Program Management: DOE Needs to Develop a Comprehensive Policy and Training Program
Released: 2016-11-21T00:00:00

Letter

Background

This section describes (1) DOE directives and NNSA policy letters, (2) federal internal control standards related to program managers, and (3) leading practices related to program management.

DOE Directives and NNSA Policy Letters

According to DOE’s Departmental Directives Program order, directives are DOE’s primary means to set, communicate, and institutionalize policies, requirements, responsibilities, and procedures for departmental elements (including NNSA) and contractors. DOE classifies its directives into several types, including orders and guides, which DOE describes as follows:

Orders. Orders establish management objectives, requirements, and assignment of responsibilities for DOE federal employees.

Guides. Guides provide information on acceptable means for complying with requirements contained in orders. They are a voluntary means for complying with these requirements and cannot be made mandatory by reference in other DOE directives.

Under the National Nuclear Security Administration Act, the Secretary of Energy is responsible for establishing policy for NNSA. The NNSA Administrator, however, has authority over, and is responsible for, programs and activities of NNSA, including policy development and guidance, as well as program management and direction. The act further provides that the NNSA Administrator has the authority to establish NNSA-specific policies, unless disapproved by the Secretary of Energy. NNSA establishes its policies through the issuance of policy letters. These policy letters take the form of NNSA policies, supplemental directives, and business operating procedures.

Federal Internal Control Standards Related to Program Managers

The program manager plays an important role in implementing an effective internal control system. According to federal standards for internal control, management should take a number of actions targeting key roles such as program managers. For example, management should assign responsibility and delegate authority to key roles to achieve the entity’s objectives. Specifically, management considers the overall responsibilities assigned to each unit, determines what key roles are needed to fulfill the assigned responsibilities, and establishes the key roles. Management also determines what level of authority each key role needs to fulfill a responsibility.

Federal standards for internal control also state that management should demonstrate a commitment to develop competent individuals. Important attributes associated with this internal control principle are applicable to program managers and described as follows:

Establishing expectations of competence. Management establishes expectations of competence for key roles, and other roles at management’s discretion, to help the entity achieve its objectives. Competence is the qualification to carry out assigned responsibilities. It requires relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities, which are gained largely from professional experience, training, and certifications. It is demonstrated by the behavior of individuals as they carry out their responsibilities. Personnel need to possess and maintain a level of competence that allows them to accomplish their assigned responsibilities.

Training personnel. Management develops competent personnel to achieve the entity’s objectives. In particular, management considers the training of its personnel to enable individuals to develop competencies appropriate for key roles, reinforce standards of conduct, and tailor training based on the needs of the role.

Leading Practices Related to Program Management

PMI defines program management as the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to a program to meet the program requirements and to obtain benefits and control not available by managing projects individually. Program management involves aligning multiple components to achieve the program goals and allows for optimized or integrated cost, schedule, and effort. According to PMI’s standard, which describes leading program management practices, the work associated with program management is characterized by the following five areas of activity.

Program strategy alignment—identifying opportunities and benefits to achieve the organization’s strategic objectives through program implementation.

Program benefits management—defining, creating, maximizing, delivering, and sustaining the benefits provided by the program.

Program stakeholder engagement—capturing and understanding stakeholder needs, desires, and expectations and analyzing the impact of the program on stakeholders, gaining and maintaining stakeholder support, managing stakeholder communications, and mitigating/channeling stakeholder resistance.

Program governance—establishing processes and procedures for maintaining program management oversight and decision making support for applicable policies and practices throughout the course of the program.

Program life cycle management—managing all the program activities related to program definition, program benefits delivery, and program closure.

Each of the five areas encompasses a number of different practices. For example, developing a program plan is an important component of program strategy alignment. According to PMI’s standard, the program plan formally expresses the organization’s concept, vision, mission, and benefits expected to be produced by the program. The program plan also defines program-specific goals and objectives and provides authority for subprograms, projects, and related activities, as well as the framework by which these program components will be managed and monitored during the course of the program. The program plan is the overall documented reference by which the program will measure its success throughout its duration and should include the metrics for success, a method for measurement, and a clear definition of success.

As PMI’s definition of program management indicates, program and project management, while distinct disciplines, are inextricably linked. For example, according to PMI’s standard, essential program management responsibilities are linked to project management responsibilities and include identifying and controlling interdependencies between projects, addressing escalated issues among the projects that comprise the program, and tracking the contribution of each project and the non-project work to the consolidated program benefits. In addition, according to a 2015 report by a panel of the National Academy of Public Administration, effective program management depends on effective project management, which itself depends on a cadre of professionals including not only project managers, but also an array of technical specialties and disciplines within the project and program management profession, such as requirements development, cost and schedule estimation, and risk management.

DOE and NNSA Have Not Established Policies Addressing Internal Control Standards or Leading Practices Related to Program Management

DOE has not established a department-wide policy addressing internal control standards or leading practices related to program management, and NNSA canceled its program management policy in 2013. As described earlier, according to federal internal control standards, management should assign responsibilities, delegate authority, and establish expectations of competence for key roles, which would include program managers. In addition, according to PMI’s standard describing program management leading practices, work associated with program management should address several areas of activity, such as strategy alignment, which involves developing program plans, and program governance, which involves establishing procedures for managing oversight of programs.

According to DOE officials, however, DOE has not established any policies specifically related to program management, and no office within the department is responsible for developing such policies. In addition, on the basis of our review of DOE directives, we were unable to identify any policies directly addressing internal control standards related to assigning responsibilities, authority, or expectations of competence to program managers, or addressing leading program management practices. However, we identified a 2005 DOE order that, while not establishing a DOE-wide policy on program management, directed NNSA to manage its programs in accordance with NNSA’s own program management policy. Specifically, NNSA had established its policy for conducting program management activities in 2004. The policy defined “program” as a group of ongoing activities and related projects conducted with a defined set of resources and managed in a coordinated way to achieve mission objectives and obtain benefits not available from managing them individually. It stated that NNSA viewed programs as falling across a spectrum that ranged from operational programs (such as surveillance of the nuclear weapons stockpile) at one end to major capital acquisition projects at the other end. The policy stated that the diversity of NNSA’s programs demanded a tailored application of program management principles to accommodate the requirements of each program. NNSA’s policy required that program management responsibilities and authorities be defined in writing and that program managers meet certain expectations of competence, such as demonstrating a practical understanding of key NNSA and organizational business and management practices.

NNSA’s policy, however, provided only general guidelines for conducting program management activities and stated that NNSA’s deputy and associate administrator offices were responsible for determining how to apply program management principles within their organizations.

Accordingly, DP and DNN issued their own program management policies in 2005. Among other things, the policies described each office’s framework for managing its programs, roles and responsibilities of program managers and other members of the program management team, and expectations of competence for program managers. For example, DNN’s policy described 10 program management functions, such as developing and validating requirements and developing program plans. In particular, according to DNN’s policy, each assistant deputy administrator in DNN was to develop a program management plan that would establish and clearly document operational policies, procedures, guidelines, and processes; describe the programmatic work already accomplished; and describe the work to be accomplished over the life of the program. In addition, program managers were responsible for preparing a program execution plan on an annual basis to provide detailed guidance to program staff for implementing the coming fiscal year’s work scope. DNN’s policy also described 29 specific responsibilities of program managers, as well as qualification and training requirements for them.

NNSA cancelled its agency-wide program management policy in 2013 but did not establish a new policy that addresses key internal control standards or leading practices related to program management. According to NNSA officials and documentation, NNSA canceled its policy at the request of DP, which had updated its own 2005 program management policy and found the 2004 NNSA policy to be outdated. However, NNSA officials told us that they did not know why NNSA did not revise its 2004 policy or address the impact of its cancellation on NNSA’s program offices. NNSA officials noted that other NNSA-wide polices exist related to planning, work authorization, and contractor oversight, and that these policies address elements of program management, such as requiring programs to develop annual implementation plans. However, these policies do not comprehensively address key internal control standards, such as assigning responsibility, delegating authority, and establishing expectations of competence, or leading program management practices, such as strategy alignment and developing program plans.

Without a department-wide policy on program management, NNSA’s program offices may not be managing their programs in accordance with internal control standards or leading practices related to program management. For example, DNN officials told us that they do not currently have a program management policy, as their organization’s 2005 policy became outdated and fell out of use around 2010. They said that they expect to establish a new program management policy by the end of 2016 but did not provide us with a draft copy to review. As a result, it is unclear what principles and practices DNN currently follows in managing its programs. In contrast, DP has revised its program management policy multiple times since issuing its original policy in 2005. DP’s most recent policy, issued in January 2016, defines the term “program,” establishes four categories of program management and execution requirements for these categories, and defines the activities that program managers must perform to meet those requirements, among other things. However, DP’s policy does not fully address internal control standards related to program management. Specifically, DP’s policy does not address expectations of competence for its program managers, unlike earlier versions of its policy.

Establishing a clear, department-wide program management policy that incorporates key internal control standards and leading program management practices may help ensure that DOE and NNSA program offices are better able to achieve their missions, goals, and objectives. For example, in our 2016 report examining NNSA’s plans to build a multi- billion-dollar facility for plutonium analysis at its Los Alamos site in New Mexico, we found that the agency had not clarified whether the project would satisfy the mission needs of DOE and NNSA programs other than those of DP. In addition, in a 2014 DOE report reviewing NNSA’s plans to build a multi-billion-dollar facility for uranium manufacturing at its Oak Ridge site in Tennessee, DOE’s review team recommended that NNSA create an overarching uranium mission strategy and a position within DP (referred to by NNSA as the Uranium Program Manager) to take ownership of NNSA’s overall uranium mission. NNSA might have been better able to clarify the mission needs associated with these projects if NNSA and DOE programs had been operating under a department-wide policy that incorporated (1) leading practices, such as capturing and understanding stakeholder needs and expectations and other activities associated with program stakeholder engagement, and (2) internal control principles related to assigning responsibilities and delegating authority to key roles such as program managers.

DOE and NNSA officials told us that they recognize the importance of establishing a program management policy. However, DOE has not taken steps to develop a policy for program management. In contrast, DOE has established an office and a department-wide policy dedicated to project management. Specifically, in July 2015, DOE established the Office of Project Management Oversight and Assessments as the department’s central management organization providing leadership and assistance in developing and implementing DOE-wide policies, procedures, programs, and management systems pertaining to project management. In particular, this office is responsible for DOE’s order on project management for the acquisition of capital assets, which establishes requirements for the development of project plans, responsibilities and authorities of project managers, and expectations of competence for project managers, among other things.

DOE and NNSA Have Not Established Training Programs for Program Managers

DOE and NNSA have not established training programs for program managers to ensure that they are capable of meeting core competencies; as a result, most of the 15 NNSA program managers we interviewed had not received training related to program management. According to federal internal control standards and the PMI standard for program management, to promote the development of a competent workforce, agencies should ensure that their program managers are properly trained. Specifically, according to federal internal control standards, management should train staff to enable them to develop competencies appropriate for key roles and reinforce standards of conduct. According to the PMI standard, a successful program manager exhibits certain core competences, including the ability to manage details while taking a holistic, benefits-focused view of the leverage a strong working knowledge of the principles and process of both program and project management; interact seamlessly and collaboratively with governance boards and other executive stakeholders; establish productive and collaborative relationships with team members and their organizational stakeholders; leverage their own technical knowledge and experience to provide perspectives that support the understanding and management of program uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity; and facilitate understanding through the use of exceptionally strong communication skills.

However, according to DOE officials, the department does not have an office responsible for program management that provides training for program managers. In contrast, DOE has established a training program for project managers. The Project Management Career Development Program is responsible for defining necessary project management knowledge, skills, and abilities; project management training requirements; a career development tracking system; and a project management certification program. In addition, DOE’s Office of Project Management Oversight and Assessments is responsible for managing this program and ensuring that all DOE project managers (referred to as federal project directors) are certified according to the requirements of the program, as well as for tracking the development of staff certified under the program. According to DOE officials, classes offered by the Project Management Career Development Program are also open to program managers. However, DOE officials said that the department had no plans to modify its project management program to address program management as well.

NNSA had plans to establish a training program for its program managers but has not done so. According to its cancelled 2004 policy on program management, NNSA was to develop (1) standardized training materials that would demonstrate a program manager’s understanding of and proficiency with core NNSA processes and management practices and (2) a database to track the training and certification requirements for each program manager position. However, NNSA officials said that because of the loss of senior managers and other staff, they were unsure if these training materials were ever developed. Furthermore, they said that NNSA does not currently track information on the training and certification of program managers in a database. DP officials told us that they are developing a training certification program for program managers that covers staff in four areas: systems engineering, program management, research and development, and budget analysis. However, requirements associated with this training program would apply only to DP staff.

In August 2016, after our close-out meeting with NNSA and DOE, NNSA officials told us that NNSA has included program and project management in its “foundational competency model,” which consists of competencies universal to the NNSA workforce. NNSA officials said that they are establishing skill proficiency levels, as well as developmental activities aligned with those proficiency levels, and that they expect to implement this model for the NNSA workforce during calendar year 2016 using PMI and other benchmarks. However, we were unable to review this model to determine its relevance to program management competencies.

In the absence of a current DOE or NNSA training program for program managers, most of the NNSA program managers we interviewed did not have training related to program management. As a result, NNSA may have difficulty developing and maintaining a cadre of professional, effective, and capable program managers. Specifically, of the 15 NNSA program managers we interviewed, 5 told us that they had received training related to program management: 4 had taken training from the Defense Acquisition University, and 1 stated that she had taken two courses related to program management (although she did not indicate which organization provided this training). The remaining 10 program managers told us that they had not received training related to program management. Five of these individuals told us that they had taken training related to project management from DOE and/or PMI. However, the remaining 5 individuals told us that they had not received any training related to program or project management.

Conclusions

DOE has undertaken a number of activities in recent years related to strengthening the management of its projects. However, the department has not maintained a similar focus and level of effort regarding program management, which is an important ingredient in an organization’s ability to effectively manage related projects and activities. Specifically, DOE has not established a program management policy addressing key federal internal control standards, such as assigning responsibility, delegating authority, and establishing expectation of competence, or leading program management practices, such as strategy alignment and the development of program plans. DOE’s 2005 policy regarding NNSA’s management of the nuclear security enterprise directs NNSA to manage its programs in accordance with its own policy; however, NNSA cancelled its own program management policy in 2013, and its existing policies do not address internal control standards or leading practices related to program management. DP currently has in place a program management policy for its organization, but its policy does not fully address internal control standards. DNN’s program management policy fell out of use around 2010, and DNN has not replaced it, which makes it unclear what principles and practices DNN currently follows in managing its programs. Establishing a clear, department-wide program management policy that incorporates key internal control standards and leading practices related to program management may help ensure that DOE and NNSA program offices are better able to achieve their missions, goals, and objectives. DOE and NNSA officials told us that they recognize the importance of establishing a policy on program management but have not taken steps to develop such a policy. In addition, although federal internal control standards call for management to train its personnel to enable them to develop competencies appropriate for key roles, DOE and NNSA have not established training programs for program managers. Without a department-wide training program for program managers, NNSA may have difficulty developing and maintaining a cadre of professional, effective, and capable program managers.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To help ensure that NNSA effectively manages the performance of its programs, we recommend that the Secretary of Energy establish a program management policy that (1) assigns responsibilities and delegates authority to program managers and establishes expectations of competence for them, in accordance with federal internal control standards, and (2) addresses leading program management practices, such as developing program plans.

To help ensure that NNSA develops and maintains a cadre of professional, effective, and capable program managers in accordance with leading program management practices and federal internal control standards, we recommend that the Secretary of Energy establish a training program for program managers.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to DOE and NNSA for their review and comment. DOE had no comments on the draft report, and NNSA provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Energy, the Administrator of NNSA, and other interested parties. In addition, this report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made significant contributions to the report are listed in the appendix.

Appendix: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Diane LoFaro (Assistant Director), Diantha Garms, and Jason Holliday made key contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were Cheryl Andrew, Richard Burkard, Greg Campbell, Pamela Davidson, and Lisa Pearson.