1. NSF FY 2006 Assessment: Organizational Excellence Advisory Committee for Business and Operations May 18, 2006

2. The Organizational Excellence Goal Organizational Excellence: An agile, innovative organization that fulfills its mission through leadership in state-of the-art business practices

3. In the current draft of the 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, the Organizational Excellence goal has been changed to Stewardship Stewardship: Support excellence in science and engineering research and education through a capable and responsive organization. The Stewardship goal is meant to be more inclusive Foundation- wide. Long-term investment priorities in the draft Strategic Plan attest to this more wide-ranging view.

4. Background for Current Year (FY 2006) Assessment Took into account observations from the Committee on the 2005 Assessment of Organizational Excellence –Clarify the connection between activities that address the OE goals and NSF’s overall mission and purpose. –Emphasize strategic versus tactical accomplishments. –Highlight leadership in government-wide initiatives and how these initiatives benefit the Foundation. Noted that this assessment year is “between” Strategic Plans This year’s assessment is more mission-focused and strategically oriented

5. Key Questions for Committee Focus Does the evidence presented support NSF’s determination that it has (or has not) “demonstrated significant achievement” for the indicator? What changes in approach or methodology be considered as NSF develops an assessment framework for the Stewardship goal, as outlined in the draft Strategic Plan for FY 2006-2011?

6. Performance Indicator: Human Capital Management Workforce Planning supports NSF’s Strategic Plan in several ways: Improves capacity of the workforce to work effectively in a business environment Helps to respond to the changing nature of work and workload Increases the effectiveness of human capital techniques and tools FY 2006 Focus Develop an agency-wide Workforce Planning process Results Defined framework Implemented Workforce Planning process Developed workload and FTE models Developed initial agency-wide Workforce Plan

7. Performance Indicator: Human Capital Management Indicator Assessment: Fully Successful NSF determined that it has demonstrated significant achievement in Human Capital Management

8. Performance Indicators: Technology-Enabled Business Processes Leadership in Government-Wide Grants Initiatives Increase Efficiency of Proposal and Award Process Excellence in IT Management Security Improve Customer Satisfaction

9. Leadership in Government-Wide Grants Initiatives Grants.gov Grants Management Line of Business Grants.gov Find- 100% posted Apply- 75% posted in FY 2006 FastLane/Grants.gov Integration Complete Grants Management Line of Business NSF was selected as consortium lead for the Grants Management Line of Business (GMLoB) in Q1 2006

10. Leadership in Government-Wide Grants Initiatives Key Activities- Grants Management Line of Business Develop High-Level Business Case Pilot a Grants Management service with another agency (US Dept of Agriculture) Indicator Assessment: Partially Successful

11. Increase Efficiency of Proposal and Award Process Continue to support NSF’s goal to reduce paper-based proposal processing through more extensive use of web-based eJacket. Results Dwell time has been reduced Non-Awards: nearly all processed through eJacket Committee of Visitors (COV) module: will enable groups to view jackets and other documents electronically. Incorporates Conflict of Interest functionality. eCorrespondence module: improved functionality and automation will allow for seamless, workflow-oriented processing.

12. Increase Efficiency of Proposal and Award Process Next Steps Awards processing improvement –70% of volume is non-awards Indicator Assessment: Fully Successful

13. Excellence in IT Management The re-tooled CIO Advisory Group (CIOAG) met initially in May 2005. The CIOAG will focus on three key technology management areas: –Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) –Performance Management and Risk assessment –Enterprise Architecture (EA) The cross-Directorate CIOAG team has met five times and has addressed key challenges in these management areas that has and will benefit NSF’s IT investments and investment strategy. Indicator Assessment: Partially Successful

14. Security NSF continues to do a good job balancing the need to maintain an open, collaborative environment for scientific research and discovery while assuring that we protect our information and assets from an increasingly hostile threat environment. Results The House Committee on Government Reform recently graded 24 Federal Agencies on security. The overall grade for the government was “D+”. NSF’s score rose from “C+” to “A” in 2006. Continued clean Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) audit results. 100% of major applications certified and accredited. Indicator Assessment: Fully Successful

15. Improve Customer Satisfaction The second annual NSF-wide Customer Satisfaction Survey was conducted in December 2005 –24% of all employees (344) responded [96% confidence level with 5% margin of error]. –Over half of the respondents provided valuable comments –Most respondents self-identified Directorate worked and role (e.g., PO, Manager, non-Manager, etc.). Results Customers generally satisfied with services –All services (10 rated) increased their scores

16. Improve Customer Satisfaction Next Steps Formulate Action Plans to address areas of significance/lower scores –Strive for steady improvement Indicator Assessment: Partially Successful

17. Summary: Technology-Enabled Business Processes IndicatorSuccess Leadership in Government-Wide Grants InitiativesPartial Increase Efficiency of Proposal and Award ProcessFull Excellent in IT ManagementPartial SecurityFull Improve Customer SatisfactionPartial NSF determined that it has demonstrated significant achievement in technology-enabled business processes

18. Performance Assessment Indicator Develop and use performance assessment tools and measures to provide an environment of continuous improvement in NSF’s intellectual investments as well as its management effectiveness

19. Acronyms  GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993  PART: Program Assessment Rating Tool  AC/GPA: Advisory Committee for GPRA Performance Assessment

20. FY 2006 Focus Areas 1.PART Integration 2.AC/GPA Process Improvements

21. PART Integration  Emphasis on integrating PART with ongoing program management activities.  Efficiency measures tie directly to merit review process (such as dwell time).  Output measures focus on NSF-wide objectives, such as broadening participation and promoting partnerships.  Developing “Improvement Plans” for completed PARTs that focus on NSF-wide challenges:  Improving transparency in Merit Review.  Improving project reporting.  Assessment: Fully Successful in FY 2006

22. AC/GPA Process Improvements  Addressed more than 50 committee member comments on process improvements.  Held training sessions on writing nuggets for NSF program officers.  Reached 200+ NSF Program Staff (~1/3 of Pgm. Officers)  Convened orientation teleconferences for AC/GPA members at start of assessment process.  Clarified task & developed resources for OE subgroup.  Assessment: Fully Successful in FY 2006

23. Summary/Conclusion: Performance Assessment IndicatorSuccess PART IntegrationFull AC/GPA Process ImprovementsFull NSF has determined that it has demonstrated significant achievement in Performance Assessment in FY 2006.

24. Key Questions for Committee Focus Does the evidence presented support NSF’s determination that it has (or has not) “demonstrated significant achievement” for the indicator? What changes in approach or methodology be considered as NSF develops an assessment framework for the Stewardship goal, as outlined in the draft Strategic Plan for FY 2006-2011?