2. 1 Performance Management Conference Conference(ORS/ORF) January 21, 2004 http://www.nih.gov/od/ors/od/oqm/pm/index_pm.htm

3. 2 Welcome  Customers  ORS Advisory Committee members  ORS/ORF PM teams  ORS/ORF personnel  NIH sponsors/colleagues  Visitors

4. 3 Mr. Steve Ficca Associate Director for Research Services

5. 4 Purpose of Performance Management (PM)  Purpose:  Institutionalize a process to continually improve the performance of the services delivered to the NIH.  Demonstrate the degree to which the ORS/ORF service providers are adding value  Identify new ways to improve service performance even further  President’s Management Agenda – Budget and Performance Integration, and Competitive Sourcing

6. 5 Context: Some FY03-04 Business Realities  Competitive sourcing (A-76)  New organization (ORFDO)  Reorganization within both ORS and ORF  Security  Hiring freeze

7. 6 Number of Improvements by Type  OQM developed systematic method to gather and quantify improvements during FY03  24 quantifiable improvements achieved to date:  Provide Print and Digital Media Services reduced their space by several 1,000 sq ft for estimated cost avoidance of $200k  Provide Library Services has maintained the unit cost of an “information unit” while the number of units rose by 35%  Conduct Collaborative Research had a 16% increase in the number of professional presentations delivered  Provide Basic Animal Life support had a 113% increase in animal holding capacity through building renovations and purchasing new cages

8. 7 Number of Improvements by Type Provide Animal Research Services had an 18% increase in ICU utilization through improved record keeping Provide Administrative Services reduced FOIA cycle time by 35 days through enhancing staff competencies

9. 8 Number of Published Service Group Success Stories

10. 9

11. 10 Mr. Antonio R. Rodriguez Assistant Director for Quality Management Office of Research Services

12. 11 Program Area X X11X12 X13X14 DS SG X1 ORS Service Hierarchy  Service Hierarchy  Discrete services (DS)  Service Groups (SG)  Program Areas (PA) Y11Y12 Y13 SG Y1 Y21Y22 SG Y2 Program Area Y DS X21X22 SG X2 DS X23

13. 12 *Adapted from “Planning Is Dead, Long Live Planning, “ Jos. Fuller, Across the Board, March 1998 Today’s Agencies Are Expected to Be: Competitive (sourcing) Accountable Customer-friendly Fiscally responsible External world is highly unstable so planning systems must deal with uncertainty 1.Strategy is a Hypothesis 2.Strategy is a Dynamic Process 3.Strategy is Everyone’s Job 4. 4.Organizations are systems that must sense, experiment, learn, and adapt 5. 5.Strategy is an articulation of the direction we want to take an organization Why do we need to do this?

14. 13 PM Overall Process Day-to-day (PM Framework) Day-to-day (PM Framework) On-going findings & recommendations On-going findings & recommendations On-going implementation/ improvement Business Plans (Budget/ABM) Business Function

15. 14

16. 15

17. 16 Performance Management Roles and Responsibilities ORS Executive Board (ORSEB) ORS Management Council (ORSMC) PM Team Leader PM Team Members Office of Quality Management (OQM) OQM Sponsored Consultants

18. 17 What Do Our Customers Really Want? (Outcome or “End -State”)  What are we really trying to accomplish as a Service Group?  What outcomes are we offering customers with our Service Group /Discrete Service offerings?

19. 18 Customers Needs Satisfied Innovation Cycle “Innovation” Develop Services Identify Customers /Create Service Offering Operations Cycle “Operational Excellence” Communicate the Services Deliver the Products / Services Service Cycle “Service Quality” Service the Customer Customers Needs Identified Generic Value Chain Model Internal Business Process EXAMPLE

20. 19 What is Your Value Chain?  How do we get new work? Where does it come from?  What processes do we need to perform really well?  How do we complete the work?  How do we deliver it to our clients/ customers?  How can we improve our processes to meet attributes identified in the VP?

21. 20

22. 21 Pathology: Case Completion Time Note: Average turnaround time has significantly improved in FY02

23. 22 What Improvements Can Be Made in Our Internal Processes?  What do we need to do better to make our clients/ customers happy?  Can we be more efficient or more effective at what we do?

24. 23 Learning & Growth Typical Learning & Growth Objectives Skills & Competencies Knowledge & Technology Assets Climate for Action Strategic skills Training levels Core competencies Strategic technologies Strategic databases Experience capture Best practices Patents, copyrights Leadership Accountability / empowerment Alignment Results Oriented Teaming

25. 24 What do our employees need to help us achieve our goals?  What Skills Need to be Addressed?  What will the Knowledge and skills needs be over the next 5 years?  Do we need to train/recruit/contract out?

26. 25 Unit Cost

27. 26 What is in it for the NIH and ORS? Systematic improvement of performance Information for Decision making Evidence of performance levels Justification for resource needs Greater personnel involvement (decision-making, ownership, pursuing improvement)

28. 27 Performance Management and A-76  Better Performance Data  Better PWS  Better PWS, better:  Competition (e.g., less room for confusion)  Better QASP and overall management of the contract

29. 28   Every function, before facing an A-76 competition, should:   Identify the boundaries of its “span of contribution / value chain,” and manage it, cross-functionally   Continually find and implement better ways to do the work   Evaluate every position before filling it, and determine whether the work should be contracted out   Must be as efficient and effective as possible, so future MEOs do not have to be drastically different to win Performance Management and A-76 (cont.)

30. 29 Data / Results

31. 30 Percent of Service Groups with completed PMPs (as of Quarter 1 FY04)

32. Percent of Teams with PMPs Reviewed by Program Management (as of Quarter 1 FY04)  ORS  Total Number of Teams33  PMP’s Reviewed by Management24 73%  ORF  Total Number of Teams13  PMP’s Reviewed Management 9 69%  Overall  Total Number of Teams46  PMP’s Reviewed by Management33 72%

33. Percent of service groups with ongoing data collection (as of Quarter 1 FY04)  ORS  Total Number of Teams33  Teams with ongoing data collection26 79%  ORF  Total Number of Teams13  Teams with ongoing data collection 6 46%  Overall  Total Number of Teams46  Teams with ongoing data collection 32 70%

34. 33 Relationship Between Total Hours Spent with Service Groups and PMP Implementation Progress (as of Quarter 1 FY04) Note 1: Total hours include both hours spent by OQM and Consultants for all effort codes. Team progress is defined as percent completion of 14 key elements of the 2003 PM process Note 2: Total Hours do not include hours spent on OQM’s own PMP (Provide quality, performance, and organizational improvement services

35. 34 Number of OQM data analyses services provided (as of Quarter 1 FY04)  33 Total  Types of Data Analyses Provided:  Assisted DFP in developing benchmark study  Analyzed cycle time data for Department of Veterinary Resources (DVR) nutrition program  Analyzed cycle time data for DVR pharmacy program  Analyzed Process data for DVR histopathologies  With Division of Facilities Planning (DFP), developed large scale project scheduling system to track project status

36. 35 Types of Data Analyses Done (Cont.)  Analyzed processing time data for DVR Comprehensive full panels  Analyzed processing time data for DVR routine and rush PCR’s  Analyzed data on number of design & submittal reviews for Department of the Fire Marshall (DFM) new permit process  Analyzed five years of emergency response (time) data for Fire Department  Documented existing process to maintain JCAHO accreditations at the Clinical Center and maintain AALAC accreditations in NIH animal facilities.  Developed and administered customer surveys for 22 ORS/ORF Service Providers

37. Customer Satisfaction Surveys Developed and Administered in FY03: Perform master and facilities planning Maintain roads, parking areas, and landscaping Manage and administer worksite enrichment programs – vendor survey Manage and administer worksite enrichment programs – climate assessment Provide security guard services Manage solid waste streams Maintain safe working environment – radiation safety Maintain safe working environment – biological safety cabinets Maintain safe working environment – occupational medical services Maintain safe working environment – pest management Procure and deliver animal product – animal procurement Procure and deliver animal product – animal transportation Provide animal research services – phenotyping Provide library services – translations Number of OQM data analysis service provided (as of Quarter 1 FY04) con’t.

38. Conclusionand What Should Happen Next?

39. 38 Conclusion and Next Steps  Significant progress achieved in FY03 in spite of “additional” challenges (resource intensive)  We need to raise the performance bar:  Every service group should contribute at least one verifiable “bottom-line” improvement such as evidence of:  Higher customer satisfaction  Savings  Cost avoidance  Shortened cycle times  Improved QOWL ORS Program Areas should have their own PMP and scorecards (cross-functional/service groups) ORF should continue to refine higher-level PMPs and scorecards ORS and ORF should report organization-wide performance results on an annual basis

40. 39

41. 40

42. 41 Mr. Leonard Taylor Acting Director of Office of Research Facilities, Development and Operations

43. 42 Break Concurrent Sessions Start at 9:15 ORS in rooms E1 and E2 ORF in room D