Defense Management: DOD Senior Leadership Has Not Fully Implemented Statutory Requirements to Promote Department-Wide Collaboration
Released: 2018-06-25T00:00:00

Letter

DOD Has Established 10 Cross-Functional Teams That Are in Various Stages of Implementation

DOD has established 10 cross-functional teams that OCMO officials consider responsive to section 911, and these teams are in various stages of implementation. The Secretary of Defense established a cross- functional team to manage the transfer of background investigations for DOD personnel security clearances from the Office of Personnel Management to DOD. This team is required to report directly to the Secretary. In addition, the Deputy Secretary of Defense established 9 additional cross-functional teams to implement reform initiatives for improving DOD’s business operations. These teams report to the CMO.

DOD Is in the Early Stages of Establishing a Cross-Functional Team to Manage the Transfer of Background Investigations to DOD

In August 2017, the Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum authorizing its first cross-functional team in response to section 911 to address challenges with personnel vetting and background investigation programs. The memorandum notes that a backlog of background investigations affects DOD’s mission readiness, critical programs, and operations. According to the memorandum, this cross-functional team will conduct a full review of current personnel vetting processes to identify a redesigned process for DOD’s security, suitability and fitness, and credential vetting. The cross-functional team’s objectives are to develop options and recommendations to mitigate shortcomings, ensure necessary resourcing, and transform the personnel vetting enterprise. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and the Defense Security Service are leading the efforts to establish the team.

Since we last reported on DOD’s efforts to establish the team, DOD has taken some steps, such as assigning some team members, but has not completed other key steps to staff and establish a direction for the team. In February 2018, we reported that DOD had selected an interim leader for the team. As of May 2018, this person, a non-Senior Executive Service individual from the Defense Security Service, was still serving as the interim leader. Section 911 requires DOD to assign a senior qualified and experienced individual as the leader of the team. According to Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence officials, the department plans to seek nominations from DOD components for a permanent leader from the Senior Executive Service, but does not have a specific timeframe for doing so. DOD also assigned seven full-time personnel to the team, who are now co-located, in accordance with requirements under section 911. These personnel are from the Army, Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service, DOD Consolidated Adjudications Facility, OCMO, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and MITRE Corporation. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence officials estimated that the team may have 20 members when it is fully staffed, but they did not have an estimate of when DOD will assign the remaining team members.

In addition, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence has established priorities for the cross-functional team. For example, the team is required to prepare a project plan incorporating all key components for a DOD enterprise vetting mission—including key milestones, specific objectives, performance metrics, a resourcing plan, and an action plan for tracking key initiatives—which are key steps for establishing the team’s direction. According to Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence officials, as of May 2018, the interim leader was outlining a project plan. Filling key leadership and staff positions will be important for ensuring that the team has the knowledge and expertise from components across the department to effectively develop and implement the plan.

DOD Has Established 9 Cross-Functional Teams to Improve DOD’s Business Operations

The Deputy Secretary of Defense has established 9 additional cross- functional teams since October 2017 to implement reform initiatives intended to improve the quality and productivity of the department’s business operations, including moving toward more use of enterprise services. According to the memoranda appointing the team leaders, these teams support the Secretary of Defense’s focus on creating a more lethal and effective force by allowing the department to reallocate resources from business operations to readiness and to recapitalization of the combat force. OCMO officials stated that they consider these teams to be responsive to section 911 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2017.

Section 911 requires DOD to assign senior qualified and experienced individuals to lead the teams, and the Deputy Secretary of Defense generally appointed senior DOD officials as leaders. Seven leaders were appointed in October 2017, one in November 2017, and one in January 2018. According to OCMO officials, these leaders report to the CMO. As of May 2018, the size of the teams ranged from 5 to 12 members; OCMO officials stated that the size of the teams can vary based on the knowledge and expertise the team needs to implement its initiatives. The teams include representatives from the military departments, functional organizations relevant to the reform topic, and external experts. According to OCMO officials, the team leaders chose their team members from candidates proposed by the military departments and functional organizations. In addition, the members may be assigned on a full-time or part-time basis, and all of the teams have co-located space. Figure 1 provides additional details on the structure of these 9 teams.

OCMO officials stated that these 9 teams are in various stages of implementing their initiatives. For example, the Human Resources team was the most recent team to be established, and OCMO officials stated the team is in the process of finalizing the identification and beginning the implementation of its reform initiatives. Other teams, such as the Financial Management and Information Technology and Business Systems teams, have identified and are in the process of implementing initiatives related to their reform areas.

DOD established the Reform Management Group to identify opportunities for reform and provide support to these 9 cross-functional teams. Chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and facilitated by the CMO and Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, the Reform Management Group provides oversight and guidance, makes decisions on team recommendations, and monitors the teams’ progress, according to OCMO officials. These officials also told us that the Reform Management Group holds weekly meetings to discuss the status of the reform teams’ efforts and provides monthly comprehensive reports on these efforts to the Secretary of Defense.

DOD Has Not Issued Its Organizational Strategy That Outlines Steps for Advancing a Collaborative Culture

OCMO has drafted an organizational strategy, but DOD has not issued the strategy, which section 911 required to be completed by September 1, 2017. OCMO officials told us that they have not completed the strategy because they want to align it with the National Defense Strategy, which was issued in January 2018, and the National Defense Business Operations Plan, which was issued in May 2018. OCMO officials told us that, once the organizational strategy is reviewed internally to align with the National Defense Strategy and the National Defense Business Operations Plan, the CMO plans to coordinate the review and approval of the strategy across components within the department. We previously recommended, and DOD concurred, that the CMO should obtain input on the development of the strategy from key stakeholders, such as the military departments and defense agencies. The officials estimated that DOD components would have about 2 to 3 weeks to provide input on the strategy and that the strategy could be issued as early as July 2018.

We found that, consistent with our recent recommendations, a revised version of the draft organizational strategy addresses the requirements in section 911, including outlining steps for advancing a collaborative culture within the department. In February 2018, we found that the August 2017 version of the draft organizational strategy that we reviewed addressed the two required elements under section 911, but did not outline how it would achieve several future outcomes that advance a collaborative culture within the department, as required by the NDAA. We recommended, and DOD concurred, that the CMO should revise the organizational strategy to outline how it would achieve these outcomes and, in doing so, should consider our nine leading practices on mergers and organizational transformations.

Based on our review of a February 2018 version of the draft organizational strategy, we found that OCMO officials have taken steps to address our recommendation, including identifying potential action steps for the department that align with each of the nine leading practices. For example, consistent with the leading practice for establishing a coherent mission and integrated strategic goals to guide the transformation, OCMO officials revised the draft strategy to propose that the CMO, in coordination with stakeholders, could develop an implementation plan with detailed initiatives for increasing collaboration and information sharing across the department. According to the draft strategy, this plan could include goals and milestones for these initiatives, and the CMO could report periodically on the achievement of the goals. Further, consistent with the leading practice to involve employees to obtain their ideas and gain their ownership for the transformation, OCMO officials proposed that a representative from OCMO could chair an action officer- level governance body to plan and share performance information related to this effort. According to the draft strategy, this governance body would solicit feedback about the related changes, propose changes to new policies and procedures based on the feedback, and manage the implementation and tracking of the established goals. Issuing the organizational strategy—in accordance with section 911 and our prior recommendation—will better position DOD to advance a collaborative culture.

DOD Has Not Implemented Training or Issued Guidance for Its Cross- Functional Teams or Provided Training to Presidential Appointees

DOD has not fulfilled three related requirements of section 911 to guide the implementation of its cross-functional teams, namely to (1) provide training to cross-functional team members and their supervisors, (2) issue guidance on cross-functional teams, and (3) provide training to presidential appointees. OCMO officials stated that they plan to send the guidance and training curricula to the Secretary of Defense for review and approval after the organizational strategy is issued. Table 1 shows the three requirements of section 911, the due dates, and the status of DOD actions, if any, as of May 2018.

DOD Has Not Implemented Training or Issued Guidance for Its Cross-Functional Teams

As of May 2018, OCMO had developed a draft training curriculum for cross-functional team members and their supervisors, but had not provided the required training. In February 2018, we reported that the draft training curriculum addressed all requirements in section 911. OCMO officials stated that after the Secretary of Defense reviews and approves the training curriculum, which will occur after the organizational strategy is issued, they will provide training to the members of the cross- functional team on personnel vetting for background investigations and to the 9 teams implementing reform initiatives.

OCMO has also drafted guidance on cross-functional teams, but DOD has not issued the guidance and did not meet the statutorily-required date of September 30, 2017. Section 911 requires the guidance to address areas such as the decision-making authority of the teams and key practices that senior leaders should follow with regard to leadership, organizational practice, collaboration, and the functioning of cross- functional teams. In February 2018, we reported that OCMO had developed draft guidance for cross-functional teams that addressed six of seven statutorily-required elements and incorporated five of eight leading practices for effective cross-functional teams that we identified in prior work. We recommended, and DOD concurred, that the CMO should fully address all requirements in section 911 and incorporate these leading practices into the guidance. DOD has taken steps to address our recommendation. For example, consistent with the practice for open and regular communication, OCMO revised the guidance to state that the cross-functional team leaders and OCMO will encourage and facilitate continuous communication and information sharing. According to the revised guidance, the team leaders and OCMO will accomplish this through co-location of team members, management practices by cross- functional team leaders that promote a unified team culture and trust, and use of collaborative information technology tools maintained by OCMO. However, as of May 2018, DOD had not issued the guidance. As we reported in February 2018, without initial guidance that fully addresses the required statutory elements in section 911 and incorporates our leading practices, DOD’s cross-functional teams may not be able to consistently and effectively pursue the Secretary of Defense’s strategic objectives or further promote a collaborative culture within the department.

Over Two-Thirds of Presidential Appointees in the Office of the Secretary of Defense Have Been Appointed, but None Have Received Required Training or Waivers

OCMO has developed a draft training curriculum for individuals filling presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed positions in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. However, as of May 2018, DOD had filled 26 of 36 such positions, and none had received the training or been granted a training waiver. Further, section 911 requires these individuals to complete the training within 3 months of their appointment, but 22 have been in their positions longer than 3 months, as shown in figure 2.

In February 2018, we reported that the draft curriculum addressed only one of the four required elements in section 911. Specifically, we found that the draft curriculum addressed the required statutory element for training on the operation of cross-functional teams, but did not incorporate the required statutory elements for leadership, modern organizational practice, or collaboration. We recommended, and DOD concurred, that the CMO should either (1) provide training that includes all of the required elements in section 911 or (2) develop criteria for obtaining a waiver and have the Secretary of Defense request such a waiver from the President for these required elements if the individual possesses—through training and experience—the skill and knowledge otherwise to be provided through a course of instruction. Once the training curriculum is reviewed and approved by the Secretary of Defense, which will occur after the organizational strategy is issued, OCMO officials plan to provide the training on the operation of cross-functional teams to the presidential appointees. These officials stated that DOD plans to develop criteria for presidential appointees who are eligible for a waiver from the training on leadership, modern organizational practice, and collaboration, and to recommend that the Secretary of Defense approve these waivers. Until DOD finalizes actions on this recommendation, the department may have difficulty advancing a collaborative culture, as top leadership commitment is a key practice for a successful organizational transformation.

Agency Comments

We are not making recommendations in this report. We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. DOD concurred with our report. In addition, DOD provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Defense, and DOD’s Chief Management Officer. In addition, the report is available at no charge on our website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2775 or FieldE1@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 key contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.

Appendix I: Prior GAO Reports on the Department of Defense’s Implementation of Section 911 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017

Section 911 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017 included a provision for us—every 6 months after the date of enactment on December 23, 2016, through December 31, 2019—to submit to the defense committees a report setting forth a comprehensive assessment of the actions that DOD has taken pursuant to section 911 during each 6-month period and cumulatively since the NDAA’s enactment. We issued our first report in June 2017, and did not make recommendations. We issued our second report in February 2018, and made four recommendations to improve DOD’s implementation of section 911. Table 2 identifies the two prior GAO reports on DOD’s implementation of section 911 and the status of the four recommendations from our February 2018 report.

Appendix II: Summary of Requirements in Section 911 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017

Section 911 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 requires the Secretary of Defense to take several actions. Table 3 summarizes some of these requirements, the due date, and the date completed, if applicable, as of May 2018.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Margaret Best (Assistant Director), Tracy Barnes, Arkelga Braxton, William Carpluk, Adelle Dantzler, Michael Holland, William Lamping, Amie Lesser, Ned Malone, Judy McCloskey, Sheila Miller, Richard Powelson, Terry Richardson, Ron Schwenn, Jared Sippel, Sarah Veale, and Tina Won Sherman made key contributions to this report.