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

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Evaluation at NRCan: Information for Program Managers Strategic Evaluation Division Science & Policy Integration July 2012.
Advertisements

1 GRS and Accreditation March Learning objectives After reviewing this presentation, you will understand  How the Global Rating Scale supports.
Emerging Technology Workshop “Architecture Information Exchange Tools” 30 November 2010 Walt Okon Senior Architect Engineer Architecture & Infrastructure.
1 Performance Assessment An NSF Perspective MJ Suiter Budget, Finance and Awards NSF.
Business & Operations Advisory Committee -- March 31, Performance Assessment.
Enterprise Security A Framework For Tomorrow Christopher P. Buse, CPA, CISA, CISSP Chief Information Security Officer State of Minnesota.
Enterprise Architecture. 2 Agenda What is Enterprise Architecture (EA)? Roles in EA? Why is EA Important? Tangible Benefits from EA? What Do We Need to.
AUDIT COMMITTEE FORUM TM ACF Roundtable IT Governance – what does it mean to you as an audit committee member July 2010 The AUDIT COMMITTEE FORUM TM is.
U.S. Science Policy Cheryl L. Eavey, Program Director
Cybersecurity Summit 2004 Andrea Norris Deputy Chief Information Officer/ Director of Division of Information Systems.
PHAB's Approach to Internal and External Evaluation Jessica Kronstadt | Director of Research and Evaluation | November 18, 2014 APHA 2014 Annual Meeting.
UWM CIO Office A Collaborative Process for IT Training and Development Copyright UW-Milwaukee, This work is the intellectual property of the author.
Nadine Drew Lynn Goldman Merrie Meyers Charles Webster.
Grants Business Process Re-Engineering (BPR) Overview
1. KCS Strategic Goals: Focus on the student to ensure they excel academically and are prepared for life beyond the classroom. Recruit, select, induct,
Human Capital Management Assessment Joe Burt Director, HRM March 31, 2004.
Human Capital Management Assessment of Organizational Excellence NSF Advisory Committee for Business and Operations May 5-6, 2005 Joseph F. Burt Director,
Information Technology Audit
© OECD A joint initiative of the OECD and the European Union, principally financed by the EU Introduction Mapping approaches to quality management in the.
Allen Hepner Senior Planning & Performance Manager September 22, 2011
Technology-Enabled Business Processes Andrea Norris NSF Deputy CIO/Director, Division of Information Systems and Mary Santonastasso Director, Division.
Creating Sustainable Organizations The Baldrige Performance Excellence Program Sherry Martin HIV Quality of Care Advisory Committee September 13, 2012.
Reorganization at NCAR Presentation to the UCAR Board of Trustees February 25, 2004.
Haldimand County Public Library Board 2001 Municipal amalgamation Why do a Strategic Plan? concentration of resources on key areas ability to deal with.
Organizational Excellence Assessment Overview Anthony A. Arnolie.
National Science FoundationOffice of Chief Information Officer Briefing for B&O Fall 05 George O. Strawn NSF CIO.
Archived Information This information has been archived National Partnership for Reinventing Government 1999 Employee Survey U.S. Department of Education.
NSF FY 2005 Assessment: Organizational Excellence Technology-Enabled Business Processes NSF Advisory Committee for Business and Operations May 5, 2005.
The role of governance in self-assessment NATSPEC conference Sue Preece HMI March
Partnerships and Broadening Participation Dr. Nathaniel G. Pitts Director, Office of Integrative Activities May 18, 2004 Center.
Unite and Deliver An update Francesco Galtieri UN Development Operations Coordination Office (DOCO), New York JPO Workshop, Maputo, May 2009.
National Science Foundation 1 Evaluating the EHR Portfolio Judith A. Ramaley Assistant Director Education and Human Resources.
Republic of the Sudan The National Audit Chamber (NAC) Presentation to: INTOSAI Capacity Building Committee (CBC) Stockholm – September 8, 2015.
June 5, Use of the district’s financial resources is key to the ongoing operations : Facilities Transportation Food Service Staff Development.
December 14, 2011/Office of the NIH CIO Operational Analysis – What Does It Mean To The Project Manager? NIH Project Management Community of Excellence.
Performance Assessment Assessment of Organizational Excellence NSF Advisory Committee for Business and Operations May 5-6, 2005.
BPK Strategic Planning: Briefing for Denpasar Regional Office Leadership Team Craig Anderson Ahmed Fajarprana August 11-12, 2005.
Award Monitoring Update National Science Foundation Advisory Committee for Business and Operations October 22, 2003 Mary Santonastasso, Director, Division.
BFA Update National Science Foundation Advisory Committee for Business and Operations March 31, 2004 Tom Cooley NSF Chief Financial Officer Director, Office.
Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Data Management, and Data Standardization Efforts at the U.S. Department of Education May 2006 Joe Rose, Chief Architect.
Annual Report. Submission of UCEDD Annual Report DD Act: required each center to submit annual report to the Secretary (ADD) DD Act: required each center.
Creating An Environment for Success…Strategic Alignment Session “Raising the Bar”…Redesigning HBCU Libraries for the 21 st Century Historically Black Colleges.
Integrated Systems and Services General Session 4.
Fresno County Employees’ Retirement Association Strategic Planning Presented by Tom Iannucci Cortex Applied Research February 20, 2008.
Every Child Matters Improvement Programme Integrated Working In Localities Project Phase 2 – October 2009 update.
OFFICE OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR 2004 Accomplishments.
NOAA Cooperative Institutes John Cortinas, Ph.D. OAR Cooperative Institute Program, Program Manager NOAA Cooperative Institute Committee, Chairperson.
Strategies for Knowledge Management Success SCP Best Practices Showcase March 18, 2004.
Enterprise Cybersecurity Strategy
National Science FoundationOffice of Information and Resource Management Division of Administrative Services Division of Human Resource Management Division.
Arlington, VA March 31, 2004 Presentation for the Advisory Committee for Business & Operations Effective Practices Research Overview For Merit Review This.
Evaluate Phase Pertemuan Matakuliah: A0774/Information Technology Capital Budgeting Tahun: 2009.
Assessment Design and its relationship to NARS and ILOs Arthur Brown Advisor to the Quality Assurance and Accreditation Project Republic of Egypt.
Internal Auditing Effectiveness
Framework for Assessing Organizational Excellence Introduction.
New Framework for Strategic Goal Assessment NSF Advisory Committee for Business and Operations November 8-9, 2006 Tom Cooley, Director, BFA.
1 National Science FoundationOffice of Information and Resource Management Division of Administrative Services Division of Human Resource Management Division.
Lincoln Trail District Health Department Strategic Plan Our Foundation Strategic Goals & Objectives Measures of Success Mission: The Lincoln Trail District.
Grants Management Update George O. Strawn NSF Chief Information Officer Advisory Committee for Business and Operations Spring 2006 Meeting.
Joan Ferrini-Mundy Assistant Director, National Science Foundation Education and Human Resources AERA Fall Research Conference,11/16/2012 Directorate for.
GEO Implementation Mechanisms Giovanni Rum, GEO Secretariat GEO Work Programme Symposium Geneva, 2-4 May 2016.
WGCapD, CEOS and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Committee on Earth Observation Satellites Deputy CEOS Executive Officer / CSA Marie-Josée.
JMFIP Financial Management Conference
State Steering Committee
Faculty of Engineering at Shoubra Associate Prof. Hanan Eltobgy
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING GEORGIA TECH Academic Year
Roadmap to an Organizational Culture of QI
McREL TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEM
Federal Real Property Asset Management Initiative
McREL TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEM
Presentation transcript:

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

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

In the current draft of the 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.

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

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 ?

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Excellence in IT Management The re-tooled CIO Advisory Group (CIOAG) met initially in May 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

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 Continued clean Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) audit results. 100% of major applications certified and accredited. Indicator Assessment: Fully Successful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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 ?