Welcome to Metrics and Analysis on GovLoop – improving federal procurement through proactive metrics & analysis is what 2009 and beyond is all about.
Open Government TV Media at Asia Tech Net AFCEA 2010 Conference For Adecco.
October 25, 2010 at 4:23 pm #113533
The discussion of metrics, performance, and analysis is so key to the advancement of Gov 2.0 and government taking its own temperature on how well government it is performing since the Open Government Directive Plans were released, and developing a consensus on advancing best practices, we think is critical to measuring OGD’s success. This week OGTV will be filming at the AFCEA Tech Net Conference in Hawaii and with so much “brass” in the room, we thought it would be valuable to give this Group and other Gov Loop members the opportunity to ask key and relevant questions around critical metrics, and let us try and get you answers. For more information on the tech conference go to http://www.afcea.com and click on events. -Asia Tech Net Conference. Or phone in your questions at 202-449-7705.
~It is mission-critical to have critical metrics~
Metrics – Performance – Analysis
can we achieved in a forum relative to these topics? Objectives that
might be most obvious would be the current state of performance metrics
and analysis and how to raise the proverbial bar to a new level of competency.
an acquisition and procurement solutions provider, I can’t begin to
exaggerate the number of times I’ve worked with clients who in answer to
the Government’s cry for qualitative and quantitative performance
benchmarks, metrics and analysis want to deliver the same tired response
with an overly worm balance scorecard graphic.
Yet, when I
inquire further into the types of metrics or analysis there is little to
no recognition of what is anticipated and what needs to be
accommodated. Yet, each year – even 2009 – the President, the United
States Congress and the Senate as well as Agencies and Services seek
performance metrics and analysis. And, when my would be clients present
those overly tired responses I often deliver some suggestions to present
complementary solutions or mission-critical drivers in answering a
solicitation – when a desire “learn and develop” performance objectives
is established we move forward. When these requests hit deaf ears – I
opt out and take a financial bite. You might ask, why?
metrics, analysis and scorecards/questionnaires are the paradox of new
business case models. Experts in a myriad of business fields suggest
that the newest drivers to field and secure work among Government and
Commercial sectors are the capabilities to finely detail our solutions
with “the customer” in mind rather than a presentation we’ve
boilerplated for reuse in every submission asking for metrics and
The primary objective of this forum is to aid one
another to rise to the call, share insights and ensure we put down the
competitive cross in order to apply the salve of performance
It has been years since metrics and analysis really
became an “item of consideration.” I’ve observed and noted a continuous
cry by the Government to enhance future programs, better our nation and
humanity through quantitative analysis. And, it has been the rare case
to find firms willing to take these requests more seriously than a “need
to do” fulfillment objective – it is more than answering the mail to
secure an award – it is about aiding our nation toward future
achievement and bettering our people through constructive budgeting and
It’s my hope that our Metrics and Analytics Group
will take performance metrics and analysis seriously and help one
another to learn while taking performance to a higher new level.
– There are numerous strategy and guidance documents (external and
internal to organizations and federal procurement) that address
performance measures to be incorporated into program and budget
materials. These documents include: National Security Strategy, President’s Management Agenda, Quadrennial Defense Review, Defense Planning Guidance, Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Annual Defense Report, and Posture Statements among Agencies and Services.
initiatives are currently ongoing to streamline/integrate some of the
guiding documents and better define performance measures so they:
- measure outputs not activities
- are quantifiable
- are trackable over time
- establish an objective level of performance
- are tied to a strategy
- are linkable back to inputs over time to be used as investment assessments
FY 2009 President’s Budget MeasuresThe FY 2009 President’s Budget incorporates performance measures to manage programs and justify
resources. In an effort to incorporate performance measures into the
budget process, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has instituted
Program Performance Assessments. Performance information such as in the
FY 2009 Department of the Navy Highlight’s Book and detailed budget justification materials can be found at the links below: FY 2009 President’s Budget
Balanced Scorecard MID 901, Establishing Performance Outcomes and Tracking Performance Results for the Department of Defense (DoD), consolidates the management goals
of the President’s Management Agenda with QDR performance goals under a
balanced scorecard for risk management and designates metrics SECDEF
uses to track associated performance results. The report of the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review
tailors the balanced scorecard concept to the Department of Defense,
thus providing a management framework to help defense managers to
balance investment priorities against risk over time. The Senior Executive Council (SEC)
is coordinating with the Services building metrics and a strategic plan
to the framework outlined in MID 901. Using the US Navy as an example,
their initial assessment and SEC’s balance scorecard briefs can be found
at the links below.
- SecNav Balanced Scorecard
- Evaluating Perf Measures 24 Jun 03 short
- Organizational Self Assessment Questionnaire
President’s Management Agenda (PMA) The President has stated that this Administration is “dedicated to ensuring that the resources entrusted to the federal government are well-managed and wisely used.” To achieve this, the strategy proposed in the PMA focuses on five basic tenets:
- Budget and Performance Integration
- Strategic Management of Human Capital
- Competitive Sourcing
- Financial Management Improvement
- Expanding E-Government Initial DON Performance scorecard is included in the FY 2005 Highlights Book, Section I, p 1-12 to 1-13.
- Executive Branch quarterly Reporting Scorecard
- The President’s Management Agenda (August 2001)
- The Federal Government is Results-Oriented Report (AUGUST 2004)
- Giving the American People More for Their Money Report (July 2005)
- PMA: Results for the Department of Defense (July 2005)
- PMA Reporting Points of Contact
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) The President’s Management Agenda for budget and performance
integration requires the use of performance metrics in managing and
justifying program resources. Improving programs by focusing on results
is an integral component of this initiative. DoD worked with OMB to
incorporate performance metrics into the FY 2004 budget process. As part
of this government-wide initiative, OMB has instituted Program Performance Assessments
for the budget process that identify programs that will be measured.
The tool developed for use in the rating of programs is called the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).
The PART is a series of questions designed to provide a consistent
approach to rating programs across the Federal government. The PART is a
diagnostic tool that relies on objective data to inform evidence-based
judgments to assess and evaluate programs across a wide range of issues
related to performance.
Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) The Secretary of Defense is required to submit the Department’s annual
Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) to the President, Congress,
and the Office of Management and Budget by November. The report contains
the Secretary’s annual statement of assurance required by the “Federal
Manager’s Financial Integrity Act of 1992,” the Department’s annual
performance report required by the “Government Performance and Results
Act of 1993,” the Department’s annual audited financial statements
required by the “Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990,” a summary of the
Department’s progress on achieving the President’s Management Agenda,
and the Inspector General’s comments on the Department’s management
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.