  program staff to ensure accountability for achieving recycling goals—could  improve the environmental results of the program. AOC officials have  indicated that the recycling program will be included in an overall  environmental master plan that it will develop in 2003. We agree with this  approach and believe that developing a clear mission statement for the  recycling program and using that statement as a basis for establishing  reasonable performance goals, developing a set of performance measures,  and aligning the organization to hold managers accountable for results,  would help AOC further improve its recycling program results.
section_title: Recommendations for Agency Action
paragraphs: In order adopt a strategic approach to recycling, we recommend that the  Architect of the Capitol take the following actions:  Develop a clear mission and goals for AOC’s recycling program with  input from key congressional stakeholders as part of its proposed  environmental master plan. AOC may want to establish reasonable goals  based on the total waste stream—information it plans to obtain as part  of its long term environmental management plan—that could potentially  be recycled.
Develop a performance measurement, monitoring, and evaluation  system that supports accomplishing AOC’s recycling mission and goals.
Examine the roles and responsibilities of AOC’s recycling program staff  to ensure that they are performing the right jobs with the necessary  authority, and holding the staff accountable for achieving program and  agency results through AOC’s performance management system.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: In his comments on this chapter, the Architect generally agreed with our  recommendations and discussed the relevant efforts AOC has under way in  the areas of worker safety, project management, and recycling. In the area  worker safety, in addition to initial efforts to target areas that have the  potential for danger to life and health, the Architect stated that AOC is in  the process of developing program policies for incident reporting and  investigation, inspection, and hazard abatement and control. AOC  disagreed with our statement that its 5-year Safety Management Plan was  drafted independent of the broader strategic planning effort. Although we  believe this statement was true at the time of our review, AOC has  subsequently made efforts to improve the alignment between its draft  strategic and worker safety plans. Therefore, we deleted this statement.  The Architect stated that AOC’s implementation plan will focus on  strategic, long-term planning, training, and continuous improvement in  worker safety.
The Architect stated that AOC plans to address our recommendations in  the area of project management as another focus of its implementation  plan. Current initiatives include developing and scheduling training for  project managers; conducting condition assessments of the Senate, House,  and Capitol buildings this fiscal year, and of other Capitol Hill complex  buildings in subsequent fiscal years; and developing a 5-year capitol  improvement plan and the scope of work for a 20-year master plan of the  Capitol Hill complex.
In the area of recycling, the Architect stated that AOC is committed to  defining clear goals for its recycling program and will establish a dedicated  environmental function. AOC’s implementation plan will discuss its  approach to establishing program goals, integrating environmental  concerns into AOC’s overall strategy, and ensuring that measures reflect  goals and are linked to performance of key activities.
The Architect’s comments are reprinted in appendix II.