Report - Government Executive

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Implementation responsibility for DCIPS, including outreach, has been left primarily to the intelligence components’ HR managers, causing concern within their community about an overreliance on them as change agents, especially when leadership support has been inconsistent or lacking. Absent visible agency leadership to provide consistent, frequent messages about DCIPS’ importance, the perception has grown that the system is an HR program, not a broader strategic management program. The DCIPS Communications and Learning Plan outlines a few communication “products,” specifically the DCIPS website as the primary communication channel to the workforce and the Readiness Tool as the main repository of outreach guidance and examples for implementers. Most of the content of communications from OUSD(I) and the components focused on HR issues, such as the system’s design and mechanics. No one, however, provided a strong case for the need, urgency, or desired outcome. The lack of outreach success indicates that the approach and actions taken to date have been ineffective. Few focus group and open forum participants—employees and supervisors alike— could clearly explain the strategic outcome that DCIPS was designed to achieve. Their answers reflected an emphasis on process improvements but fell short of actual impacts and outcomes affecting their component’s ability to achieve its mission. This is not surprising given the limited attention that senior leadership devoted to defining the desired outcome and communicating it. Although the link between DCIPS and mission enhancement is necessarily indirect, the discussion of any relationship between the two was largely ignored in strategic communications. At a more tactical level, there appears to be a high degree of frustration and confusion among the workforce about many of DCIPS’ technical features and its status. Communications were reactive and ever changing as ad hoc updates were issued for policy, guidance, tools, and other program aspects. The system implementation itself was rushed, and the outreach efforts reflected a lack of overall strategy and sufficient guidance. As noted earlier, OUSD(I) did not provide strong oversight or guidance to the components for outreach. It pushed information out through the Readiness Tool, but did not engage in follow up to review component communications for accuracy and timing. The lack of strong, centralized guidance and oversight for outreach resulted in uneven activities and inconsistent messages among the components. Additionally, OUSD(I) might consider issuing a style guide for outreach. A guide offers templates, key phrasing, terms, logos, and other features that would brand DCIPS as a unified program and allow all components to use a common voice when communicating about it. The lack of such guidance resulted in OUSD(I) and components reverting to templates from NSPS. Those templates failed to distinguish DCIPS from NSPS, and further perpetuated a negative association between the two programs. 70
Finding 4-6 The lack of a communications plan and style guide, incorporating strategic change management principles, has resulted in inconsistent messaging that has focused on the mechanics of DCIPS, rather than its mission-related objectives. Feedback Feedback means providing a formal mechanism for employees to provide input on specific aspects of the system, as well as a way for implementers to consider this feedback. Stakeholder Involvement, discussed later in this chapter, means actively engaging stakeholders in system design and implementation. Employee feedback on DCIPS is collected at the component level through surveys, town hall and other types of meetings, and on an individual basis. Employees also can reach OUSD(I) staff directly through the Contact Us feature of the DCIPS website. Focus group participants indicated that most feedback has consisted of individual complaints that HR staff handled. “Program level” issues are forwarded to the OUSD(I) and sometimes raised in the DCIPS Working Group. If necessary, the issue is addressed by the DIHRB. For example, a guide to writing DCIPS individual performance objectives 123 was developed in response to employee requests for guidance, and policy changes allowed employees hired under a specific career ladder to remain there under DCIPS. 124 Thus, the intelligence components and OUSD(I) collect and consider employee feedback on an ad hoc basis. It would be more productive to establish a formal feedback mechanism so that employees know how to make their concerns heard, understand the process for considering feedback, and receive information on the outcome. As Academy colloquia participants pointed out, adjusting the system to respond to legitimate employee concerns helps build trust in the system. Finding 4-7 Communications with the DCIPS workforce have primarily focused on pushing information out to the workforce. No formal mechanism exists to collect and consider employee feedback or report outcomes to employees. 123 Guide to Writing Effective Performance Objectives describes how to write specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound objectives (“SMART”). 124 U.S. <strong>Government</strong> Accountability Office, DOD Civilian Personnel: Intelligence Personnel System Incorporates Safeguards, but Opportunities Exist for Improvement, Dec. 2009, p. 27. Hereafter “GAO DCIPS Review.” 71
Page 1 and 2:
A Report by a Panel of the NATIONAL
Page 3 and 4:
FOREWORD The terrorist attacks of S
Page 5 and 6:
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD.........
Page 7 and 8:
Governance ........................
Page 9 and 10:
ACRONYMS Academy CWB DCIPS DIA DIHR
Page 11 and 12:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The terrorist att
Page 13 and 14:
• It is too soon to draw conclusi
Page 15 and 16:
CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND, METHODOLOGY A
Page 17 and 18:
• The adequacy of the training, p
Page 19 and 20:
• Chapter 6: The Way Forward for
Page 21 and 22:
CHAPTER 2 THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT FO
Page 23 and 24:
National intelligence is still orga
Page 25 and 26:
ewarded longevity over performance
Page 27 and 28:
OTHERS FACTORS THAT IMPACTED DCIPS
Page 29 and 30:
• Partisan politics could play an
Page 31 and 32:
Administration (TSA), which operate
Page 33 and 34: NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
Page 35 and 36: CHAPTER 3 ASSESSING DCIPS’ DESIGN
Page 37 and 38: FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DCIPS’ DE
Page 39 and 40: Figure 3-1. Objectives of the NICCP
Page 41 and 42: PRINCIPLE The system is transparent
Page 43 and 44: The Defense Intelligence Enterprise
Page 45 and 46: discourage teamwork…to the organi
Page 47 and 48: Figure 3-2. DCIPS 2010 Pay Band Str
Page 49 and 50: enable managers and supervisors to
Page 51 and 52: they achieve their goals. Given the
Page 53 and 54: Element Definition Supervisory/Mana
Page 55 and 56: cooperation with ODNI. The review w
Page 57 and 58: Source: OUSD(I) Human Capital Manag
Page 59 and 60: eplaces the current government-wide
Page 61 and 62: esults, but the final DCIPS evaluat
Page 63 and 64: The Panel believes that adequate fu
Page 65 and 66: HOW DCIPS COMPARES TO THE GS/GG SYS
Page 67 and 68: Table 3-7. Comparison of DCIPS and
Page 69 and 70: Design Feature DCIPS NSPS quality s
Page 71 and 72: Recommendation 4. To ensure equitab
Page 73 and 74: CHAPTER 4 ASSESSING DCIPS’ IMPLEM
Page 75 and 76: Table 4-1. Overview of the OPM Obje
Page 77 and 78: In the DCIPS context, “leaders”
Page 79 and 80: intelligence component would do so.
Page 81 and 82: • Credible, timely, and original
Page 83: Finding 4-5 The DCIPS website and R
Page 87 and 88: No training needs assessments have
Page 89 and 90: pay pool exercises to be helpful an
Page 91 and 92: • The Commerce Department used fo
Page 93 and 94: 3. Implementing DCIPS; 4. Evaluatin
Page 95 and 96: created a separate document for som
Page 97 and 98: lack of an overall change strategy
Page 99 and 100: changed and by whom. 149 This appea
Page 101 and 102: How pay pools are constructed and w
Page 103 and 104: DCIPS survey results indicate that
Page 105 and 106: CONCLUSIONS The Panel finds that a
Page 107 and 108: CHAPTER 5 ASSESSING DCIPS’ IMPACT
Page 109 and 110: • Disincentives to become a super
Page 111 and 112: employees received performance rati
Page 113 and 114: Figure 5-1. DCIPS Interim Array of
Page 115 and 116: Table 5-1. NGA Indices and Comparat
Page 117 and 118: of implementation. Nonetheless, OUS
Page 119 and 120: CHAPTER 6 THE WAY FORWARD FOR DCIPS
Page 121 and 122: OUSD(I) has advised the Panel that
Page 123 and 124: CHAPTER 7 PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS Bas
Page 125 and 126: • Clarify and strengthen its guid
Page 127 and 128: Recommendation 23. OUSD(I) should d
Page 129 and 130: APPENDIX B APPENDIX A PANEL AND STA
Page 131 and 132: APPENDIX B Committee on U.S. Nation
Page 133 and 134: APPENDIX B PARTICIPATING INDIVIDUAL
Page 135 and 136:
Michael Jackson*—President and Fo
Page 137 and 138:
Defense Intelligence Agency Kendrea
Page 139 and 140:
APPENDIX C APPENDIX C BIBLIOGRAPHY
Page 141 and 142:
APPENDIX C Langbein, L. “The impa
Page 143 and 144:
APPENDIX D APPENDIX D MERIT SYSTEMS
Page 145 and 146:
APPENDIX D (10) Discriminating agai
Page 147 and 148:
APPENDIX E APPENDIX E DCIPS PERFORM
Page 149 and 150:
APPENDIX E EMPLOYEE NAME: _________
Page 151 and 152:
APPENDIX E EMPLOYEE NAME: _________
Page 153 and 154:
APPENDIX F APPENDIX F OPEN FORUM LO
Page 155 and 156:
APPENDIX G APPENDIX G MITRE’S PER
show all

Report - Government Executive

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?