1. 1 Performance Management Presentation Support Foreign Staff Exchange Program Team Members: Team Leader: Candelario Zapata Team Members: Brian Daly, Stephanie Hartsock, Vivian Weaver, Amy Powers, Michelle Mejia ORS National Institutes of Health 14 Jan 04

2. 2 Table of Contents Main Presentation PM Template ……………………………….……………………… 3 Customer Perspective……………………….…………………… 5 Internal Business Process Perspective……………………………………… 20 Learning and Growth Perspective…………………………………………… 28 Financial Perspective……………………………………… 37 Conclusions and Recommendations………………………………………….. 49 Appendices…………………………………………………………..51

3. 3

4. 4 Relationship Among Performance Objectives

5. 5 Customer Perspective

6. 6

7. 7 Customer Scorecard Methodology DIS Team met with OQM to determine optimal customer assessment methodology Customized ORS Customer Scorecard into two surveys to meet Team’s needs Survey of ICs Survey of Visiting Program Participants Determined method of survey distribution Distribute survey to IC Admin Staff with completed document-preparation package Distributed survey for Foreign Scientist at orientation sessions Data collected during the months of August - Nov 2004 Completed surveys were returned to OQM Survey data were entered into a database, analyzed, and reviewed with OQM/ DIS team Results were compared with prior year Methodology was slightly adjusted to ensure data integrity

8. 8 Survey Results of IC Satisfaction FY04 compared to FY03

9. 9 FY04/FY03 Satisfaction Ratings on Specific Service Aspects by Role UnsatisfactoryOutstanding Mean Response N = 15 N = 36 N = 30 N = 35 N = 34 N = 36 N = 30 N = 36 N = 14 N = 2 Groups significantly different (p <.05) ** FY04 Responses include only those who have taken training in the past.

10. 10 FY04 Satisfaction Ratings on Specific Service Aspects by Role (cont.) UnsatisfactoryOutstanding Mean Response N = 35 N = 37 N = 35 N = 37 N = 35 N = 37 N = 34 N = 36 N = 37 N = 32 N = 2 N = 37 * Groups significantly different (p <.05)

11. 11 Survey Results of Visiting Program Participants FY04 compared to FY03

12. 12 FY04 Satisfaction Ratings on Specific Service Aspects by Role UnsatisfactoryOutstanding Mean Response N = 45 N = 111 N = 45 N = 110 N = 45 N = 107 N = 113 N = 20 Groups significantly different (p <.05) ** Groups significantly different (p <.01)

13. 13 FY04 Satisfaction Ratings on Specific Service Aspects by Role (cont.) UnsatisfactoryOutstanding Mean Response N = 48 N = 109 N = 48 N = 108 N = 48 N = 107 N = 46 N = 107 N = 100 N = 43 N = 23 N = 99 Groups significantly different (p <.05) ** Groups significantly different (p <.01)

14. 14 C1b: Date in/ Date Out (avg time from case logged in to completion) Avg for FY04 is approximately 35.5 days Avg for FY03 was approximately 42 days

15. 15 Customer Perspective (cont.)

16. 16 C2a: Volume of emails, phone questions, on dates/status (based on 24-week sample compared to DynCorp study sample in ‘02) Note: “Avg” displays the avg number of hours spent by each professional on these activities in each year

17. 17 C2b: Number of Seminars & Workshops Held Number Held 41 62 70

18. 18 Customer Perspective What does the data tell us? We met our customer satisfaction goal but need to continue to find ways of providing them answers to their questions, and improved turn-around. To accomplish this, we need to find ways to decrease the volume of email and telephone (status check) traffic so that our professionals can focus on processing cases. (Our current estimates-based on the Dyn Corp study, tells us that we are dedicating 1.5 FTEs to this issue alone). We need to continue to provide training to our customers so that they know how to get the data they need in a timely and “user-friendly” manner.

19. 19 Customer Perspective What actions are planned? Refine and conduct “point of sale” customer survey (Customer Scorecard) in 2005 to ensure customer satisfaction is increased. Conduct customer “out reach” activities to better educate customers: Handbooks Flyers Updated websites Festival participation Continue to increase and leverage the number of group training opportunities for customers.

20. 20 Internal Business Process Perspective

21. 21 Internal Business Process Perspective

22. 22 IB1a. Pending Cases (FY03 & FY04) Note: Average Pending cases for FY 03 was 358 Average Pending cases for FY 04 was 327 Trend shows a gradual reduction in pending cases Cases

23. 23 IB1b. Volume of Scientists Served compared to Pending Cases (FY03 & FY04) Trend shows an increase in volume of cases Volume Note: We are gradually reducing our backlog, even though volume is increasing

24. 24 Volume of Daily Visits

25. 25 IB1c. Number of Redundancies Eliminated According to DynCorp study, at one point we entered duplicate data,such as name, (into various systems or onto forms) up to 11 times. We planned to reduce this duplication of effort by 75% with the implementation of new automation. We now only re-enter data on average 2.76 times We reduced this duplication of effort by 75% with the implementation of new automation.

26. 26 Internal Business Process Perspective What does the data tell you? Our initiatives and action items are helping us to reduce our backlog even though the volume (demand) is growing We have eliminated redundancies that were inherent in our processes. We need to continue doing this. It is clear from the data that we have reduced re-entry of data on over 360 cases from 11 times to an average of 2.76. We will continue to reduce this number.

27. 27 Internal Business Process Perspective Actions We plan to implement a significant upgrade to our automated systems that should help eliminate re- entry work by an additional 25%. This action, when examined with some of our other actions, should help us to significantly reduce our backlog of pending cases; This upgrade should also help us file and access our data, and The upgrade should help provide our customers with quicker answers to their questions by offering online access.

28. 28 Learning and Growth Perspective

29. 29 Learning and Growth Perspective

30. 30 L1a. Training Expenses by FY

31. 31 L1b. Percent of people sent to training

32. 32 Learning and Growth Perspective (cont.)

33. 33 L2a. Number of staff (contract/ in- house) assigned to admin tasks (Data from DynCorp Study) Note: If we assume that there are 1800 (adjusted) hours in a person year, then 9500 hours would justify 5FTEs. 4.5 staff are currently assigned

34. 34 L2b.Number of Hours Spent on Data Entry Projected Data based on FY 02 DynCorp study estimating the average time required to enter J1 Visa data. Hours

35. 35 Learning and Growth Perspective What the data tells us Due to the nature of visa processing activity, we have, and will continue to have, overwhelming administrative demands (forms, data entry, phone inquiries, etc). Our professionals continue to stay current and trained, however much of their time is dedicated to administrative issues. We feel we are underutilizing our professionals. We need to reduce the backlog of cases (discussed earlier) while continuing to address the administrative requirements. We significantly decreased the number of times data needed to be entered, and therefore reduced the overall time ISs must dedicate to data entry. We must continue to provide the right tools for our staff to enable them to do their jobs.

36. 36 Learning and Growth Perspective Actions Last year we reallocated admin functions to support staff. This enabled our professional staff to be better utilized and we should see a decrease in our backlog. In addition, the admin group centralized functions and re-organized. We plan to supplement our support staff with contractor staff as well as leverage in-house support staff. We also believe that our new software modules will significantly reduce data entry requirements and, therefore, reduce the time ISs must spend entering data.

37. 37 Financial Perspective

38. 38 Financial Perspective

39. 39 F1a. Percent of New System Modules Implemented We had to adjust our implementation plan to accommodate more thorough testing

40. 40 F1b. Percent of Budgeted amount spent for new modules 40%80% 100%

41. 41 Financial Perspective (cont.)

42. 42 This year we gathered data to support our calculation of unit cost. Our plan included: Track the total number volume of our services by IC Track the usage of service by type of visa Track the time spent on each visa type to determine the average Divide this number into our budget number to determine our “unit” cost. Work with the budget office to formalize our unit cost. F2a. Unit Cost

43. 43 F2a. Total Visas Processed by Type and IC Number Processed IC Type of Visa

44. 44 F2a (cont.) Visas Processed (by IC) The biggest demand for our services comes from NCI

45. 45 F2a (cont.) Visas Processed by IC (FY 04) Most of the Visas Processed are J-1’s

46. 46 F2a. (cont.) Visas Processed by Fiscal Year and Type Total Visas Processed Demand is fairly consistent, but has increased slightly every year

47. 47 Financial Perspective What the data tells us? Our strategy and objectives are relying heavily on automation to relieve much of our current bottle-neck and eliminate redundancies. Although we did not get the modules implemented during FY 04 (as originally planned): We have a preliminary design for these new modules. We have a budget and spending plan for the implementation of new system modules. We have tracked and analyzed volumes (visas processed by IC and by type)

48. 48 Financial Perspective A ctions We will closely monitor and track the progress of implementing new automation. This includes applying our detailed schedule and monitoring the spending plan to ensure that progress is made. We also have developed and justified our definition of “unit” so that we can rationalize our unit and total cost. We have decreased the time it takes to process each case, and are handling a larger volume. We have increased our capacity without increasing our costs to provide these services.

49. 49 Conclusions

50. 50 Conclusions from PMP Our Workload is high and continues to grow. We must continue to find better ways of completing our administrative tasks so that we can reduce our backlog and increase customer satisfaction with the services we provide. We have relieved our professional staff of some of the clerical burden by shifting these admin tasks to support staff. We have also moved away from individual orientations and to more “group” orientations. Our major initiatives for ’04 included our focus on upgrading our automated systems and on establishing and justifying our unit costs. Development is close to complete- we still need to complete testing; We have developed a better handle on our definition of unit for our unit cost calculations Although the volume we handle has gone up, the data shows that our efficiency has improved.

51. 51 Appendix Page 2 & 3 of template (see pages 52 & 53) Internal Business Process Perspective IB2a: Customer Participation………………………………………… 54 IB2b: Number of “clicks”……………………………………………. 55 IB2c: Number of customers attending training……………………. 56 IB3a: Number of SOPs Completed………………………………. 57 IB3b: Results of Audit……………………………………………. 58

52. 52 Template Detail (Page 2)

53. 53 Template Detail (Page 3)

54. 54 IB2a. Customer Participation in Data Entry (Forecasted Data only) This forecast is dependent on completion of system implementation

55. 55 IB2b. Number of “clicks” Note: Volume of hits to our web site went up dramatically in the past 18 months, which means our customers are using the site more.

56. 56 IB2c. Number of Customers attending Seminars and Workshops (by type) (thro Dec) 818 1562 249

57. 57 I3a. Number of SOPs Completed Note: 5 SOPs are needed, 2 have been completed so far -forecasted-

58. 58 I3b. Results of Audits (files) for consistency (forecasted data) Audit procedure has not yet been developed