Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Final Report – November 3, 2003

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Final Report – November 3, 2003"— Presentation transcript:

1 Final Report – November 3, 2003
Organization of American States Management Study of the Operations of the General Secretariat Part I – Executive Summary November 3, Final Report Final Report – November 3, 2003

2 Final Report – November 3, 2003
Table of Contents Part I – Executive Summary Part II – Detailed Observations and Options Project Overview Overall Option Analysis Findings, Observations, and Options Organizational Structure Business Processes Human Capital Technology Part III – Appendices Appendix A: Project Timeline Appendix B: Current OAS Organizational Structure Appendix C: Member State Delegation Meetings Appendix D: Organizational Unit Meetings Appendix E: Facilitated Session Participants Appendix F: Current OAS Grade and Salary Structure and Description of United Nations Compensation System Appendix G: OAS Personnel Register (June, 2003) with detailed OAS demographics Appendix H: OAS Performance Appraisal Form Appendix I: Detailed Deloitte Research Findings Related to OAS Human Capital Issues Appendix J: Series of Charts Reflecting Deloitte Analyses of OAS Human Capital Issues Final Report – November 3, 2003 2

3 Final Report – November 3, 2003
Executive Summary Project Overview Project Methodology Major Themes from the Study Major Observations and Findings Organization Business Processes Human Capital Technology Looking Forward Final Report – November 3, 2003 3

4 Final Report – November 3, 2003
Project Overview In March of 2003 the Member States of the Organization of American States (OAS) engaged Deloitte & Touche to conduct an outside, objective analysis of the operations of the OAS General Secretariat. The study was prompted in large part by rising personnel costs and questions whether the General Secretariat was operating in an efficient and cost effective manner. The results of the study were to be considered by the Member States as they made decisions concerning budget allocations and other management issues. The study was to include four major components: As the study progressed, the focus shifted to include a wider range of organizational issues that were raised by the Member States, by General Secretariat managers and staff, and by the OAS Staff Association. Those issues were more strategic than tactical, and involved the Organization's mission and priorities, its strategy for the future, relationships between the Member States and the staff, communications, and a number of other considerations. Assess the current organizational structure Analyze the current workloads, personnel structure, and processes Identify areas for reallocation of resources Identify strategies to increase effectiveness and efficiency, and enable the correct composition of staff to meet the organizational mandates in a cost-effective and efficient manner. Final Report – November 3, 2003 4

5 Project Overview (continued)
We were guided throughout the project by a Steering Committee comprised of nine representatives from the Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Affairs (CAAP). We met with the Steering Committee at regular intervals and provided status reports and interim summaries of our findings and directions for additional analyses. While the Member States were our clients, General Secretariat managers and staff played a critical role in providing information, documentation, and other project support. A comprehensive summary of the data collection phase of the project was provided to the Steering Committee for review and discussion on July 15, After additional analysis, a Draft Final Report was presented to the Steering Committee on September 16 for discussion and comment. The Draft Report was also shared with several members of the General Secretariat leadership team for their information and comment. This Final Report now incorporates the major findings and observations that flowed from the study. Our observations are intended to provide the CAAP and the Permanent Council with options to be considered as part of their decision making process. The implementation of improvements is ultimately the responsibility of the OAS and the General Secretariat. Final Report – November 3, 2003 5

6 Final Report – November 3, 2003
Project Methodology We gathered information and data about the OAS from a wide array of sources during the study, and used activity-based methodologies to conduct our analyses. Our primary sources included: Altogether, we solicited information from more than 400 General Secretariat managers and staff. We also collected human capital benchmark information from organizations in the Washington, D.C. area that are potential competitors for talent with the OAS: the United Nations Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the World Bank, the U.S. Government, and private industry. Periodic meetings with the Steering Committee Meetings with 14 Member State delegations A wide range of current and historical OAS organizational materials, financial statements, budgets, strategic plans, administrative policies, IG Reports, staff allocations, etc. Interviews with 78 senior directors, managers, and staff in 54 organizational units Group facilitated sessions with 72 staff and managers in the Directorate of Management to conduct activity-based analysis A survey of 250 employees in the Technical Areas and IACD A survey of 54 Directors and Technical Assistants in 28 offices in the Member States Multiple meetings with the Staff Association and individual members Attended various Permanent Council and CAAP meetings Interview with a donor and a permanent observer state. Attended the 2003 General Assembly meeting in Santiago, Chile Final Report – November 3, 2003 6

7 Major Themes from the Study
The OAS is a critically-important organization that has a rich history of accomplishment and a vital role to play in the future of the Americas. This view is shared throughout the Organization, as is deep pride in OAS' role as a political forum and in its leadership in crucial areas such as democracy building, security and anti-terrorism, human rights, drug interdiction, technology sharing, economic development, and other areas. There is also general recognition that the OAS has gone through a significant modernization in the last several years that has introduced technology into every department and function, standardized many business processes and internal controls to operate more efficiently. These are all improvements; however, there is also a strong sense that the Organization's efficiency and effectiveness are hampered by the way it is organized and the way it operates. Some of these difficulties are inherent to a multilateral political organization, but others can be improved by adopting new ways of doing business. We believe the OAS is at a critical crossroads. Like many other organizations, it is faced with the challenge of getting the most value possible from limited resources. The difficulties outlined in this report may not individually jeopardize the Organization’s mission-critical operations. But collectively they clearly diminish efficiency, divert resources, and restrict the OAS’ ability to take on new and important mission objectives. We also believe these difficulties, if not addressed, will compound over time and further weaken the Organization’s effectiveness. Taking the right, corrective steps now in the short run will yield invaluable dividends for the long-term success of the organization. Final Report – November 3, 2003 7

8 Major Themes from the Study
Five major themes arose repeatedly in our discussions. These themes are central to our analyses, our findings, and our options for improvement. The organization's mission, objectives, and priorities are not clear. There is no systematic strategic planning process to guide the organization. There is a significant disconnect between the Member States and the General Secretariat. The organizational structure is fragmented and roles and responsibilities are not clear. There is a general lack of accountability in decision-making and expenditures. Each of these themes is discussed in more detail on the following pages. Final Report – November 3, 2003 8

9 Major Themes from the Study (cont.)
1. The organization's mission, objectives, and priorities are not clear. The OAS' mission, strategic objectives, and priorities are not clearly defined, and not clearly understood by the Member States and General Secretariat managers and staff. Many of the individuals interviewed have a general view about the mission and priorities, but also stated that insufficient clarity is damaging the organization's focus and effectiveness. Many pointed to the lack of prioritization among mandates as a prime example. As one Member State representative said: "if everything is a priority then nothing is a priority." 2. There is no systematic strategic planning process to guide the organization. There is no strategic planning process in place to identify the Organization's most critical objectives and priorities, and to allocate resources to those priorities in a rational, systematic, and disciplined manner. Nearly every manager and staff member interviewed stated that the allocation of resources (budget and staff) at the General Secretariat is not linked to the organization's priorities. Instead, most said that resources are allocated by historic tradition and political strength. 3. There is a significant disconnect between the Member States and the General Secretariat. There is a significant disconnect between the views, expectations, and priorities of the political body and General Secretariat managers and staff. This disconnect is due in part to a difference in focus: the Member State representatives focus on political goals and objectives during their assigned terms while the staff focuses on tactical implementation. Effective communications could help to close this gap, but in fact there is very limited communication between the two groups. Much of the time the staff is not sure what the Member States want and the Member States are not sure what the staff is doing. This disconnect creates confusion, misunderstandings, distrust, and potential wasted resources. Final Report – November 3, 2003 9

10 Major Themes from the Study (cont.)
4. The organizational structure is fragmented and roles and responsibilities are not clear. The General Secretariat is organized and operates more like a consortium of independent elements than an efficient, coordinated organization. Lines of authority and accountability are unclear, and there is no Chief Executive Officer or Chief Operating Officer to provide overall management guidance and coordination across the organization. The Secretary General and Assistant Secretary General positions have evolved to focus primarily “externally” on political and member-state matters. These external affairs are clearly important, but no one has delegated authority to lead the various elements “internally”. As a result, there is limited coordination and communication among the various departments and service areas, and there are competing interests and redundant functions throughout the organization. 5. There is a general lack of accountability in decision-making and expenditures. There is a general lack of discipline in both the political body and the General Secretariat with respect to lines of authority, financial planning, budgeting, operating within resources, and measuring results. Mandates are approved, meetings are scheduled, and programs are frequently started with little regard to costs and resources. As a result, the budget has little integrity, over expenditures are common, and resources are not allocated proportionately to the organization's priorities. Final Report – November 3, 2003 10

11 Major Themes from the Study (cont.)
These themes permeated our conversations across the organization. Everyone interviewed -- without exception -- stated that the OAS must change the way it operates if it is going to be an effective force for the future. The constant conflict between increasing demands on the organization and limited funding is restricting the Organization's overall ability to meet its obligations. Something has to give: either the Regular Fund needs to be increased or the organization needs to operate more efficiently. Maintaining the status quo will only ensure that the same problems will continue to exist year after year. The pride in the organization described on the prior slide is an exceptionally valuable asset for the OAS and an important factor in attracting and retaining high-quality staff. The problems noted in the five themes are serious, but are by no means insurmountable if the organization is willing to take on significant change. Those changes will be difficult, but we strongly believe the long-term benefits will far outweigh the investment. Final Report – November 3, 2003 11

12 Major Observations and Findings
Current Operating Framework The following graphic depicts the OAS’ current “siloed” operating framework and describes several of the organizational challenges we identified in the study. Budget and Performance Management Mission and Vision Strategy Priorities Organization Not clearly stated and shared by the Member States and the General Secretariat. Not communicated to employees across the organization. Not used as criteria to allocate resources No systematic strategic planning process in place. Organization-wide objectives are not clear and used to allocate resources. Individual department strategies are not integrated with one another. No system to prioritize mandates, initiatives, and programs. Resources not always allocated to priorities. Member States and GS do not have shared view of priorities, which creates disconnect and misunder-standings. . Organization is highly fragmented with multiple functions not aligned in a strategic manner. Lack of coordination among units; no central leader authorized to coordinate among units. Duplication of effort, redundancy, and staff not used as efficiently as possible. . Allocation based more on historical funding levels than on strategic objectives. Budget does not include specific funds. Little focus on metrics and results. Performance management not applied consistently. Mandates tracked but not with a focus on outcomes and measures. Final Report – November 3, 2003 12

13 Major Observations and Findings (cont.)
Current OAS Organizational Structure Final Report – November 3, 2003 13

14 Major Observations and Findings (cont.)
We divided our analysis into four broad categories: Organizational Structure, Business Processes, Human Capital, and Technology. Following are summaries of the major observations and options for improvement for each category. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OBSERVATIONS OPTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 1. The OAS does not have an effective, organization-wide strategic planning process to focus the organization's mission, strategic objectives, priorities, and resource allocations. The planning activities that do exist are fragmented and more tactical than strategic. 2. As a result, resource allocations do not always reflect the organization’s priorities. Funds that could be supporting high priorities are siphoned away to support lower priorities. Establish a working group of Member States and General Secretariat representatives to develop a strategic planning structure that a) identifies the organization's strategic priorities, b) clearly assigns responsibility and accountability for achieving those priorities, c) allocates resources in a systematic and rational manner, and d) requires regular, accurate reporting to the political body on the results achieved.  As part of the strategic planning process, examine all programs and functions by priority, and consider reducing or eliminating those that are in the lowest priority grouping. The lower-priority activities may be important, but limited resources require the organization to focus its funds on its highest priorities. Final Report – November 3, 2003 14

15 Major Observations and Findings (cont.)
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE (cont.) OBSERVATIONS OPTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 3. The OAS organizational structure is highly fragmented (or "siloed"), primarily because it has evolved incrementally over the years as new units were created one at a time. As a result, the current structure does not make optimum use of staff or budgetary resources. 4. Due to the fragmentation, redundancies exist among many departments (particularly in the technical areas) with respect to fundraising, administrative support functions, project accounting and reporting, data management, and other areas. Areas also find themselves competing against each other for staff, resources, and recognition.    Establish a working group of Member States and General Secretariat representatives to review the organization as a whole and create a new structure that will combine functions, eliminate redundancies, and provide centralized operational leadership and accountability.  Consider the Sample Organizational Structure provided in our report as one option (on page 29 of this Executive Summary). Any model that is ultimately adopted should focus on consolidating functions, sharing services, and pooling staff to eliminate redundancies and improve overall operational efficiency.  Eliminate redundancies across the organization by consolidating functions and reassigning staff resources to greater areas of need. Making better use of existing resources should enable the General Secretariat to be far more productive without adding staff. Final Report – November 3, 2003 15

16 Major Observations and Findings (cont.)
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE (cont.) OBSERVATIONS OPTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 5. There is no equivalent to a Chief Operating Officer (COO) in the current organizational structure to provide centralized management leadership to all departments. As a result, there is little coordination of efforts and sharing of resources across the departments. 6. Program and project areas now solicit funds from donors with little coordination with other areas within the organization. As a result, donors are solicited by several OAS offices without knowledge of each other’s efforts. 7. While the Offices of the General Secretariat in the Member States (OGSMS) are generally considered useful by the General Secretariat HQ operations, they are used inconsistently and have varying levels of capability. The OAS should establish a COO position that will report to the Secretary General (SG) and the Assistant Secretary General (ASG). The COO will be responsible for coordinating internal operations across departments while the SG and ASG focus their primary attention on political and member state issues. Establish a central Office of Donor Relations that will be responsible for coordinating all fundraising and donor relations activities among the various General Secretariat offices. Require all Departments to coordinate with this office to solicit specific funds. Initiate a regionalization strategy for the OGSMS that would centralize field office operations, increase effectiveness of the offices, and decrease the level of resources required to maintain an OAS presence throughout the hemisphere. Final Report – November 3, 2003 16

17 Major Observations and Findings (cont.)
BUSINESS PROCESSES OBSERVATIONS OPTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 1. Mandates are developed with limited regard to cost, prioritization, and the ability of the General Secretariat to meet them. At present there are more than 200 mandates spanning a wide range of issues. The General Secretariat lacks the resources to support each of these mandates fully, and there is no formal process in place to set priorities.  Create a process that requires all mandates to be priced (short-term and long-term) by the budget office prior to their submission to the General Assembly. Create a Steering Committee of member states to draft rational criteria for assigning priority levels (1, 2, or 3) to mandates. Once the criteria have been approved by the Member States, have the Steering Committee assign a priority level to each mandate. This priority level will guide the General Secretariat as it assigns resources and timeframes to the mandates. Establish a mandate management process that 1) sets criteria and timeframes for success, 2) monitors progress, and 3) provides regular reports to the Member States. Final Report – November 3, 2003 17

18 Major Observations and Findings (cont.)
BUSINESS PROCESSES (cont.) OBSERVATIONS OPTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 2. The OAS budget does not include Specific Funds, which make up nearly 50% of the organization’s financial resources. This omission understates the organization’s resources and skews the allocation of resources. Include estimates of Specific Funds in the program budget and consider these funds in the allocation of resources. This is a common practice among not-for-profit organizations that rely on grants and contributions for significant funding. 3. The OAS’ current processes for Reporting, Procure-to-Pay, and other areas could be improved through streamlining and automation.  Conduct an analysis of the processes and, where possible, streamline by removing redundant and non-value-added activities and automating to improve workflow. (Several options for process improvements in these areas are described in detail in the report.) Final Report – November 3, 2003 18

19 Major Observations and Findings (cont.)
BUSINESS PROCESSES (cont.) OBSERVATIONS OPTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 4. While the budget process has improved in recent years, it still focuses more on resources and current expenditures than priorities, cost-benefit analyses, and measurable results. Once the strategic planning process is in place, modify the budget process to implement “results-based budgeting" to focus resources on the organization's true priorities and on demonstrated results. Require all areas to identify in their budget submissions: a) the specific "results" (short-term and long-term) they intend accomplish if their programs are funded, and b) the specific metrics they will use to measure progress in achieving those results.  Require departments to report their progress in achieving the results identified in the budget process. Provide detailed reports to the Member States regarding the results, metrics, and progress for each department. This will allow the Member States to make more rational decisions as they evaluate programs and allocate resources for the future. Final Report – November 3, 2003 19

20 Major Observations and Findings (cont.)
HUMAN CAPITAL OBSERVATIONS OPTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT Most managers and employees in the General Secretariat do not have a clear understanding of the OAS' overall mission and strategic priorities. As a result, there is little focus on aligning Human Capital programs and staff allocations with the organization's strategic objectives. Implement the strategic planning and results based budgeting processes noted in the Business Process section above. Communicate the organization's priorities to each manager and employee to develop a "line of sight" between their duties and responsibilities and the OAS' overall strategic objectives. The organization’s overall strategic objectives should cascade down into the performance requirements of each department, unit, and individual. Redesign organizational units and individual jobs to target staff efforts more directly and efficiently to accomplish priorities. Final Report – November 3, 2003 20

21 Major Observations and Findings (cont.)
HUMAN CAPITAL OBSERVATIONS OPTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT There is too little communication about human capital policies and practices among the General Secretariat departments and with the Member States. As a result, perceptions about Human Capital issues are often based on rumor and anecdotes instead of facts. This lack of information also creates distrust and damages the credibility of the Human Capital processes.  The Department of Human Resources (DHRS) should take a more proactive role in providing factual information about human resource issues to the Member States and to General Secretariat managers and supervisors. The quarterly Personnel Register is a useful tool in this regard, but our interviews indicated that it is not widely read. All candidates for hire and promotion should be selected exclusively on the basis of merit, under the OAS’ approved procedures. Member State representatives should be kept informed of personnel activities, but should not intervene in the process to advance the interests of individual candidates. The OAS' staff compensation levels are consistent with the market -- neither too high nor too low -- when compared with other employers in the Washington, D.C. area, including PAHO, the IDB, the World Bank, the U.S. Government, and the private sector.  The OAS should continue to use the United Nations compensation system. While salary increases have been unexpectedly high in some years, the OAS' overall salary levels are comparable and competitive with the Washington market. As market competitiveness is a primary guiding principle for any compensation system, there is no reason to change from the UN system unless salary levels begin to exceed the local market. Final Report – November 3, 2003 21

22 Major Observations and Findings (cont.)
HUMAN CAPITAL (cont.) OBSERVATIONS OPTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT The OAS benefit levels are also consistent with the market - neither too high nor too low -- in comparison with other employers in the Washington area. Special benefits for expatriates (staff hired outside the U.S. for work in Washington) are expensive, but comparable to those benefits offered by other multilateral organizations.  Overall, the OAS should strive to maintain its current benefit levels as they are consistent with the competitive market in the Washington area.  However, the Benefits Committee should consider the options we have proposed in the report to manage future benefit cost increases. Final Report – November 3, 2003 22

23 Major Observations and Findings (cont.)
HUMAN CAPITAL (cont.) OBSERVATIONS OPTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 5. There is little correlation between job performance and type of appointment, compensation levels, and tenure. The position classification system is sound, but compensation is based more often on length of service than relative performance. Career staff tend to be more costly in both salary and benefits than contract staff and CPRs.  The OAS should continue its current practice of using multiple appointment authorities to meet its human capital needs, including CPRs, short-term appointments, and long-term appointments.  The decision to phase out the career staff should be affirmed. There are approximately 100 career staff retirements expected in the next 5 years. As career staff are more costly than term appointments, the organization's labor costs will decrease as career staff retire. To the extent possible within the UN system, the OAS should strive to link staff compensation more to performance than to tenure. The Procurement Office should monitor the CPR program closely to ensure that policies are being followed and that individuals selected are qualified for the assignments proposed. Final Report – November 3, 2003 23

24 Major Observations and Findings (cont.)
HUMAN CAPITAL (cont.) OBSERVATIONS OPTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT The organization does not have effective systems in place to assess employee performance, develop critical staff competencies, and promptly replace key employees. The current performance appraisal system could be a good tool, but managers and employees are not using it consistently. 7. OAS focuses too few resources on training and developing its staff. Managers have strong technical skills but limited training in management areas such as project management, financial management, communications, and human resources. Staff also have few opportunities to develop their skills – both for their current posts and for higher-level jobs.  OAS should establish a performance management system that 1) identifies each manager’s and employee's most critical job requirements, 2) links those requirements to the organization's strategic priorities, and 3) holds managers and employees accountable for meeting their requirements and objectives.  The Secretary General should emphasize the importance of the performance management system and require all managers and employees to complete their sections by established deadlines.  The completed appraisals should be used as a key factor in evaluating staff for promotion, salary increases, reassignments, and potential disciplinary action. Unsatisfactory performers should be identified, given an opportunity to improve, and removed from the organization if they do not improve to a satisfactory level.  OAS should identify the critical competencies managers and staff need to be most effective and efficient. DHRS should then develop a plan to provide opportunities for managers and staff to develop those competencies through management training, staff training, e-learning, self-study, and university courses. Final Report – November 3, 2003 24

25 Major Observations and Findings (cont.)
TECHNOLOGY OBSERVATIONS OPTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 1. Information technology has improved significantly at the OAS in recent years and is now used routinely in every department and unit. Business processes that were done by hand are now done with , database applications, desktop publishing, and other labor-saving tools.  OAS should continue to improve the organization’s technology infrastructure and to automate processes wherever it is possible and cost-effective to do so. Improved use of technology is an effective way to improve staff productivity and the overall efficiency of operations. Resistance to new technology from managers and staff is normal for any organization, and should decline over time with increased usage and training. 2. While the Oracle implementation has had problems, those problems are fairly typical for organizations implementing a new ERP system. On the whole, the Oracle system appears to be working appropriately. Implement procedures to improve the timeliness and accuracy of the Oracle reporting process. Improve coordination among the stakeholders of report development and document procedures for data reconciliation, which would improve the quality of reports as well as reduce overall distrust of the data and the system. Final Report – November 3, 2003 25

26 Major Observations and Findings (cont.)
TECHNOLOGY (cont.) OBSERVATIONS OPTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 3. IT functions at OAS are fragmented among a number of offices. Further, OAS does not have a single leader charged with overall responsibility for the planning and managing of IT on an organization-wide basis. 4. Use of the Oracle system is mixed. Many offices we interviewed reported that they use the system and like it. Others reported that they still find the system difficult to use and, as a consequence, prefer to maintain separate databases on their own systems. Many of the staff do not know how to use Oracle, are resistant to using it, and even resist training. OAS should consolidate the management of its information technology systems into one office, a new Office of Information Technology in the Secretariat for Management. The office should be led by a new Director of Information Technology who will be responsible for planning, managing, integrating, and assessing IT resources throughout the organization.  OAS should continue to offer training programs for managers and staff to improve their understanding and use of the Oracle system. The training should be endorsed by the Secretary General and by each Secretariat Director. The training should also focus on “change management” elements to expedite the acceptance and use of Oracle throughout the organization. Final Report – November 3, 2003 26

27 Final Report – November 3, 2003
Looking Forward This executive summary is intended to provide an overview of the study and its major observations and options for improvement. While much of the summary points to areas where improvements are needed, we want to emphasize that based on our interviews it appears that the OAS is currently performing its primary mission in a successful manner. It is first and foremost a forum for the open exchange of views among the Member States and also a broker for programs to improve the safety, security, and well-being of citizens across the Americas. We also want to emphasize that the managers and staff of the General Secretariat take great pride in working for an organization that has such prominence in the international community. There are many talented people at the OAS --in both the political body and the General Secretariat -- and it was clear from our interviews that they are all keenly interested in making the organization stronger for the future. Embarking on a major organizational transition should be viewed as a journey, not a series of quick fixes. The options we have presented are not intended to be viewed independently, but rather as interrelated and building on one another. The options presented may take months and even years to fully implement and realize benefits. The diagram on the following page illustrates how the various elements are integrated. Final Report – November 3, 2003 27

28 Potential OAS Operating Framework
Mission and Vision Strategy Priorities Organization Budget Performance Management Clearly define the overall strategic direction of the OAS and General Secretariat. Translate the OAS mission, vision, objectives, and mandates into an operational strategy for the General Secretariat. What will the organization focus on? What is not a priority? If it is not a priority, does the organization need to provide it? Aligned Strategically Grouped Functionally Accountable Outcome-Focused Operational Leadership Focused on results, not just resources Include Specific Funds in process Make organization accountable for performance Multiple Perspectives: Organization Program Mandate Personnel Financial Customer Communication Information Technology Final Report – November 3, 2003 28

29 Final Report – November 3, 2003
Sample Organizational Structure: Option 2 (To align functions and improve use of resources) The technical areas (including IACD) would be staffed by a combination of subject matter experts and project managers, both supported by a staff of generalists that have general skills in both policy and project execution. The structure would encourage collaboration and provide flexibility for peak and down times on projects. Final Report – November 3, 2003 29

Download ppt "Final Report – November 3, 2003"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google