Download
fy02 asa presentation lead and manage ors n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
FY02 ASA Presentation Lead and Manage ORS PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
FY02 ASA Presentation Lead and Manage ORS

FY02 ASA Presentation Lead and Manage ORS

410 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

FY02 ASA Presentation Lead and Manage ORS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. FY02 ASA Presentation Lead and Manage ORS Presented by: Shirl Eller, Director, Division of Intramural Research Services Office of Research Services National Institutes of Health 18 November 2002

  2. Customer Segmentation ORS leaders have 3 primary customer segments: ORS program staff NIH community at large NIH senior leaders/decision makers Groups surveyed/response rates: ORS Leadership Group = 66% ORS Executive Committee = 100% NIH Senior Leaders = 29% NIH OD; IC & Scientific Directors, EOs, ORSAC, FARB

  3. Unique Customer Measures • ORS program managers’/supervisors’ perception of involvement in decision making and business planning. • Key external customers perception of the value ORS provides to the NIH.

  4. Perceptions of Decision MakingFY02 Mean Ratings Strongly Agree Neither Strongly Disagree

  5. Perceptions of Decision MakingORSEC FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings Strongly Agree Neither Strongly Disagree

  6. Perceptions of Decision MakingLeadership Group FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings Strongly Agree Neither Strongly Disagree

  7. Conclusions of Decision Making • EC members believe they have input into/authority to make decisions • LG members believe they have input into/authority to make decisions in their own program areas • LG members have lower perceptions of decision-making authority on improving ORS, ORS-wide initiatives, & future direction of ORS • FY01 & FY02 ratings approximately the same for both groups • Assumption: Expect LG perceptions to change with new organizational structure & governance model

  8. Perceptions of Information AccessFY02 Mean Ratings Strongly Agree Neither Strongly Disagree

  9. Perceptions of Information AccessORSEC FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings Strongly Agree Neither Strongly Disagree

  10. Perceptions of Information AccessLeadership Group FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings Strongly Agree Neither Strongly Disagree

  11. Conclusions - Information Access • EC members believe they have easy access to information needed and that program managers receive timely information. • LG members rate access to & timeliness information slightly lower • FY02 ratings slightly lower than FY01 ratings for both groups indicating need to focus on better communication tools • Assumption: Expect LG perceptions to change with new organizational structure & governance model

  12. Perceptions of Understanding of ORS Business ProcessesFY02 Mean Ratings Strongly Agree Neither Strongly Disagree

  13. Conclusions - Understanding of Business Process • LG members’ overall perceptions of their understanding of business processes slightly higher than EC members’ perceptions • Most ratings near midpoint of scale indicating room for improvement • Varied responses on 6 questions indicating respondents have very different perceptions of program manager understanding of business processes

  14. Ratings of Satisfaction with Performance of ORS Leadership during FY02 Unsatisfied Outstanding Mean Rating

  15. Conclusions – NIH Sr. Leader Survey • Ratings of satisfaction with ORS leadership were all above the mid-point of the scale • Most satisfied with how ORS advices NIH community on situations that impact daily activities • Least satisfied with how ORS communicates with senior leaders about the determination of its fees • Competence, handling of problems, reliability, responsiveness the highest rated dimensions that are important when considering ORS products/services • Comments reinforced ratings data • Positive about handling of campus and security-related matters • Communicating methods for setting fees, managing facility issues needs improvement

  16. Conclusions from Deployment Flowcharts • Our Service Group completed 2 deployment flowcharts that cut across all 4 of our discrete services • Budget Decision-making process • Minimize number of iterations and provide more time for program mangers to accurately compile data • Organizational Change Communications process • Improve communications down and across ORS • Apply lessons learned during successful DSFM realignment to current restructuring efforts

  17. Process Measures • Budget Decision-making • Track lead time program managers have for initial development • Track type & number of questions at each stage • Track number of iterations at each stage • Study relationship between days allocated for development and number of iterations • Assumption: More development time = more accuracy, fewer iterations

  18. Process Measures • Organizational Change Communications • Track effectiveness of organizational change communications • Use process flowchart to identify lessons learned from DSFM realignment communications and apply to current restructuring effort • Track and classify questions received through ORS Employee Hotlines (e-mail and phone) • Team developed automated web-based information management tool to collect and categorize data

  19. Learning and Growth Perspective No EEO complaints, ER or ADR cases About 1 and 3/4 awards per employee About 8% turnover About 2 days sick leave per employee All data within ORS mid to low range

  20. Readiness Index • Critically evaluate Managers and staff competencies and describe strategies for addressing gaps • Critically evaluate tools and technology supporting discrete services and describe strategies for meeting deficits • Forecast ability to meet future demands on service group with and without specific intervention • Report on training infrastructure

  21. Proposed Approach to Readiness Index Part 1:Manager’s Competencies

  22. Proposed Approach to Readiness Index Part 2: Staff Competencies

  23. Proposed Approach to Readiness Index Part 3: Tools and Technology

  24. Proposed Approach to Readiness Index Part 4: Capacity

  25. Readiness IndexPart 5: Training infrastructure Is there a training plan for staff supporting this service group?  Yes  No Is the cost of the training plan within approved operating levels?  Yes  No What is the total budget for training? ______ What is the average and range of planned expenditure per person? Total _______ Average ________ Range

  26. Asset Utilization Measures ORS leaders attention is focused in three areas: Program activities = 64% Corporate activities = 34% Professional development = 2% ORS leaders time is spent in three areas: Management and service delivery = 89% Supervision = 9% Professional development = 2%

  27. Unique Financial Measures • Various views of overhead as a percent of program budget • ORS Services Management & Support - percent of overhead to total program • Division support as a percentage of Division budget • Division support as a percentage of program staff • ORS Senior Leader Compensation

  28. ORS OD & Division Support as a % of Total Operations Direct Program Activities in 000’s Total Operations in 000’s ORS OD as % of Total Operations Division Support as % of Direct Operations

  29. Recommendations • Develop tools to collect and analyze readiness information • Identify competencies • Evaluate tools and technology • Develop strategies to address gaps • Develop and implement IDPs • Develop and implement corporate communications strategy • Information management tools • Processes for information collection and dissemination • Use data to guide implementation of restructuring plan and new governance model

  30. Appendices • Process maps • Analysis of Lead and Manage Survey data

  31. FY02 ORS Customer Survey Data for the Annual Self Assessments Service Group 39: Lead and Manage ORS ORSEC and Leadership Group Surveys 11 November 2002 Condensed version

  32. Summary of Survey Results • Survey distribution • Customer segmentation • FY02 results, comments, and comparisons with FY01 • Decision making • Information access • ORS processes • Resources • Conclusions • Appendices • Individual question results • Training detail

  33. Lead and Manage ORSFY02 Survey Distribution Number of Surveys Distributed 161 ORSEC 16 Leadership Group 145 NIH Sr. Leaders 109 Number of Surveys Returned 111 ORSEC 15 Leadership Group 96 NIH Sr. Leaders 32 Response Rate 69% ORSEC 100% Leadership Group 66% NIH Sr. Leaders 29%

  34. Lead and Manage ORSFY02 Customer Segmentation

  35. Perceptions of Decision MakingFY02 Mean Ratings Strongly Agree Neither Strongly Disagree

  36. Perceptions of Decision MakingFY02 Comments • ORS needs to implement some information management strategies, processes and applications. Better communications up and down the line can lead to better decision making. • Need to improve communication & education across the organization. Overall, the staff doesn’t have an understanding of what many of the divisions do. Had talked about tours of divisions – would be a good start. Additionally, need to solicit input from stakeholders and then move to make a decision quickly – too many things hang out there for too long. BUT, need to communicate the final decision to all appropriate parties; sometimes this loop isn’t closed making staff appear incompetent. • Include Program level folks, aka branch chief in more information and decisions processes. Some division directors keep ORS management much too close to their chests. They prevent critical information from flowing up and down the organization. Hold leaders accountable for action and acting on decisions made. Clarify what decisions will be made by whom. Some should be executive – Steve’s, some by the senior leaders for all of ORS, some by Division directors for their organizations, some by the branch chiefs for all of ORS, some by branch chiefs for their own organizations. • Make decisions concerning A-76 and FAIR act and not evaluate to Nth degree and hold up recruitment/promotion actions. • What is the Process? • Seldom are the rank and file involved with decision making; getting them involved prior to decisions been made may prove to be beneficial.

  37. Perceptions of Decision MakingFY02 Comments (cont.) • Keep ORS employees apprised of important issues affecting ORS through a web newsletter and always solicit comments. • Let employees have inputs as much as possible. This would be a more fair system in the decision making process and possibly meet the needs of both management and the customers. • Better communication needs to be maintained. Often decisions are made which when taken at face value have no impact on this Division but when implemented in fact do. This happens because there is a general lack of understanding of the total services provided. • Embrace diversity at all levels. • To improve the decision making process, ORS must function as a corporation. ORS must truly understand the service groups and what they do to make proper decisions relating to all ORS services. • Decisions should be mission-driven and rooted in delegation of authority, with more emphasis on preservation and viability of assets and less emphasis on political expediency. • Information needs to flow down. Utilize the web more. • It seems to me that the decisions have already been made up in ORS upper management and then they attempt to "sell" the decisions down the line, or give the rest of the ORS the illusion of having real input into the decisions. • Transparency and accountability

  38. Perceptions of Decision MakingFY02 Comments (cont.) • When making decisions consult with the individuals, who are closest to the effects or execution, of the decision. They may share potential outcomes of the final decision, that may yield better results, as opposed to decisions made by individual layers. • Have decision making individuals understand the impact of their decisions in relation to the employees they affect. Keep employees informed and reduce time it takes to change process • Continue in the direction you are currently heading. • Understand better the services needed and the services provided. There is a lot of talent here and we can change to provide the most up to date service required by the occupants we serve. • At this time I feel that I have sufficient opportunity to make decisions about the program that allow it to function and meet the needs of the ORS. My only suggestion is to continue to allow the existing structure to remain in effect since it works very well. • Solicit more information from people before actually making a decision. • Solicit feedback from your front line people to see if the decision made is workable, before going public with the idea. • I recommend a section on the ORS web site dedicated to posting of employee suggestions and good ideas. Managers could periodically scan the entries not only for inspiration, but to gauge the overall attitudes of the workforce.

  39. Perceptions of Decision MakingFY02 Comments (cont.) • Create the One-ORS which is not working. A lot of decisions are made "behind closed doors" and do not include everyone it should. • Improve communication, with consistent message. • Limit micromanaging, actually delegate authority/responsibility. • Use the "chain of command" concept. Have branch or section chiefs consult with next line of supervision before implementing policy. Hire and promote on basis of job qualifications only. • Good headway is being made toward providing decision making authority at the lowest possible level. Simply continue with this concept. • When information is requested that is needed in order to make appropriate decisions, ORS needs to allow an appropriate length of time to provide the information. Too many times, the information is rushed and used out of context.

  40. Perceptions of Decision MakingORSEC FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings Strongly Agree Neither Strongly Disagree

  41. Perceptions of Decision MakingLeadership Group FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings Strongly Agree Neither Strongly Disagree