- Radio hour
- About us
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Mr. Lawrence: Good morning and welcome to The Business of Government Hour. I'm Paul Lawrence, partner in charge of the IBM Center for The Business of Government. We created the Center in 1998 to encourage discussion and research into new approaches to improving government effectiveness. You can visit us on the web and find out more at www.businessofgovernment.org.
The Business of Government Radio Hour features a conversation about management with a government executive who is changing the way government does business.
Our special guest this morning is David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, and head of the Government Accountability Office.
Good morning, David.
Mr. Walker: Good morning. It�s good to be with you again, Paul.
Mr. Lawrence: Thank you for joining us. And also joining us in our conversation from IBM is Al Morales.
Good morning, Al.
Mr. Morales: Good morning, Paul.
Mr. Lawrence: Well, David, let�s start by talking about GAO. Could you tell us the history of the Government Accountability Office, the vision and the mission?
Mr. Walker: Well, the GAO has been around since 1921. We are a legislative branch agency; we were created the same time of the Bureau of Budget, which is now called the Office of Management and Budget. And initially, we were called the General Accounting Office, but now we�re the Government Accountability Office.
Mr. Lawrence: And how do you describe its size in terms of its budget? And you know, I'm interested in the skill set of the employees.
Mr. Walker: Well, we have about 3200 employees; 70 percent of whom are in Washington, D.C. The balance are in 11 other cities around the United States. Our budget is about $460 million a year, and the skills and knowledge is very diverse. You know, candidly, we probably have about the most diverse array of skills and knowledge of any organization in the world.
Mr. Lawrence: And what I always find interesting is, who do you report to?
Mr. Walker: The answer is I report to the Congress, but no one particular individual. As you know, there are 100 members of the Senate, 435 members of the House, and we do have an Oversight Committee in the Senate and the House. In the Senate, it�s Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; in the House, it�s House Government Reform, but there isn�t a single person that I report to.
Mr. Lawrence: You mentioned in your answer to the last question that GAO has just changed its name. Why was the name changed?
Mr. Walker: Well, there are a number of reasons. Number one, we were not in the accounting business; we�ve never been in the accounting business, and so the word "accounting" was not reflective of who we are and what we did. And it caused confusion with regard to recruiting; it caused confusion with regard to new members of Congress, with regard to new Cabinet-level officials who have never been in Washington before. And so my view was, and it was shared by a vast majority of the people within GAO, is that we needed a name that more accurately reflected who we are and what we do.
And we have three core values: accountability is who we are and what we do; integrity is how we do it; and reliability is how we want the work to be received. So we went from the General Accounting Office to the Government Accountability Office, which enabled us to maintain our brand acronym, which is GAO.
Mr. Morales: David, what are the specific roles of the Comptroller General of the GAO?
Mr. Walker: Well, I am the Comptroller General of the United States and head of the GAO, and as Comptroller General of the United States, I am the de facto chief accountability officer of the United States, and obviously, the CEO of the Government Accountability Office.
Mr. Morales: Great. That�s a very large responsibility. Can you describe the previous positions and experiences that you had prior to being appointed to the Comptroller General?
Mr. Walker: I�ve had about 20 years in the private sector with PricewaterhouseCoopers, that should sound familiar, and also with Arthur Andersen, as well as in consulting with an international consulting and executive search firm. I also have had positions in the executive branch. I was head of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Pensions and Health, and also served as trustee of Social Security and Medicare while I was with Arthur Andersen, so a pretty balanced public and private sector background, more private sector than public, but by the time I get done with this job, it will be about half and half.
Mr. Morales: Can you describe to us how the experiences you�ve had in both the public and private sectors help shape your current role?
Mr. Walker: I think there�s no question that my experiences both from the public and the private sector have helped me to be more effective in my current job. You know, there are a lot of transferable knowledge and skills that you can get between sectors, but there are some important differences between the sectors, too. One of the things that I know -- that when my position was open, and when I was competing with about 59 other people for appointment, that there were a lot of people who were involved in the appointment process who really wanted somebody who had both public and private sector experience, who had a proven track record of success in both sectors; recognizing that you need new ideas, you need people who are coming in from the outside who can challenge the status quo. At the same point in time, you need people who understood government and that there were different cultures, and there were very important differences between the public and private sector that you need to be aware of in order to be effective.
For example, in the public sector, you have many more bosses; you have a lot more constraints on what you can do; you live in a fish bowl. And generally, a lot of the top executives, especially in the executive branch, don�t stay in their jobs very long. And so it�s actually much more challenging to be successful in the public sector than it is in the private sector, but that�s a real opportunity as well.
Mr. Morales: You�re nearly halfway through a 15-year term; why does this position carry such a long term, and what are some of the challenges with this type of assignment?
Mr. Walker: Well, my term is the longest of any position in the federal government that has a term. Second place is the Federal Reserve Board; third place is the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI. And the reason being is because the idea is that you want to have at least one person in government who has a long enough term that you can think long-term, and take on complex and controversial issues that may take years to effectively address. And so that�s the reason for the 15-year term.
But I think you have to couple that with the fact that the Comptroller General of the United States can only be removed by impeachment for specified reasons, and so therefore, once you�re in, it�s very difficult to be removed. And that provides you a degree of job security to be able to speak truth to power, tell it like it is, say what you mean, mean what you say, et cetera.
Mr. Lawrence: I know our audience would be interested in terms of the other changes you have been making at GAO besides the name. I think you�ve been involved in a lot of transformation, and in a relatively short period of time. Could you tell us about some of the changes that have been taking place since you took over?
Mr. Walker: Well, GAO has always been a great agency; it�s always had great people and it�s had strong and effective leadership, but one of the things that I found when I came to GAO was that it itself needed to engage in a fundamental transformation of what it did and how it did business. And I gained agreement among our top executives early on in my tenure to a very simple concept: leading by example. Since we were the agency that audits, investigates, evaluates others, my view is that we should be as good or better than anybody else that we audit, investigate or evaluate; we should practice what we preach. And as a result, our people have rallied to that, such that we are recognized externally by others as being the best or among the best in strategic planning, organizational alignment, human capital strategy, financial management, information technology, change management, knowledge management, which helps us do a better job, but also enhances our credibility.
Mr. Lawrence: That sounds like pretty radical change. Maybe you could take us through a couple of steps; I am wondering, sort of, how you got everybody there, because getting people on the same page for change is the first step, and then whether many of the same people continued with you or you had to make some changes in people as well.
Mr. Walker: Well, first, obviously, to the extent that you make significant changes, you have to be able to make a compelling case for change. You have to convince people that the status quo is inappropriate, unacceptable, unsustainable, whatever is the case. And that�s a challenge, but if something needs to be done, it�s especially challenging when you talk about an organization that doesn�t change that much; an industry, government, that, by definition, is fairly rule-bound. You know, fortunately, I was able to make that case as to why we needed to make changes and why it was in everybody�s interest to be able to do that, but as you know, whether you�re in the public sector, private sector or not-for-profit sector, you have to start at the top, and you start with the new people.
And so as a result, I gained agreement of the executives, and during the last six years since I have been at GAO, we�ve hired a lot of new people. In fact, over 40 percent of the people who work at GAO today have come to work since I�ve been Comptroller General of the United States. So by starting at the top and starting with the new people and working to the middle, you can end up achieving a lot in a fairly short period of time.
Mr. Lawrence: Now, I remember once you told me this math, so if I don�t get it right, it�s just from my recollection: that prior to your arrival, GAO�s budget and the headcount had been either reduced or was flat. Could you tell us what�s changed in that area?
Mr. Walker: Well, in the five years before I joined GAO, the Agency was downsized 40 percent, and it had a virtual hiring freeze for about five years. So at the time that I joined, less than five percent of the employees had been with the Agency for less than five years, and so therefore, that was a challenge for a variety of different reasons. You know, we had a development gap in the pipeline, we had succession planning challenges, we had a variety of skills imbalances, et cetera. And so we took that very seriously and took it on to be able to deal with it.
I am pleased to say that since I�ve been at the GAO, the Congress has, I think, treated us well. I think they�ve treated us as well or better than others, and what I have tried to do is to make sure that we have modest budget requests, that we don�t try to build up the base and try to just ask for what we think we need; don�t play games on the budget; and generate a very, very strong rate of return, or return on investment. Last year, our return on investment was $95 to one, an all-time record, number one in the world; nobody�s even close.
Mr. Lawrence: How did you engage the Congress of the United of States? In a previous answer, you told us there�s 535 individuals. I mean, how did you do that?
Mr. Walker: Well, you obviously have to be able to respect the views of every single member of Congress, no matter how long they�ve been there and whether or not they�re a freshman, or -- you know, where they�re from and what committees they�re on. And at the same point in time, you spend a disproportionate amount of time with the leadership of the Congress and the chair and ranking members of various committees; in particular, the committees that are our oversight committees, the ones that I mentioned before. So one has to end up allocating your time, you know, strategically, and that�s what I�ve tried to do.
Mr. Lawrence: It�s interesting, especially when you think about your comment earlier about not having a boss.
What are the challenges of the 21st Century, and what do they mean for citizens and government? We�ll ask David Walker of the GAO to take us through this when our conversation about management continues on The Business of Government Hour.
Mr. Lawrence: Welcome back to The Business of Government Hour. I'm Paul Lawrence, and this morning�s conversation is with David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office.
Also joining us in our conversation is Al Morales.
Well, Dave, according to the GAO report, Challenges of the 21st Century, that just came out recently, where are we headed now as a nation in terms of fiscal conditions?
Mr. Walker: Paul, it�s not a pretty picture. Last year, we had an operating deficit of over $560 billion; we had a unified deficit of over $400 billion.
Of that unified deficit, less than 25 percent had anything to do with Iraq, Afghanistan and incremental Homeland Security costs, and yet we had strong economic growth. But more importantly than where we were last year and where we are this year is where we are headed. We face large and growing structural deficits due primarily to known demographic trends, namely the retirement of my generation, the baby boom generation, and rising health care costs. And it�s a serious problem; it�s getting worse, and we need to start doing something about it.
Mr. Lawrence: Can you take us a little bit more through the problem of deficits? I mean, how does it affect government programs, and its impact on the American citizens?
Mr. Walker: Sooner or later, you have to be able to match your revenues with your expenses. And right now, what�s going on is we are mortgaging our children and grandchildren�s future, because we are not matching revenue with expenses. There is no free lunch, and ultimately, the crunch will come, and that crunch will come in the form of significant increased budget pressures on existing government programs; significant additional pressures for higher taxes; which could have, you know, adverse economic growth consequences. And ultimately, we�re talking about, you know, our competitive posture and the quality of life of Americans in future years.
Mr. Lawrence: Before I ask you about your recommendations, I�d like to drill a little bit further into what would it look like if the conditions continue, I mean, sort of, unabated? I mean --
Mr. Walker: Well, we run several simulations, long-range budget simulations, several times a year at GAO; we�ve been doing that since the early 1990s. And depending upon whether you want to go with an optimistic or pessimistic scenario, the bottom line is, even under the optimistic scenario, we face large and growing structural deficits that we�re not going to grow our way out of. Under the pessimistic scenario, we could be doing nothing more than paying interest on federal debt by 2040, 2042. That�s obviously not an acceptable outcome. I think the likely scenario is between the optimistic and pessimistic, but the bottom line is this: we face large and growing structural deficits that are too great to grow our way out of, and tough choices are going to be required.
Mr. Lawrence: In terms of those scenarios -- and maybe you can help me calibrate them -- one expectation of the future is the quality of life increases. If we were to reach a point in the pessimistic scenario where we were just paying interest, would that mean the quality of life would be equal to a period of time in the past? Is that kind of what we�re taking about?
Mr. Walker: Well, realistically, what we�re talking about is you�re not going to be in a scenario where all you�re doing is paying interest on debt. If you don�t end up restructuring the base of government, the likely outcome to that is tax levels that are two and a half times as great as they are today. Well, think about, you know, if your federal taxes went up -- you know -- two and half times what they are today -- by the way, that doesn�t count state and local, which also face, you know, challenges as well in the out years. And so that, obviously, would have a significant adverse effect on economic growth; it would have a significant adverse effect on quality of life issues. And right now, you know, the miracle of compounding is working against us. Debt on debt is not good, and time is working against us, and so it�s important that we act soon.
Mr. Lawrence: All right, now let�s go to the recommendations. What were some of the recommendations to turn the current situation around?
Mr. Walker: Well, in our report, we recommended the fact that we need to increase the amount of transparency with regard to where we are from a financial and fiscal standpoint. That means revising and enhancing current financial reporting. It also means revising and enhancing reporting dealing with the budgetary process. We�ve recommended a number of budget process reforms; to reconsider PAYGO rules on both the spending side as well as the tax side; to look at some type of spending caps; to look at triggers for mandatory spending that would prompt needed action by the Congress because now we�ve got a situation where over 60 percent of the budget is on autopilot, and it�s growing every year. And so there are a range of proposed possible reforms that we lay out in the report as a beginning.
Mr. Morales: David, in a keynote address, you mentioned that key indicators can help inform strategic planning, enhance performance and accountability reporting, and improve decision-making. Can you describe to us what these key indicators may be, and what ways the U.S. can adopt these key indicators at a national level?
Mr. Walker: Well, Al, it�s amazing to me that the U.S. Government that spends, or will spend in fiscal 2005-2006, about $2.5 trillion, does not have a set of key national indicators in order to be able to assess our nation�s position and progress over time, and relative to other countries. Other countries have this; some states and local and localities have it, and we need a set of outcome-based indicators, a dashboard, a portfolio, if you will, of indicators that deal with economic, safety, security, environmental, social indicators, in order to do just the three things that you said: to help inform strategic planning; help enhance performance and accountability reporting; and help to facilitate that baseline review that we�re talking about in the 21st Century Challenges Report, that needs to be undertaken.
Mr. Morales: You mentioned other countries. What other countries have these national indicators?
Mr. Walker: Well, some examples would be the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, as well as the European Union.
Mr. Morales: You mentioned in the 21st Century Challenge Report the need to engage in a baseline review of the entire federal government. Why must there be a review of the entire federal government?
Mr. Walker: Well, basically, what the report notes is that to a great extent, the current federal government is an accumulation of policy, programs, functions, and activities that have arisen over a number of years and that in fact are based on conditions that existed in the United States and around the world in the 1950s and 1960s, and that we have not engaged in a fundamental review and re-examination of discretionary spending, of entitlements and mandatory spending, and tax policies and preferences, in decades, and that the assumption has been that the base of government is okay and the great debate that occurs every year is are you going to plus up something a little bit, or cut something a little bit.
But the fact of the matter is the base is not only not okay, it�s not well-aligned with 21st Century realities, and it�s not sustainable. So we need to engage in that fundamental review and reassessment. And in our report, we raise generic questions that should be asked about every major policy, program, function, activity, and over 200 illustrative questions that need to be asked and answered. Hopefully, it will stimulate discussion and debate on this very important issue.
Mr. Morales: How can policymakers examine and engage in the review of federal government?
Mr. Walker: Well, one of the things that we have in the report is there are a variety of ways this could be done. I mean, for example, we clearly need more rigorous oversight; we clearly need to make sure that the reauthorization process is substantive; we clearly need to re-look at which programs and policies are working and which ones aren�t working as part of the annual appropriations process. And so those are just three examples, but we may also have to, in some circumstances, have additional studies conducted by GAO or others as input. Commissions may be necessary or appropriate in order to deal with particularly complex and controversial issues.
So there are a variety of different means and vehicles that I think we are going to have to be using. And candidly, I think we�re talking about an effort that could take as long as a generation to effectively address all of the issues that are going to have to be addressed.
Mr. Lawrence: It�s hard not to think about the big challenges facing our country without thinking about Social Security and health programs. What�s your perspective on the status of these programs in the United States?
Mr. Walker: Well, both Social Security and our health programs are unsustainable in their present form. Social Security represents a large and growing problem; health care is a much bigger problem. For example, the Social Security has an estimated unfunded obligation of about $3.7 trillion in current dollar terms for the next 75-year period. That�s how much you�d have to have today invested at Treasury rates to close the gap between projected revenues and expenditures. Medicare alone has a gap of $27-28 trillion, so about eight times greater. And yet Medicare is only a subset of the much broader problem. Clearly, we�re not going to be able to get back on a sustainable path and a prudent course unless you reform entitlement programs, and these are the two biggest entitlement programs.
Mr. Lawrence: You�ve talked about entitlement reform before and said that it�s essential, and problems with Social Security are not that difficult to solve. What do you mean by this?
Mr. Walker: Well, first, the imbalance in Social Security is much less than the imbalance in Medicare. Furthermore, what I have found over the years in my speaking and other interaction opportunities with the American people around the country, of all ages I might add, is that people who are retired or nearing retirement are the ones most fearful of change; whereas young people are discounting Social Security and in many cases don�t think they�re going to get it at all.
Therefore, that means you have an opportunity. You have an opportunity to restructure Social Security in a way that will leave current retirees and near-term retirees alone; that will make progressively greater changes to the program the younger the person is; and has an opportunity to be phased in over a number of years and exceed the expectations of every generation of Americans. In other words, everybody will get more than they think they�re going to get -- not more than they�ve been promised -- more than they think they�re going to get. And after all, if you can exceed expectations, I call that a win.
So I mean, frankly, it�s going to be a lot easier to do that for Social Security and we need to get on with it because time is working against us. And if we can reform Social Security, that will end up improving our credibility with the markets and enhance confidence to be able to deal with much more difficult issues.
Mr. Lawrence: That�s fascinating. You described quite a lot of challenges in just a short period of time.
How is GAO changing and facing its own challenges? We�ll ask David Walker of GAO to take us through this when The Business of Government Hour continues.
Mr. Lawrence: Welcome back to The Business of Government Hour. I'm Paul Lawrence, and this morning�s conversation is with David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office.
And joining us on our conversation is Al Morales.
Mr. Morales: David, in GAO�s strategic action plan for FY �04 through �09, I understand there are eight themes. Can you give us an overview of these eight themes?
Mr. Walker: Sure. These themes are themes that represent trends that have no geopolitical boundaries and also cross all different sectors: public sector, private sector, not-for-profit sector. Things like long-term fiscal imbalances; changing security threats in a post-cold war environment; increasing global interdependence; the changing nature of the economy from the Industrial Age to a knowledge-based economy; a variety of demographic trends; fewer and fewer workers supporting more and more retirees; longer life spans, more diverse country; rapidly evolving science and technology; a variety of quality of life issues, such as education, the environment, work, family, urban sprawl, and changing governance structures, where more and more issues have to be handled on a multilateral basis, and between different levels of government and crossing different sectors in order to achieve positive and sustainable outcomes.
Mr. Morales: Can you tell us about the four goals of GAO�s strategic action plan?
Mr. Walker: Well, we have four primary goals. The first two goals are tied to the Constitution of the United States. You know, there�s not a lot of things that people agree on here in Washington, but hopefully one of the things that will stand the test of time is the Constitution of the United States. So the first two talk about supporting the Congress in meeting its Constitutional responsibilities in areas dealing with areas under the Constitution; the third one talks about us trying to help the federal government transform what it does and how it does business. And the fourth one is about GAO being a model federal agency and a world-class professional services organization.
Mr. Morales: How does GAO plan on measuring performance and progress against these goals?
Mr. Walker: Well, we have a number of performance metrics and many of them -- in fact, most of them are outcome-based metrics. For example, we have certain ones that can be quantified, like financial benefits; to the extent that institutions or -- whether it be agencies or departments, or whether it be the Congress as an institution -- if they adopt our recommendations, then does it save money, does it free up money for re-deployment to higher priorities? Last year, $44 billion, $95 returned for every dollar invested in GAO.
But we also have other non-financial benefits, things like safety, security, privacy, you can�t measure in dollar terms, but they�re significant and so we do it in descriptive terms. We look at, you know, pipeline statistics, to what extent are we making recommendations? What percentage of the recommendations are adopted? How frequently are we being asked to testify? Because these are kind of leading indicators, if you will, that can give us a sense as to whether or not we�re going to develop, we�re going end up having positive outcomes over a reasonable period of time. So we�re very, very results-oriented, and everybody is focused on how can we maximize value and manage risk; how can we minimize resource requests and maximize return on investment.
Mr. Lawrence: David, I know you�re interested in human capital. It dates back on probably your entire professional career. So could you tell us about GAO�s human capital strategic plan?
Mr. Walker: Well, first, we�re only as good as our people. We�re a knowledge-based enterprise. We�re a professional services organization, and as I said, we�re only as good as our people. So we take our people very, very seriously; we not only have an overall strategic plan, we have a human capital strategic plan. We have very aggressive recruiting efforts. We do a lot with regard to trying to maximize the chance that the people that we hire will stay with us at least three years, because history has shown if they stay with us at least three years, the likelihood they�ll stay with us long-term increases dramatically. We are an empowerment organization; our employees are very much involved in providing input on all the major issues that we have to deal with as to who we are and how we conduct ourselves as an employer. For example, one of the things that we have is a democratically elected Employee Advisory Council that I meet with and my fellow Executive Committee members meet with at least once a quarter, typically more frequently, to be able to talk about issues of mutual concern and how can we make GAO a better place.
Mr. Lawrence: It�s always interesting to hear a leader like you talk about dealing with people. It seems so obvious that many organizations don�t. I�m just curious about your perspective as to why they don�t deal with that; that training tends to be one of the things that�s cut and people don�t pay attention to their most important asset.
Mr. Walker: Lack of enlightenment, and myopia might be two good reasons, I would say. You know, there are a lot of people, in fact, almost everybody will tell you people are our most valuable asset, but you know, actions speak louder than words. And I think that you need to look at the facts and circumstances and find out whether or not they practice what they preach.
Mr. Lawrence: Interesting. Now, GAO has a human capital office, and what I am always curious about is when you think about human capital and even HR, it was once just a support function, and now people are beginning to think about it more in terms of strategy and managing. How are you making that work at GAO?
Mr. Walker: Well, first, I believe there are a number of factors that are critically important in connection with any particular transformation effort: you know, people, process, technology and environment, for example, of which I believe people represent the most important. People are the source of all innovation, all technological enhancement; they are ultimately the ones that make things happen. And so I think you have to put people first. You have to make sure that the human capital function is strategic, that it is well-aligned with the overall strategic plan, that they are working in partnership with the major operating entities and units to try to achieve positive results. It�s a fundamental philosophical change, and I believe very strongly that it�s necessary.
Mr. Lawrence: Some would say, and you might call them cynics, that gee, you can�t do a lot around human capital and government; we�re constrained by pay, we�re constrained by conditions, we can�t offer stock options. I mean, how do you address this sort of criticism?
Mr. Walker: Well, I think 80 percent plus of what needs to be done in the human capital area in the federal government can be done without changes in laws. I find many times, people end up assuming they can�t do something because it�s never been done before, or they�ve got regulations that they promulgated where they�ve shot themselves, and therefore need to step back and basically re-examine what they can do. I�ve done that at GAO. I mean, there are many times when I wanted to have things done, I have asked why can�t we do it? Or stated differently, here�s what I want to do, can we do it? And I�ve pressed on a number of occasions: show me the law that says we can�t do this or what type of legislation might we need in order to be able to do this, if it makes sense to do it? And I find there�s a lot of that.
One of the critical missing links I find is, everybody now wants to move more towards market-based and performance-oriented compensational arrangements. But what I find is there are very few agencies that have modern, effective, and credible performance management systems, including performance appraisal systems. And if you don�t have those, and if they�re not linked to the strategic plan, tied to desired outcomes, and if they don�t have adequate safeguards to prevent abuse and minimize the chance of discrimination, then you�re not going to be able to effectively deliver on a performance-based compensation system. And so everybody is out there saying they want it, but they don�t have the infrastructure in place. We have the infrastructure in place; it isn�t perfect, and never will be, but it�s clearly the best in government.
Mr. Lawrence: In an earlier answer, you mentioned the fact that if folks stay with you for three years, they�ll stay longer. Is there any one or two critical things that have to happen in their first three years to make them stay?
Mr. Walker: Well, most people that we hire today are highly educated. For example, over 90 percent of the people that we hire for our mission side have Master�s degrees and some have Ph.D.s, and really from the top schools in the country. So they want to be able to make a difference. They want to be constantly learning; they want to be challenged. That�s the real key, and so you need to make sure that you do that.
Now, obviously, people want to be paid fairly, and if somebody�s primary motivation is compensation, then they may not want to come into government, although our people make pretty good money, quite frankly. You can have a very good standard of living by working at GAO and many other government agencies. But if somebody measures success primarily based upon net worth rather than self worth, then they might not want to come into government.
Mr. Morales: David, you mentioned in an earlier answer that since you�ve arrived, 40 percent of the organization is new. Where do you attract people from to join GAO?
Mr. Walker: We have very aggressive recruiting programs, in particular at the entry level. We take it just as seriously as any professional services firm does. We have targeted universities, where we have executives that are assigned responsibility for those universities; to develop relations with the key faculty, with the Dean, with the placement office. We try to end up giving speeches and do other types of activities with the university. We have an internship program which is critically important to our recruiting effort. We hire 200-300 interns a year; that gives them an opportunity for them to look at us and us to look at them. We have an ability to make timely offers to those interns. We don�t have to compete those jobs; if somebody works with us at least nine weeks, then we can hire them on a non-competitive basis.
And so there are a number of things that we�ve done, not only with regard to how we�ve recruited, but also from the standpoint of using student loan repayments; being able to review performance every six months rather than every year; making compensation adjustments every six months rather every year; having a very aggressive training and development program for the first two years that somebody�s with us. And when I talk about those six-month reviews and compensation adjustments, those were in the early years. After that, you go on an annual cycle. So we do a lot to hire the best people, treat them well, and give them a lot of opportunity to make a difference.
Mr. Lawrence: You talked about a lot of very interesting programs. What kind of external recognition has GAO gotten?
Mr. Walker: Quite a bit. Obviously, one of our objectives is to lead by example and be as good or better than anyone else. A couple of examples that I would give off the top is our strategic plan has been widely acclaimed externally. Our performance and accountability reports have won awards every year that we�ve sought to apply for consideration; for example, the AGA being one. CIO Magazine just rated GAO as one of the top 100 information technology organizations in the United States, including the private sector. And so we�ve got a lot of external recognition.
I know that Harvard Business Review is doing a case study on GAO now. In fact, I think IBM is doing a case study on us now, if I�m not mistaken, with regard to our transformation. So quite a bit; there�s no doubt that we would be green across the board in executive branchspeak, if we were part of the executive branch. But our objective is not just to be green, it�s to be as good or better than anybody else that we audit and evaluate and to stay that way. And to stay that way means continuous improvement. I mean, sometimes it�s tougher to stay there than it is to get there.
Mr. Lawrence: Maybe we'll change the G to Green instead of Government.
We've heard about the challenges facing our nation. What does the future hold as we address these? We�ll ask David Walker of GAO for his insights and advice when the conversation about management continues on The Business of Government Hour.
Mr. Lawrence: Welcome back to The Business of Government Hour. I�m Paul Lawrence, and this morning�s conversation is with David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office.
And joining us on our conversation is Al Morales.
Well, David, can you elaborate on how the debate about our fiscal future is ultimately not about numbers, but about values?
Mr. Walker: Well, first, we�re talking about very big numbers. When you�re talking about total liabilities and commitments of $43 trillion, those are huge numbers. It�s tough for people to be able to relate to it, but my point is that, yes, numbers are involved, but the real important thing is two other dimensions: values and people. Values like fiscal responsibility and stewardship to future generations, needing -- having a responsibility not just to leave things better off when you leave than when you came, but better positioned for the future; and people from the standpoint of our children, our grandchildren and future generations of Americans. Those are the type of issues that will move people to act. Numbers won�t do it by themselves; it�s about values and it�s about people.
Mr. Morales: Dave, we spoke earlier of the major fiscal challenges that the U.S. is facing. What can Americans do now to mitigate the circumstances?
Mr. Walker: Well, a couple of things. One, I think they have to recognize that we are on an unsustainable path from a fiscal standpoint. There are going to have to be dramatic changes, and that individuals ultimately are going to have to assume more responsibility in the future than may have been the case in the past. They need to plan, save, and invest for retirement, among other things.
Yes, Social Security will still be there, but it�s going to be reformed. Yes, Medicare will still be there, but it�s going to be more dramatically reformed over the years. And secondly, I think what they need to is they need to exercise their civic responsibility to become informed and involved with regard to a lot of the issues that we�re talking about in order to play a meaningful role in the coming debate about that baseline review and the future of government.
I think it�s particularly important for young people to be informed and involved, because ultimately, we�re talking about their future. And ultimately, they�re going to bear the burden if others fail to act in a timely and responsible manner. They�re going to get what we call a double whammy. They�re going to end up paying much, much higher tax rates, get less, and have less choice about what they think the proper role for government is. And it�s important they recognize that reality and act.
Mr. Morales: In turn, what can government leaders do today to address the fiscal challenge debate?
Mr. Walker: Well, the first thing that we have to do is face the facts and recognize that we are on an unsustainable path. You know, you can�t solve a problem until you admit that you have a problem, and that it�s more prudent to deal with it sooner rather than later. So that�s the first thing. Secondly, I think we have to make sure that we have more transparency over where we are and where we are headed. I think we need to have some process reforms with regard to the budget process. And in that regard, the first thing you do when you�re in a hole is to stop digging. And then I think we have to engage in this fundamental review and reassessment of the base of government, to figure out what�s the proper role of government in the future; how should it do business; and how are we going to finance and pay for whatever the revised role and responsibilities might be?
Mr. Morales: What advice can you give to government leaders working on their financial statements today?
Mr. Walker: Well, financial statements are important, but frankly, not enough people are reading the financial statements of the U.S. Government. That�s part of the problem. I think you have to keep in mind that we�re dealing with the people�s money. We have a stewardship responsibility; we serve a public purpose and work for the public good, and that the taxpayers have a right to make sure that we�re handling their funds in a responsible manner.
And part of that is an appropriate transparency and accountability mechanism in the form of annual financial reports and audited financial statements. But it�s not just with regard to financial reporting; it�s also performance reporting. You know, the taxpayers have a right to know what kind of results have been achieved with the financial, human, and other resources and authorities that agencies have. And so I think it�s important that we not just look at financial statements and continue to make progress there, but we also have to enhance our performance reporting in order to provide more meaningful information that hopefully people will pay attention to.
Mr. Lawrence: David, as you�ve talked a lot about the challenges, this morning, we face, I�ve heard a lot of sort of what I might characterize as pain now for gain later. And I�m sort of wondering if you think that�s correct, and if so, it seems like a pretty hard equation for people to work their way through naturally. How would you reflect on this or give people advice to think about it?
Mr. Walker: Well, this isn�t easy. Nobody said it was going to be easy, but it�s essential and, you know, sometimes I think back to the old Popeye show. I remember Wimpy, you know, �I�ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.� Well, we�re eating a lot of hamburgers and we�re delaying the day of reckoning, and I think that�s got to stop. We�ve got to get serious, we�ve got to remember what those values are, we�ve got to be able to see the faces of our kids and our grandkids and think about future generations to do that. But I believe, in America, anything is possible with persistence and dedication and leadership and commitment. And I am confident that ultimately, we will end up effectively addressing these. What I�m concerned about is when we�re going to start. And I believe it�s critical that we start now.
Mr. Lawrence: In the last segment, you talked a lot about GAO, and I was reflecting on one answer you gave to hiring. And you spoke a lot about hiring entry-level professionals. Does GAO hire experienced folks, or have you hired experienced folks?
Mr. Walker: We do, and we do to a greater extent today than we did before I was at GAO. While a vast majority of the people that we hire will end up coming in at the entry level, we have brought in a number of people with various skills and knowledge that we need, including at the highest levels. For example, our chief administrative officer, who also serves as our chief financial officer, came in from the outside. Our current general counsel came in from the outside, although he didn�t come in in that position. A number of top executives did.
And we�ve hired people in the middle as well, who have skills and knowledge that we need. In part because of that gap in the development pipeline that I talked about before, where when I came to GAO, we hadn�t hired very many people at all in the five years before I was there, and therefore, there was a development gap. And I think it�s important to bring in people from the outside in order to be able to get people with different experience, different perspectives, in order to try to help facilitate the change necessary.
Mr. Lawrence: I know in the first segment, you described your career and you�ve been in the private sector and in the public sector, too, but I think if people will reflect on it, they would describe you as a public servant. And I guess I�d be curious about the advice you�d give to someone interested in a career in public service, and maybe even with a focus on finance, because I think you�ve talked a lot about the financial aspects of government in our talk this morning.
Mr. Walker: Well, if I talk about the federal government, for example, but I will say that public service is a lot more than federal government. You know, it�s federal government, state government, local government, and frankly, it�s more than government. It�s not, you know, not-for-profit organizations, NGOs if you will, there�s a lot of public service that can be done there. But if I focus on the federal government, what I would say is that the federal government represents the largest, most complex, most diverse, arguably most important entity on the face of the earth. It�s 20 percent of the U.S. economy, the only superpower on earth, and therefore, you need to have top-flight talent running that type of enterprise. There are tremendous challenges, tremendous opportunities in the federal government. Individuals can assume a lot of responsibility very early. They can make a difference that involves billions of dollars and millions of people. It�s rare that you get that opportunity.
You know, I�ve had the pleasure and privilege of being able to have responsible positions both in the private sector and the public sector. And I�ve enjoyed every job that I�ve had. And I enjoyed the private sector to a great extent. But I�ve never enjoyed anything more than public service. You know, obviously, my wallet�s not as well off as it used to be, but my head and my heart are much fuller than -- well, I -- certainly, my heart is; not my head, hopefully. I mean, my -- I know a lot more, let�s put it that way, and I feel a lot better about what I�m doing. So it�s a real opportunity to make a difference for your fellow citizens and for the future of our country.
Mr. Lawrence: David, that will have to be our last question. Al and I want to thank you for joining this morning and fitting us in your very busy schedule.
Mr. Walker: Well, Paul and Al, I want to thank you again for being a repeat customer. And don�t forget that GAO website, www.gao.gov. Thanks.
Mr. Lawrence: Thank you, David.
This has been The Business of Government Hour, featuring a conversation with David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office.
Be sure and visit us on the web at businessofgovernment.org. There, you can learn more about our programs and research, and get a transcript of today�s fascinating conversation. Once again, that�s businessofgovernment.org.
For The Business of Government Hour, I�m Paul Lawrence.
Thank you for listening.
Thursday, November 4, 2004
Mr. Lawrence: Good morning and welcome to The Business of Government Hour. I'm Paul Lawrence, partner in charge of The IBM Center for The Business of Government. We created The Center in 1998 to encourage discussion and research into new approaches to improving government effectiveness. You can learn more by visiting us on the Web at businessofgovernment.org.
The Business of Government Radio Show Hour features a conversation about management with a government executive who is changing the way government does business. Our special guest this morning is Marion Blakey, Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
Good morning, Mary.
Ms. Blakey: Good morning. Nice to be with you, Paul.
Mr. Lawrence: Thank you. And joining us in our conversation, also from IBM, is Dave Abel.
Good morning, Dave.
Mr. Abel: Good morning, Paul.
Mr. Lawrence: Well, Marion, let's start by filling our listeners in on the FAA. Could you talk to us about its mission?
Ms. Blakey: Well, the FAA's mission is to ensure that the traveling public, when they're flying, can be assured it's safe and efficient. We run the largest, most complex aviation system in the world. Of course, Air Traffic Control is a big part of that. But we also do a great deal in terms of setting the regulatory standards for what aircraft operators must meet; new aircraft coming into the system, and we also work, of course, to make sure those operations day-in and day-out are inspected and overseen in a way that, again, ensures safety.
Mr. Lawrence: How do you describe the size of the FAA; the network, the people, the budget. How would you describe it?
Ms. Blakey: Well, it's an agency of about 48,000 people scattered all over the country and around the world, really, because, as you can imagine, aviation is a global business, and that's the business we're in. The budget right now is around $14 billion, so again, one that both ensures the ongoing operation of the system and makes investment in the modernizing of the system and the future generation of the system.
Mr. Lawrence: 48,000 people. Can you give us a little bit about the range, the skills these people have? I immediately think of sort of heavy technical engineers, and the aircraft and the like, but I suspect it's much broader.
Ms. Blakey: It is broader. You know, we have a wide variety of professions involved. Everything from highly technical people who are pilots and engineers; people who can go on board an aircraft and inspect for all the right things; people who know how to control traffic and who are able, in fact, to look at the most efficient ways to design our air space. And then we have people who are policy folks, who are out there looking at issues of congestion management; what should we do in the future in terms of designing the revenue streams for a system like the one we have. Obviously, people who are in international fields, working with our counterparts in other countries around the world so that we have a seamless global system that works. A lot of different things. If you're an economist, if you're in policy, lawyers, all those are part of the FAA's workforce.
Mr. Abel: Marion, when you were describing the mission of the FAA, there's a vast number of stakeholders, and they fit into a number of different groups. What's the relationship with a couple of these groups? Let's start first with the airlines. What's the nature of the relationship between the FAA and the airlines?
Ms. Blakey: We look at the airlines as our customers. I think it's fair to say that because they provide the service to the vast majority of the American public that flies, we want to make sure that the service we're providing, both in terms of air traffic control and the overall approach we're taking in terms of operations in the system, meets their needs. At the same time, of course, we also regulate their work. We oversee safe operations, and so we place requirements on our customers as well. So it's a combination of things, but I think it's important to stress that it has to be a strong partnership, because after all, they're out there every day on the front lines and we're trying to ensure that they do the best possible job for the flying public.
Mr. Abel: How about some other organizations within the federal government, say the Department of Defense. I know there's a strong relationship between FAA and DoD. What's the nature of that relationship as well?
Ms. Blakey: Glad you mentioned it, because, you know, when you really look at the domestic air space, a lot of it is also devoted to military operations. Needs to be -- particularly in these days after 9/11, when the safety and security and surveillance missions are all caught up together. So we work very closely, particularly with the Air Force, as you can appreciate. We have military controllers out there who control some of the airspace as well as our own federal employees. And we try very hard to make sure that all of the regulations we do and requirements also meet the needs of our military. And in some cases like commercial space, we also work on commercial space launches, whether they take place from a federal Air Force facility or a private sector facility now.
Mr. Abel: I would imagine there needs to be a relationship with the Department of Homeland Security as well?
Ms. Blakey: A very close one, as you can appreciate. A large part of the work force that initially went over to the Department of Homeland Security came from the Department of Transportation. That's our parent agency. And, in fact, a number of them were involved with security on the aviation front at the FAA. So we've worked very closely, because they're the ones who have to assess what the threats are; they obviously do all of the surveillance in the airports of passengers as people get on the planes, but we're the ones who control the airspace. So we work very hard to make sure that when operational changes need to occur -- when there are, for example, areas where flights are restricted -- as you can appreciate, we've had a number of those with big events that go on, certainly during the Presidential election, we had to be certain when there were areas where we really didn't want to have flights at a low level over those areas, we work very closely with Homeland Security to figure out how to do that well.
Mr. Abel: Let's talk a little bit about your role. Can you tell us a little bit about the job and the responsibilities as Administrator?
Ms. Blakey: Well, I would like to say that this job involves sort of both being a pitcher and a catcher. I think the pitcher part, of course, is that you do try to look at the needs of the aviation system over the long haul. And a part of what I've spent a lot of time on is developing a strong business plan for the agency that looks strategically at where the system is going to go. I'm very proud to say that we are in fact developing a plan now that will be going to Congress in December for the next generation system of our aviation system here in this country. So there's a lot of that that's involved. But, certainly, day-to-day manager, and being, as I say, a catcher of the issues that you never expect and come your way; all of that's a part of it. I think most important, fundamentally, it is strong management skills that are required for the job.
Mr. Lawrence: Let's take a little look at your experiences before becoming Administrator of the FAA. Can you tell us about some of the previous positions that you held before this role?
Ms. Blakey: Well, I can. Certainly recently, they were all involved with transportation in various stripes. But, I'll tell you, I'm also very proud of having been a civil servant for many years. I started as a GS-3 clerk. Wasn't even a clerk-typist, because I couldn't type. So you can imagine I was pretty far down the totem pole. But liked government for many reasons including the broad scope of issues, the feeling that you really do have an impact on the lives of people all over this country. So I worked in a number of departments and agencies and had some great opportunities. Worked in the White House, Department of Commerce, Department of Education many years ago. But became fascinated by Transportation, and had the opportunity to head the agency that regulates the automobile industry.
I had a firm in the private sector that was all focused on transportation issues, a communications and public affairs firm that I'm proud to say flourishes to this day: Blakey and Agnew. It was Blakey and Associates then. But worked on a number of public policy issues with a number of corporations, all focused on transportation. And then came back into government as the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board that investigates accidents. It gives you a very fine appreciation, of course, as you can imagine, for the safety issues of our system. And I was very surprised but delighted to be tapped by President Bush to be head of the FAA. So I guess that's the quick version.
Mr. Abel: You mentioned that one of the responsibilities and one of the areas that you need to manage now is reacting to things that happen on a daily basis. How have those roles prepared you for the responsibility in FAA of management, of reacting to events on a daily basis?
Ms. Blakey: You know, you have to again try to look at the broad picture, and every day, frankly, go in and say, how am I going to move the agenda that I believe is important on the two, three, four things that you really set in front of yourself as goals and objectives in that job? It's very easy to get caught up in all of the pressures of the issues, concerns, problems that everyone brings to you. And so I do think you really have to start out, as I say, with trying to see if during that day and that week -- I can't say I accomplish it every day -- but at least during that week, you feel like you have actually moved toward the goals that you're setting and at the same time, trying to be responsive and nimble. One of the things that I certainly found in my years in the private sector is you have an appreciation for how important it is to be able to react quickly, to size something up, to make decisions.
Government doesn't always engender the kind of culture that prompts good, strong and efficient decision-making. And so you try, I think, in the kind of role that I play as Administrator, to try to make those decisions on a basis that then people below you can be responsive and react in a way that's timely.
Mr. Lawrence: Let's continue along that path. You were just contrasting the public sector and the private sector, and having been in both those sectors. How about some other comparisons in terms of management approaches from all your experiences.
Ms. Blakey: In terms of management in the private sector, of course, you do have the feeling of being much more nimble, much more able to react to forces quickly, and frankly, decisions are not ones that you have to look at a variety of overseers before you can make them in a way that holds. That is all very refreshing. I will also say that many of us in the private sector look at ourselves fundamentally as salesmen, as people who are advocates, as people who are promoting an agenda in a very direct way. It doesn't hold true for all jobs, but certainly ones that I have had. And I have prized that.
I have to tell you that I've enjoyed the opportunities to really set a marker out there and go for it in a way that -- sometimes within government, it's much more of a process. So those are the things that I would say from a private sector standpoint you can appreciate and try to employ as you move in to the public sector and to public policy. But of course, public policy, as I say, the opportunity to work with a variety of organizations, whether it's the Congress, OMB, the Administration, more broadly, other agencies, is a genuine challenge that also is very reinforcing, because again, the impact and scope of what you can accomplish that way is enormous. And that's something that I think many of us who have enjoyed our tenure during our life in government, it is all about that kind of scope and impact.
Mr. Lawrence: That's an interesting point, especially about the contrast.
Air travel is up significantly in the last couple of years, returning to the point where many airports are close to their pre-9/11 volumes. What does this mean for FAA operations?
We'll ask Marion Blakey, the FAA's Administrator when The Business of Government Hour returns.
Mr. Lawrence: Welcome back to The Business of Government Hour. I'm Paul Lawrence, and this morning's conversation is with Marion Blakey, Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
Joining us in our conversation is Dave Abel.
Mr. Abel: Marion, in the last segment, we talked a little bit about the size of FAA. I'd like to ask a little bit about the size of the FAA's mission. About how many people fly in commercial and private air carriers each year?
Ms. Blakey: Well, if you look at it basically in the area of commercial, because private is sometimes hard to know because a lot of those folks are out there flying VFR, and we don't tally them up each time they leave a small air field. But if we're talking about commercial passengers it is somewhat under 700 million. 689 million was the last figure that I had for the last year we were counting, which was, you know, pretty accurate.
Mr. Abel: Over the past two years since September 11th, we've started to see a significant increase again in the volume of people who are flying commercial aviation. What type of impact does that increase of volume or demand have on the FAA?
Ms. Blakey: Well, certainly, we have to stay up with demand, and since we are an operational agency, the more folks up there flying, typically, the more services we have to provide, the more people it requires to do it, et cetera. One of the interesting things that's a phenomena now in aviation is we have seen very different patterns of traffic since 9/11: much more point-to-point flying, much more use of regional jets. And so what that means from our standpoint is we have a high number of operations that we have to provide the air traffic control for, the services on the ground for, and yet they are not carrying as many passengers as they might have with the widebody's bigger aircraft that you saw more of before 9/11.
So there's a shift in the fleet. And as we're looking at some of the things that are coming at us, we're going to be seeing even more of that with what are called Microjets, the very small aircraft that are coming online in the next few years. And of course, then there's UAVs. So there's a lot out there coming at us.
Mr. Abel: So what are some of the things that -- in your strategy, what are some of the things that you're looking to be able to do over the course of the next couple of years to address this increase in demand of operations, in addition to the increase in passengers?
Ms. Blakey: It is to have the FAA be a very flexible agency in the sense of where we assign our work force, how we allocate our resources, because obviously, as there's a dynamic in the airline business and in aviation that's changing, we really have to stay up with it. As I say, we see ourselves as providing an important customer service, if you will, and so that means we have to match the demand. At the same time, we've also got to invest in the system, and a fair amount of time that I spend, of course, is looking at the way that we are investing in technology; are we getting a good return on that investment; are we modernizing our system. So that in fact, it's going to anticipate the requirements in the future, and frankly, use our air space and our airports and ground infrastructure ever more efficiently, because as traffic continues to increase, which it will, and as aviation is an enormous driver on our economy nationally and it will be internationally, we had better provide the infrastructure and the service that will match it, and that means we are going to have to invest smartly.
Mr. Abel: So if you think about it from a very simple perspective, in order to be able to manage the demand for air transportation, we have to look at flight delays and capacity. What are some of the things that the FAA is doing to be able to increase capacity at airports. Is it as simple as building more runways?
Ms. Blakey: Well, runways are a lot of it. I'll tell you, there's no substitute for pavement. And in fact, I am very pleased with the way our country is really stepping up and recognizing that, because it takes a lot of on the part of city fathers and communities to make the political headway and then the investment that's required to put in new runways. But we're seeing a lot of that. Over the course of the last five years, we've had eight major runways go in, and that's a big thing. You know, places like Houston, Orlando, Miami. We've got them coming in, you know, in places like St. Louis. It's a great thing.
And of course, Chicago O'Hare, one of the real challenges in our system, because so many of our flights go through Chicago -- they're planning a major modernization of O'Hare as well. So there's a lot of pavement that is involved in ensuring that we're going to have the infrastructure there to support the passengers that are coming through. At the same time, technology is a great part of it. We also need to really have a system that has new technologies there so that we can use the air space more efficiently. And we've worked pretty hard on that as well.
Mr. Abel: What are some examples of some of the potential new technologies that may help to be able to more efficiently manage the air space?
Ms. Blakey: One of the big things, basic. We have a change out going on on what we call the host, if you will, the central nervous system of our air traffic control system. This is a major thing. And as you can appreciate, over many years, that system was developed, the software was written. The software right now is still written in a language called Jovial. There aren't many people out there who write Jovial anymore. So we are changing all of that, and that is a big multi-billion dollar investment.
Another thing that we're doing is in the terminal air space. I'm sure some of our listeners have seen those round scopes; you know, the old air traffic control radar. You don't see that now. What you're seeing more and more is new, very impressive screens that look a lot like the big computer screens at home, full color; where we are not only able to fuse radar coming in from as many as 16 different sources, but we also are able to infuse weather information for the controllers. Other kinds of very critical information so that they're able to sequence flights and with greater and greater precision, control them.
Another thing that's going on which our listeners will begin to have the benefit of in January of this coming year is that we're reducing the vertical separation between flights in the air space. Now, I'm sure that might cause some concern for some folks. You know, lots of space is good, but the more efficiently we use the air space, obviously, the more we're going to be able to handle increased traffic without delays, with the kind of reliability people want. And the air space, the upper air space is now going to be used in thousand mile vertical separation rather than two thousand mile. It's done around the world. The United States is moving to that. And again, that's going to offer some real efficiencies.
Mr. Abel: You describe for us the increase in demand and the increased requirements on the FAA to be able to manage that demand. And the listeners may assume that that means that there's a lot more money to be able to manage the organization, but we certainly know that not to be the case. You've focused a lot recently on the efficiency and effectiveness of the Air Traffic Organization, or ATO. What is the ATO?
Ms. Blakey: The ATO is a new performance-based organization within the FDA that brings together several of our major, what were formerly lines of business, in an integrated streamlined way. The concept, of course, is to develop a organization that has layers, that is very service-oriented, and that operates to specific performance metrics. We have targets that we are setting for our organization that go to issues that reduce delay, on-time performance, using the infrastructure to the best possible capability there, and, of course, indications of safety and the kind of performance that we'll always require from that standpoint.
But we do believe that having those kinds of targets, and frankly, cost efficient measures. We are looking at cost accounting, being able to understand, really, for the first time, what it costs to undertake air traffic control of a given airplane. How much does it cost to control over an hour in upper air space the flight of an airplane? Because, obviously, as you're thinking about service and how you provide it and what things cost, you really do need to be able to get it down to unit cost. That's what the private sector does. And we can do it in government as well. It makes us much more accountable and transparent as to how we're using our resources. All of that is part of the air traffic organization.
Mr. Abel: What has been the impact of the implementation of the ATO so far. It's a relatively new organization. How's it going so far?
Ms. Blakey: Well, it's going well. We have been working very hard, for example, to streamline our operation at the top tier of management and in headquarters, dropping the number of layers from around 11 down to 5 or 6. We're doing a number of things to align the question of how you invest in new capital improvements in the system, with also the people who have to operate the system. It used to be that the FAA made research, acquisition investments in one part of the FAA and the folks who are operating the system were off in another part. When these new improvements, technologies, were then handed over to the operational folks, sometimes we found that they didn't align too well. Sometimes we found that the issues of how much it costs to maintain over time, how much it costs to really operate it, we did not have a good integration between those two sides of sound decision-making. So the Air Traffic Organization has now put those decisions again in the hands of people who have to both operate the system and have to think long-term about the return on investment. And by integrating that, I think we're going to get a much more efficient system.
Mr Lawrence: The FAA has several initiatives underway to better regulate and enforce safety standards, to include improving customer satisfaction. Could you tell us about these?
Ms. Blakey: Yeah, we have found all along that we needed to be more consistent in the way we provided interpretations of our regulations, the way we provided guidance on how those who are out there both developing aircraft, modifying aircraft, doing the kind of maintenance that's involved, what those standards and certification requirements were. And there has been the impression; certainly, that I think has been real in some cases that different parts of the FAA in different parts of the country operated differently.
The guidance was not always consistent, wasn't always as reliable as it needed to be. So what we've done is, we've provided to all of our organizations out there a required code that says these are the kinds of things that to be responsive to our customers, you need to do. And if someone comes in and believes that the guidance that they've been given, the decision they were given on a given issue problem, aircraft, they want to appeal it, it also provides the information to our customers on how you take it up to the next level, and guarantees a hearing, so that if there are issues of consistency from one place or another, as it moves up, we are able to address those and understand that they're there. That kind of accountability, I think, we're having good reactions from all those out there that the FAA touches and affects.
I'm also very proud of the fact that the customer satisfaction survey that we do has been consistently going up. We're getting good grades from pilots out there as to how well our Air Traffic Control is working, how we're touching a number of our customers now. And that matters to us.
Mr. Lawrence: Most FAA employees are in a pay for performance situation. What does this mean to the employees and its leaders?
We'll ask Marion Blakey of the FAA for her thoughts when The Business of Government Hour continues.
Mr. Lawrence: Welcome back to The Business of Government Hour, I'm Paul Lawrence, and this morning's conversation is with Marion Blakey, Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
Joining us in our conversation is Dave Abel.
Mr. Abel: Marion, in our first segment, you talked about the need for you to balance between strategic planning and operations. We talked a lot in the last segment about the operations of the FAA and the increase in demand. Let's flip back and talk a little bit about strategic planning. How in the organization do you do strategic planning?
Ms. Blakey: Well, you know, it's pretty challenging in an organization that is really required to keep up with transactions, millions of them a day. In other words, unlike a lot of agencies of government, the FAA really operates a system, and both achievements and occasional mistakes are very public, so it's hard to pull back and then to say, nope, we're going to take a longer view, and we're going to set goals and then attach not only metrics to those goals so we can tell whether we are meeting them or not, but we're going to tie our budget to those goals and see what it's costing us, and see whether we can afford to do this and continue to keep up on it on a week-in week-out, month-in month-out basis.
The way we tackled it was that we decided that we would construct a flight plan for the FAA, a rolling five-year plan that was going to, as I say, be tied to performance measures and tied to our budget. That does, believe me, get the attention of all your executives in a hurry, because that means that everything is going to be run by a strategic plan, a business plan. As many of us know in government, I think there are probably strategic plans all over town that are gathering dust on shelves. You have one, you post it on your web site and that's the end of that.
Ours is one that we developed over the course of about six months. It was a very arduous process of really trying to determine what the kind of goals and initiatives were that would genuinely improve our system, that would genuinely advance safety, and how you would measure that; how you would measure our achievements internationally, because we wanted the FAA to be much more proactive internationally -- frankly, set the standards globally for aviation -- and how we were going to set standards of organizational excellence that really would put us first in government. That's the goal there, and we're not shy about saying so. But we work very hard internally, and then we had the plan in draft put out there for comment by all of our stakeholders, we hold town hall meetings, we encourage comments from our employees, and then we posted the plan on our web site and said we are going to be measured by this.
I hold meetings every month where all of our executive team comes together. We spend a full day together going over all of those metrics. Are we hitting it or we not? Are we making our numbers or are we not? And we are then accountable on a quarterly basis just like a corporation, for whether we're doing it or not. We use a simple system: red, yellow, green. For people who want to click into it, we have a good software-based system called PB Views that allows people to go as deeply as they want to into the specific initiatives and performance measures of the FAA, and see specifically how we're doing on those.
And because we do tie our pay at the FAA, the annual awards and bonuses that frankly are automatic just about everywhere else in government, in ours, we have to make our numbers. Last year, we didn't make all of our numbers, and as a result, we only awarded 85 percent of what is usually the annual increases, the quality step increases, all of that, which we combined for our organizational success increase. We only awarded 85 percent, because that was really what we made on our numbers. This year, for '04, I'm just doing the assessment right now with our executive team. We're going to do better than that. But we're still not hitting every goal, and that's because they're strict goals. But we intend it to be that way.
We have just published our new draft plan, we'll be rolling it out soon, and at this point, I'm pleased to say we've had over a thousand comments and suggestions on it. That's good, because that means both our stakeholders and, very significantly, our employees, 85 percent of the comments came from my employees; they've got ownership in it, and that makes a huge difference.
Mr. Lawrence: Who participated in the initial development of the plan?
Ms. Blakey: You know, it started out with executive-led teams. But then we worked it out through our facilities, and then we asked our customer base to come in and meet. The FAA is not short on having advisory groups and people we can count on to help us with good advice, and frankly, it really was a big group effort. I don't take any personal ownership in this. It's something that needed to be developed organically, and I think that's one reason why it's working.
Mr. Lawrence: Could you provide us with a couple of examples of things that you measure? What would be some example measurements that are in the plan?
Ms. Blakey: Well, I certainly can. One of them, for example, is to reduce the risk of runway incursions, two planes getting too close together on a runway, vehicles getting out there, and I'm proud to tell you that we set specific numbers that we were trying to drive down the numbers of those incidents, because we believe it has very fundamental affect on safety. Reduce the number of Alaska accidents. You might say why Alaska? Well, because, frankly, that was where we saw the greatest incidence of accidents and fatalities. Being a pilot in Alaska used to be a high-risk profession, largely because of terrain and weather. But we knew we could take on some of those issues with new technologies, and we did.
When I look at questions of how we operate the system, we looked at things like on-time performance; how are we doing from the standpoint of actually being within 15 minutes of the time passengers expect to arrive at the gate? We don't control it entirely. That's also a part of weather and the way the airline is scheduled. But we've got specific metrics. Frankly, that was one last year we didn't make. So I could go on, but that gives you some idea, you know. These are not soft goals.
Mr. Lawrence: You mentioned that a number of the employees; in fact, a large percentage of the employees, are rewarded based on being able to meet these metrics. Are they rewarded on meeting all of the metrics, or ones that apply to their specific job?
Ms. Blakey: We do it on two levels, if you will. I am proud of the fact that 75 percent of the FAA's workforce, and this includes our unionized work force to a very significant degree, is on a pay for performance system. We have what we call an organizational success increase, which means that out of the 30 goals that we have for the FAA, we're expected to meet 90 percent of those if in fact people are going to get the full OSI, as we call it. Then there are specific also awards that go for the more-detailed duties that each individual employee has. And those increases also are really tailored to their responsibility, so they vary from one part of the FAA to another.
Mr. Lawrence: As long as we're talking about the employees of the FAA, can you tell us a little bit about some of the human resources challenges you face in the organization today?
Ms. Blakey: Well, you know, I bet like much of government, from what I understand, we're dealing with an aging workforce, and that's not surprising, particularly for the FAA, because of two things. One is that when you think about the folks you want out there inspecting airplanes and providing oversight from the standpoint of certifying aircraft and all of that, needless to say, you draw on very experienced people. A lot of them come out of the industry. They're highly trained, but that means it is an older work force on the whole.
Another phenomenon was that for our air traffic controllers, the PATCO strike meant that large numbers were hired in the early '80s, because President Reagan fired over 10,000 air traffic controllers, and the need to replace those all happened within a few years. Those folks are reaching the maximum retirement age, which is 56, as the system is set up. So we're going to see large numbers mustering out over the next ten years. And that means we're going to be hiring lots of people, and we have to figure out a plan that both figures out how to begin to step that up, and how we can train highly efficiently so that you move people into the system well.
Mr. Lawrence: How long does it take -- when someone decides to become an air traffic controller, how long does it take before they can actually work in the system? Is it a long lead cycle or is it relatively short?
Ms. Blakey: It depends, of course, on the experience base that they bring. We recruit from the military, where they've been controlling live traffic; we recruit from schools around the country where they may have spent four years in an undergraduate degree learning a lot. But we also recruit people straight in. Average is three to five years to be a fully certified controller, particularly at the more complex facilities. Now, fully certified means that you can work all positions in some of our most complex facilities out there.
We think probably, as we need to step up the pace on this, we're going to use simulators, for example, which is something that has been highly successful, as you know, in the training of airline pilots. The FAA hasn't relied on it as much. We believe in simulating all sorts of circumstances that hopefully controllers will never see in their actual air space that they're going to control. We'll be able to bring people through the system more quickly, and that would be a good thing.
Mr. Lawrence: In 2002, the FAA won an award for the most improved government agency. I'd be curious about some other awards you've won as well, and I guess, sort of even, how you continue to improve to win these awards.
Ms. Blakey: Well, you know, we do focus on that a lot. I really do believe that it is important to have people recognize the excellent performance and the real steps that we're taking to be a performance-driven organization. For example, we were very pleased that we were, with the Department of Transportation, top agency of government in terms of the President's Management Agenda. Four out of five of the key scores, we were green on. So we were right up there in the very top tier, and the FAA drove a lot of that because we're a big part of the Department of Transportation.
The Association of Government Accountants, in this last year, gave us award for our performance in financial report. We're very proud of that. We're proud of the fact that we have had clean audits for the last three years, and believe me, we're working very hard to get another one this year. Customer satisfaction index, as I say, this continues to go up, and we're looking at expanding that so that we have the real measure of how people feel we are doing in terms of being responsive to their needs.
So all of these are the kinds of things that, you know, as I look at it, we're working very hard, I'll tell you this, to get off the GAO's high risk list. I'm sure there are folks out there who know government agencies are often targeted there. The FAA's financial performance has been there for a while, and I'm very hopeful that we're going to move off of that as a result.
Mr. Lawrence: That's interesting.
What are the implications for the FAA of things such as commercial space travel? We'll ask Marion Blakey from the FAA for her thoughts on what the future holds for the FAA when The Business of Government Hour continues.
Mr. Lawrence: Welcome back to The Business of Government Hour. I'm Paul Lawrence, and this morning's conversation is with Marion Blakey, Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
Joining us in our conversation is Dave Abel.
Mr. Abel: Over the past ten years, most businesses have gone global, but none more than commercial aviation. What is some of the impact now of the international nature of air transportation on operations of the FAA?
Ms. Blakey: Well, you know, it is a global system, and it is very much in the interest of the American flying public that we encourage open skies, the ability of not only of our carriers to fly routes all over the globe, but also to co-chair with foreign carriers so that in fact, you know, you don't have to have expensive service everywhere, because you could link up with a lot of others. That drives the price of tickets down, but at the same time, we have to be sure that it is not only a seamless system out there, but a very safe system. And parts of the world, as you know, safety challenges in aviation are much greater than they are in the United States. So we're trying to raise the bar on safety in a number of places.
We're also very convinced that American technology, American safety, is something we should be exporting. It's one of the great aspects of the fact that the United States has been a leader in aviation since the Wright Brothers. So in markets like China, for example, we're working very hard on both air traffic control systems and procedures, satellite-based systems. We have a satellite-based system now that we believe uses our GPS system, that will extend all the way from India through, we hope, China. Certainly Japan has already committed to it, and around the globe into the United States. It's going to be a great boon for aviation.
So we're working hard to expand those benefits, and frankly, that also benefits the United States economy in a variety of ways, our companies and our passengers. It's a big part of our goal these days.
Mr. Lawrence: Does the FAA have a single counterpart in Europe, or are there multiple organizations?
Ms. Blakey: I'm glad to say that with the European Union's advent, they have now developed an agency that's brand new called EASA, the European Aviation Safety Agency, that actually is going to be officially opening its doors in Cologne before the end of this year. So that's a good thing, because that brings all those countries together for us to work with on a joint basis. We are also encouraging safety on a regional basis in a number of parts of the world. Because, especially less developed countries with fewer resources, if they combine forces and we can provide them technical assistance across national boundaries that will work well in Latin America, in Africa and other parts of the globe. So that's another thing that we're doing. But we work very closely with our European counterparts
Mr. Lawrence: Now a bit earlier, you talked about some of the things that are coming in the future of commercial transportation, and just to pick out a couple of fun ones, you were present as Spaceship 1 completed its second trip into space earlier this year. What was it like to witness that?
Ms. Blakey: Wow, I'll tell you, that was the longest period of sustained goose bumps I've ever had in my life. No, it was fabulous standing out there in the Mohave in the early morning, freezing cold, watching that flight. When Mike Melville took it up, really into space, really expanded what has happened in terms of a privately developed, privately piloted aircraft that all of a sudden can go, not only into space, but come back, and has the capability to carry passengers. I was there with Richard Branson, who has decided that Virgin Galactic is going to begin carrying passengers into space in the next couple of years. So you can imagine, from the FAA standpoint, I see a lot of challenges coming together. I believe, of course this is very exciting in the future of aviation and aerospace, and we need to enable it. But there are issues of risks to passengers, issues, of course that we have to protect the safety of folks on the ground. So it's a challenge.
Mr. Lawrence: Do you have an organization today that's focused on space travel within FAA?
Ms. Blakey: Absolutely, our commercial space organization within our organization actually has ensured the safe launch of 167 commercial launches already. Now that we're getting into the reusable vehicle area, of course, that's got new challenges. But we're very proud of that track record.
Mr. Abel: You also mentioned a bit earlier a new type of travel called Microjets. What is a Microjet?
Ms. Blakey: It's a small, high performance aircraft. There aren't any out there on the market, but there are two companies, Eclipse and Adam, and there are several others coming along, which are using composite materials and very high performance small jet engines, to provide transportation for four to six people typically, that can be right up there with commercial jets. Glass cockpits, all of the kind of safety and navigation features that you really see, you know, in a Boeing 777. And what that's going to do is it's going to allow air taxis to flourish. Service to a lot of smaller airports, because a small number of people on a cost efficient basis can go on a non-scheduled basis point to point. Over time, it is really going to infuse transportation in this country with a lot more flexibility and cost efficiency than you have right now, when you're restricted just to the large commercial jets.
Mr. Abel: So if we put a couple of these together: we have microjets, space travel, increased demand for commercial aviation today, even just based on these regional jets versus larger jets we were saying before, how long can the FAA continue to operate as it is today, or are there plans for a new way of being able to business in the future.
Ms. Blakey: Well, Dave, I'm glad you asked that, because it's one of the things I've really spent a lot of time thinking about with some smart people. The system is not infinitely scaleable. In fact, we're getting to the limits of it. When you think about the fact that we use active ground to air control, voice communications, you can appreciate, as the traffic gets more and more dense -- UAVs coming into the system, a lot of things -- we're really going to have to change this.
The next generation system, we are bringing out a plan, in fact, again, before the end of this year, that I think is going to address what a next generation aviation system, both in terms of air traffic control, much more emphasis on satellite-based, satellite to aircraft, aircraft to aircraft separation; much more on automation; much more in terms of controlling traffic as managing exceptions with automation; looking to ensure the safety routinely, and in point of fact, we are also going to have to see a much better use of our infrastructure in terms of airport infrastructure, where do we need them for the years to come?
You know, it's not all going to be where it is right now. And so, the "build it and they will come," we've got to build it and anticipate where it's going to be. And so we're working very hard on those kinds of things, as well as what will a really stepped-up safety system be all about. The Europeans have already developed such a plan. So we're going to be moving out on this because, again, we believe that the leadership of the United States overall, both for our domestic health as well as internationally, depends on it.
Mr. Abel: What is the timing of a plan like that? What type of horizon would you look at as far as the time that it would cover?
Ms. Blakey: It covers out to 2025. That sounds like a long way away, but remember that the aircraft that are rolling off the assembly line right now will be flying in 2025. It typically can take as long as seven to twelve years to build a runway, so this kind of planning, it's not so far out there. And what I will also tell you is that this is an inter-agency process, which we rarely see in government. We are doing this with the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce, because, of course, they have the Weather Service, and weather's a big factor in aviation, along with the White House, in terms of our science and policy shop over there, so we've got really a lot of folks who are working with the Department of Transportation and the FAA on this. And NASA is a big part, of course, of that partnership as well.
Mr. Lawrence: Is there participation of commercial entities as well, airlines or cargo carriers, or other users of transportation as well?
Ms. Blakey: Absolutely. Our stakeholders really have to be involved and say, yes, we see the system serving us in the future, and that's going to be a big part of it, and frankly, such a plan will be governing our federal investments. One of the things that I think is exciting in this is, as we all know, the tremendous advances that have occurred in the Department of Defense in terms of the use of satellite-based navigation, air control systems that can translate into the civil side and benefit all of us. So this kind of joint effort together for surveillance, navigation, communication -- it's going to yield real dividends, and it will begin to govern our investments, not only looking at 2025, but in the near years, because you've got to have a smooth transition.
Mr. Lawrence: Marion, in our first segment you talked about your career beginning as a GS-3 and now working up to the Administrator, and cutting across both the public and private sector. What advice would you give to someone interested in a career in public service?
Ms. Blakey: Well, I would certainly say that I've found it tremendously personally rewarding. The mission orientation of the opportunities that you often have in government service; the ability to get up in the morning and know that you genuinely make a difference in people's lives. That's a tremendous engine, I think psychically for all of us in terms of -- do you like to come to work, do you care about what you do? Do you feel like you're making a difference? I can tell you that my career in government has really given me the ability to answer that affirmatively every time, but never more so than at the FAA, because we obviously have a mission that touches everyone's lives.
Anyone thinking about careers broadly, but certainly in terms of public service, I think it's also important to be open to opportunity. I would never have projected that my career would have taken the turns it has. I could not have anticipated some of the opportunities that one career in one agency would then lead to another. And it's been very exciting to realize that sometimes, the way that mentors, the way people see you that are above you in government, may not be the way you see yourself. But in fact, that opens opportunities; that opens challenges that you rise to.
And I have found government to be a wonderfully supportive environment from that standpoint, of being able to move into arenas, that as I say, I wouldn't have anticipated, but it's been tremendously rewarding. I would also say this: that I would encourage anyone who is interested in public service to look at the FAA. I'd like to see them go to www.faa.gov, because there, they'll be able to see what we're doing. Look at our flight plan. See how we're doing on our performance. But they can also look at the careers we have at the FAA. I think they're terrific.
Mr. Lawrence: Thank you very much for joining us this morning, Marion. I'm afraid we're out of time. That will have to be our last question.
Do you want to mention the web site once again?
Ms. Blakey: The web site is www.faa.gov. And I'd love to have people go there. You can even get good information about how the system is doing on a given date. You can even access it from your wireless, from a PDA, to see how your airports out there are doing, if you want to know if there are delays in the system. It's a great site.
Mr. Lawrence: This has been The Business of Government Hour, featuring a conversation with Marion Blakey, Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
Be sure and visit us on the web at businessofgovernment.org. There, you can learn more about our programs and get a transcript of today's fascinating conversation. Once again, that's businessofgovernment.org.
This is Paul Lawrence. Thank you for listening.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
Mr. Lawrence: Good morning and welcome to The Business of Government Hour. I'm Paul Lawrence, partner in charge of The IBM Center for The Business of Government. We created the Center in 1998 to encourage discussion and research into new approaches to improving government effectiveness. You can find out more about the Center by visiting us on the web at businessofgovernment.org.
The Business of Government Hour features a conversation about management with a government executive who is changing the way government does business. Our special guest this morning is Michael Montelongo, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management and Comptroller.
Good morning, Michael.
Mr. Montelongo: Good morning, Paul. It’s great to be here.
Mr. Lawrence: And joining us is Glen Gram. Good morning, Glen.
Mr. Gram: Good morning.
Mr. Lawrence: Well, Michael, let’s start at sort of the context. Could you tell us about the Office for Financial Management and Comptroller and how it supports the mission of the U.S. Air Force?
Mr. Montelongo: Well, first of all, let me begin by saying thanks to you and the IBM team for doing what you’re doing. In other words, giving your listeners, really the insights of what government is doing to deliver more value to the American taxpayer. So I really applaud you for doing that.
Let me then answer your question and that is that the Air Force, the United States Air Force, the United States Air Force that serves the American public, is designed to protect the interest of the United States, to defend the interests of the United States using air and space power. And what our role is as financial managers is to primarily deliver the resources that the Air Force needs, the financial management services that the Air Force needs to accomplish that mission.
Mr. Gram: Mike, can you tell us a little about your role as the Chief Financial Officer of the Air Force?
Mr. Montelongo: Well, it really stems from what I just said, Glen, and that is that we’re primarily involved in delivering financial management services and analytical services to the Air Force at large. And then I have the additional role of being the primary adviser, financial adviser to the Secretary of the Air Force Jim Roach, who’s my boss, and my other boss, who is the Chief of Staff of the Air Force John Jumper. And I also provide that kind of advice and counsel, financial resource advice and counsel, to other senior leaders of the Air Force.
Mr. Gram: What’s the size and scope of your organization as you carry out those functions?
Mr. Montelongo: Let me just put in context to say that the Air Force is one of perhaps three or four business units, if I could use that lexicon or that sort of metaphor and analogue, in the Department of Defense, which is basically in many ways the oldest, largest, busiest, and some might arguably say the most successful organization on the planet. As far as the Air Force is concerned, we have something in the neighborhood of about 700,000 professionals that span the active duty, reserve, guard, and civilians that do the work of the United States Air Force.
When you look at what we are involved in, in some ways, you can describe us as the largest airline on the planet. We have a fleet of something like 6,000 aircraft, which is larger than really the fleets of Southwest, Northwest, Continental, United, American, and Delta Airlines combined. Of course, our aircraft is specialized, too, as you might imagine. And when you also compare us to the personnel, budget, and asset base of other companies, I just told you that we have a total of about 700,000 or so people, frankly, that’s more than IBM and General Motors combined, and I think it’s only Wal-Mart that exceeds the number of people employed that we have.
And in terms of budget, just recently I guess in this current budget cycle, we have something to the tune of a little over 120 billion. And when you compare that to the revenue base of, say, the largest six air carriers or airline carriers, we exceed that, and we also exceed the asset base for those carriers by a good amount. So we are a fairly sizable organization.
Mr. Gram: Well, that’s great. Can you tell us a little about your previous work experience prior to becoming this Chief Financial Officer, and how that work experience prepared you for your current position?
Mr. Montelongo: Well, I began public service quite early as a lieutenant in the United States Army, and this -- well, I guess I won’t tell you how long ago that was, but that’s how I started and did, frankly, a full career before I decided that it was time to then pursue another chapter in my journey. And from there, after doing a career in the Army, then went into the private sector, starting first in the teleco industry and then moving on into the consulting industry. And then this opportunity had come up and I was, frankly, very fortunate to have the opportunity and privilege to join the Administration and to serve in this capacity.
Mr. Gram: How different is that experience compared to the typical commercial sector experience?
Mr. Montelongo: Well, you know, in many ways it is quite comparable. And I think that as you have noted in previous conversations that you’ve had with other government officials, I think that they would probably tell you the same, that it’s quite comparable in many ways.
Where it differs I think is clearly in the fact that we don’t have a profit motive. It differs in the fact that the scale, as I just tried to paint for you, is quite different. And the cost of not performing, particularly in this area, in this context, in the Department of Defense, in the business units of the Department of Defense, whether it’s Air Force, Army, Navy, or Marines, the cost of not performing is proportionately I think higher than it would be, say, in the commercial sector. Because here we’re talking about, frankly, the national defense. We’re talking about lives at stake. We’re talking about defending the nation’s basic democratic principles and values. And so in that regard, the stakes are much higher.
But even though we don’t have a profit motive, we still have the pressure to perform. We have the pressure to succeed and win. There still are increasing demands for accountability, efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity. In some ways, I guess you could say that we have a CEO who’s the President of the United States; and we have a board of directors, which is the United States Congress -- as opposed to maybe 15 or so, we have 535 -- which makes things quite interesting, as you might imagine; and our shareholders are the American public. And I think that in some ways, one could arguably say that our shareholders and board of directors are every bit as demanding as any corporation’s stockholders or board of directors.
Mr. Gram: I appreciate that analogy. That’s a neat way of looking at things. What’s been your greatest challenge in your role?
Mr. Montelongo: I’m not sure that I could -- as I think about that, I’m not sure that I could necessarily limit it to a single challenge, because government -- public service in and of itself I think poses some very complex challenges. And I think -- and this is not necessarily a judgment call, but I think from the perspective that I see it doing this in the Department of Defense I think makes it even that much more challenging and complicated sometimes.
But I’ll tell you, as I think about it, maybe the way I would characterize it is that each day I have to fight the tyranny of the urgent versus the important. And that is, and I think you can relate to this, I mean, oftentimes I find that the urgent is always crowding out the important. And another way of perhaps manifesting this comparison between the urgent and the important is that I tell my folks that each and every day, we are involved in building the airplane while we’re flying it. We have to operate while also being mindful of creating the future.
We don’t have the luxury we just went through the Finals here, the NBA Finals with the Lakers and the Pistons. They have the luxury of timeouts, we don’t. We have to operate every day, today, fighting a war, if you will, but we also have to be, as I said, very mindful of creating the future so that when the future gets here this institution will be as ready as it is today to meet the nation’s needs.
Mr. Lawrence: Your description of the scale of the Air Force was very interesting and context-setting. I’m curious in terms of some of the management challenges that scale presents. How do you communicate with a group that large?
Mr. Montelongo: Interesting question. I think that you use several channels to do that. And the one that I -- my preference is face-to-face. So I make it a point -- I don’t travel as frequently, for instance, as my boss does, the Secretary of the Air Force or General Jumper, both of them do, they travel quite a bit. And in fact, they do that primarily to get the word out, to connect with our 700,000 strong workforce: airmen, civilian airmen, and so forth. And so in some ways, I try to mimic that as well visiting as many bases as I can so that I can connect and let those folks know, both let me say not only financial managers at work -- and I have about 10,000 of these folks who are distributed throughout the Air Force -- not only to connect with them and let them know that I care about them, I love them, I love what they’re doing, and I appreciate their contributions, but also the wider Air Force that’s not necessarily involved in the financial management: the maintainers, the logisticians, the civil engineers, all of those folks, the communicators. I go out there to try and reach out and touch them and let them know that folks like myself are back here in the Pentagon doing everything that we can to give them the resources that they need to do their jobs.
So it is a mixture of having face-to-fact connect; it’s a mixture of using these kinds of opportunities that we’re doing this morning to reach out and let folks know what we’re about, what we do, and how we’re contributing to the defense of the nation.
Mr. Lawrence: Interesting. Transformation is taking place within the Department of Defense, and the Air Force’s financial management organization is no exception. What’s the transformational plans for financial management in the Air Force?
We’ll ask Mike Montelongo of the Air Force when The Business of Government Hour continues.
Mr. Lawrence: Welcome back to The Business of Government Hour. I’m Paul Lawrence, and this morning’s conversation is with Michael Montelongo, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management and Comptroller.
And joining us in our conversation is Glen Gram.
Well, Michael, I understand the Department of the Air Force is in the process of transforming itself to include its financial management operation, and I guess I’m interested in learning about the transformation. My first question is sort of why now, especially while we’re at wartime? And I’m reminded of your analogy, just talking about building the airplane while you’re flying it. So it seems like perhaps a high degree of difficulty.
Mr. Montelongo: Actually a very great question. I must tell you, Paul and Glen, that I vividly recall 9/10, the day before 9/11. And on that day, the Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld gave I thought a milestone speech titled “Bureaucracy to Battlefield.” And basically in that speech he was outlining his plan. Actually at that point, it was more of an evolution of a plan that he had already introduced when he came into office, but this one was a bit more specific about taking sort of the negative aspects of bureaucracy that we’ve all heard about, that in many ways pose stumbling blocks and barriers to good government and effectiveness and efficiency, and diverting all of the resources that go to those kinds of barriers, if you will, over to battlefield, if you will, the tooth of the Defense Department.
So basically what he was doing was rallying the troops and exhorting all of us to say, folks, we really have to move forward here and begin to translate all of this stuff that we have been experiencing from a bureaucratic point of view into more productivity and more capability. So that’s the whole notion of Bureaucracy to Battlefield.
And then, all of a sudden, 9/11 hits. So one would think, as your question implies, gee-whiz, how can you continue to be on sort of a transformation journey while you’re also fighting a war? Well, I would tell you that the global war on terrorism increases the imperative for change. It actually makes it that much more imperative for us to do the kinds of things that the Secretary was laying out on 9/10, the day before 9/11.
The President and the Secretary laid out a vision when they came into office for a much more agile, nimble, flexible, lethal, and integrated force, supported by a business operation or a set of business operations, back office if you want to use that term, that are just as agile, just as responsive to the war fighter. And then my boss, Secretary of the Air Force, and General Jumper, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, have basically taken that charter, that mandate to say in the Air Force, we’re not about necessarily platforms, we’re about building, sustaining, and strengthening capabilities.
Well golly gee-whiz, if that’s what the institution at large is trying to do, then it’s imperative upon me and my financial managers to support that kind of change, to support that kind of transformation. We have to be every bit as sophisticated in our financial service delivery as the weapon systems that we support and the war-fighting concepts that we support. That’s what transformation’s all about.
So for me, I have explicitly told our folks that when we grow up, metaphorically speaking, we have to be strategic partners to our commanders, to our decision-makers. We have to be the ultimate choice for financial and management information that is reliable, that’s timely, that’s accurate. And we have to be part of a world-class team that is delivering the absolute best in customer-focused financial services, but primarily what I call decision support services. That means, I want to make a distinction there, and I’m drawing a distinction between sort of the analytical capability that we can deliver versus transactional kinds of services.
Mr. Gram: Human capital, that is getting the most out of people and helping to promote top performance, is a major challenge in the federal government. How many people work for you and what are you doing to help them develop their potential?
Mr. Montelongo: Human capital, people stuff. Man, I’ll tell you, you’ve hit a button for me. That is a key piece that I spend a great deal of time on, because if we’re going to succeed at any of the kinds of things that I’ve sort of been outlining with you and our listeners, it’s going to be because we have dedicated, committed, skilled, competent people that are doing the nation’s work, frankly.
In my shop, I have something like 150 people, and that’s supplemented by partners in business, yourselves for instance, and you know this, Glen. And across the Air Force, and I mentioned this a little bit earlier, we have something like 10,000 individuals that are doing financial management work across the Air Force. And, you know, what we’re doing to manage their careers better, to give them the tools, the skill sets, the competencies that they need to succeed each and every day, we have embarked on what we’re calling a force development process, meaning that we’re now in the process of developing, training, educating, grooming, growing them purposely, purposefully, on purpose rather than sort of a pick-up game or an ad hoc game, which I think we had been doing in previous decades. It’s important that we do that.
Business, as you know, does or puts -- in some of the better organizations in business, put a premium on succession planning. And the idea being there is that you’re actually on purpose looking at your talent and strengthening that over time, and on purpose putting people into the right positions so that they can grow and ultimately take the reins of leadership in the organization. That’s what we’re doing with this whole force development concept in the Air Force and in financial management.
Mr. Lawrence: We noticed that your office is working with Harvard MBA summer interns. I’m curious about the objectives of this program and what type of work they do over the summer.
Mr. Montelongo: Paul, in addition to strengthening the folks that we currently have on the payroll and doing the kinds of things that I just outlined, we also have to be very mindful of bringing in new talent. You know this very well; one of the challenges the government at large is facing is the aging issue; that a good solid number, a large percentage of the public service workforce is in the retirement window. Now thankfully, we haven’t lost, at least in a large scale, that leadership capability, that skilled leadership capability just yet. But, I mean, as time goes on, it’s inevitable. So we have to be mindful to be sure that we can bring in some new talent.
My view is that we ought to have every bit of an opportunity to go after our fair share of America’s top talent. You know, we -- and I don’t want to make light of this, but certainly, you know, we’re in a war, global war on terrorism, but I also tell our people we’re in a war for talent. You folks are after the same talent that I want. In the past, we, I think, maybe unconsciously, have ceded the first-tier talent to business. So we haven’t aggressively recruited at first-tier schools, like Harvard or Wharton or Stanford or Chicago or any of those places. Well, I say we need to do that.
We need to visit these young people and say that in addition to the plethora of choices that they have to pick from, there’s another one that they haven’t heard, and that’s public service, and that that is every bit as rewarding and challenging as any other opportunity. And this an area, public service, of all the areas in American society that needs that kind of first-tier talent that is being produced at places like Harvard and all the other places that I was talking about. So what we’re doing is going through an experiment to see if we can introduce this young talent to government, to public service, and see what they think, because they’ve never met a government person before. They’ve never met somebody in uniform before. All they’ve heard is what they read in the papers, if you will.
And we also want to introduce our people to this top talent, because all they’ve probably heard is, oh, these are these young whippersnappers who think that they know everything and they’re Wall Street types who are, you know, arrogant and so forth and so on. Well, I got to tell you, this is our third year; we’re going into our third year of this experiment. We’re bringing in an intern this summer. Last year we had four, and the previous year we had one, and it’s been marvelous.
Those young people roll up their sleeves, go in, and they really do nuts-and-bolts work with our people, and they have impressed the pants off of our folks. Our folks really are marveled at the dedication and work ethic of these students. And in turn, the students, when they leave, the feedback that they’ve given me is that this has been an experience of a lifetime. Although we haven’t yet gone to a point where we’ve hired them, we’re looking to at least plant the seed in them that public service is an option that they may pursue in the future.
Mr. Lawrence: That’s fascinating, especially the people focus.
Transformation also involves technology and process. How is the Air Force addressing these? We’ll ask Mike Montelongo of the Air Force when The Business of Government Hour continues.
Mr. Lawrence: Welcome back to The Business of Government Hour. I’m Paul Lawrence, and this morning’s conversation is with Michael Montelongo, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management and Comptroller.
And joining us in our conversation is Glen Gram.
Well, Michael, in the previous segment, we talked a lot about people with the right skills and attitudes to make transformation work, but I’m also curious about technology. How is your organization using technology to promote transformation?
Mr. Montelongo: Paul, technology is part of a three-prong strategy or three-prong attack in our strategy to begin to make our change and transformation a reality. As you say, we did talk about the people a second ago, and that’s obviously a key element in making all this happen. Processes, streamlining them and making them efficient, that’s important. But having integrated systems that talk to each other is tremendously important so that we are not doing what we’re doing today, and that is relying on human interfaces to move information, to move data back and forth. So today, at the very extreme, we would have to download information from one system only to fat-finger it into another.
And as you well know, having the experience that you have in the private sector, all that does is introduce that much more error, not to mention the inefficiency and the time that it takes to do that. So we’re spending so much more time in this time-honored ritual called “data calls” than in spending the time -- in other words, by that I mean, and your listeners who work in government probably are chuckling because they understand what it means, unfortunately, but what that means is basically spending so much time collecting the data, collecting the information, going out manually using a telephone or whatever it is, e mail, to say, hey, folks, I need the following data because I can’t get it out of a system. I want people to spend most of their time analyzing, putting together courses of action so we have to fix our systems.
As you probably well know, the Defense Department launched on an effort that the Secretary asked us to launch a couple years back called the Business Management Modernization Program. And that really is a very bold and ambitious plan to basically modernize the business systems in the Department of Defense. And it’s a very ambitious one, because we have something like when we did the inventory of current systems that we have in place, we have over 2,000 first-tier systems that, in essence, are disconnected. They don’t talk to each other. They’ve got lots of information, lots of data that we need to run this organization, this institution, but they are not integrated comprehensively. And so the BMMP, as it’s been called over the last several years, is a key element in attacking the systems piece.
We have others that I’m concentrating on in the Air Force. One is basically putting in, for the first time, a general ledger, honest-to-goodness, 21st century accounting system into our Air Force, which we haven’t had. And that’s called DEAMS -- that’s the acronym, Defense Enterprise Accounting Management System.
And we’re also trying to make better use of tools that we currently have for self-service operation. We’re calling it My Pay. And basically My Pay is probably version one of what you and I use when we go to the website and do our banking, our personal finance stuff. And My Pay is the right solution, we just have to add even more functionality so that in the future, when our airmen need to basically do personal financial transactions, they can do it self-service rather than having to do it face-to-face as we do today.
Mr. Gram: Yeah, that’s a big change in the way things used to be.
Mr. Montelongo: Absolutely, culturally it is. We have to wean people off of that. But look, you know this as well as I do: when you look at what it costs on average for a face-to-face transaction, we’re talking anywhere between, I don’t know, $16 to $20 per visit. When you handle the same transaction in a centralized call center operation, now we’re talking maybe perhaps something along the lines of $7 to $10 per phone call. We do the same transaction on the web, it’s 5 cents a transaction. There’s a time for the personal face-to-face, there’s a time for perhaps the call center, and there’s also I think now, finally, a time to leverage this kind of technology, web technology, so that we can still deliver quality services, but at a much lower price point.
Mr. Gram: We know that you’re a proponent of cost and performance awareness. How do you change the culture and promote that type of behavior or those thought processes as you go through those changes?
Mr. Montelongo: Glen, in many ways, what that really amounts to is aligning the incentives that we currently have so that what we’re doing is promoting and encouraging and motivating folks to perform; in other words, to let them know that, at the end of the day, what’s going to count is not a set of inputs or how many transactions you did, but what was the outcome. What value did you produce? What service did you deliver? What product did you give to the war fighter? That’s what is going to be measured at the end of the day. That’s what people are going to be rewarded for at the end of the day.
So I will tell you that what the Secretary of Defense has done, and it was challenging, but partnering with Congress, has been able to enact -- I should say that this is something that the Secretary had asked Congress for and Congress has enacted and the President signed into law, is the National Security Personnel System, which basically is going to upgrade the current personnel system that we have for our civilians so that basically we can do the kinds of personnel actions with much more agility and nimbleness than we have in the past.
You know, so the ability to hire people on the spot, which is something that we haven’t been able to do except for maybe certain circumstances. I know that some of my people, for instance, tell me that when they go to job fairs, the company at the booth right next to them is able to on-the-spot hire somebody, give them their bonus or loan forgiveness or whatever the case may be, whatever package it takes to bring that person on board, and then we, on the other hand, tell our folks here’s all this paperwork that you got to fill and it’s going to take a couple of months to process. I mean, it’s ridiculous.
I told you before we’re in a war on talent. And so I think our NSPS, when we finally implement it and get it executed, is going to give us the kinds of flexibility that we’ve been seeking so that we can, in fact, again, going back to what I was saying a second ago, motivate our folks and let them know that they’re going to be rewarded for behavior that stresses performance.
Mr. Gram: That sounds like that system will go a long way towards leveling the playing field a little bit. What are you doing in the service delivery model areas? And as you streamline your supply chains to improve cost and quality, what are some of the changes you’re doing there and how you’re looking at providing services?
Mr. Montelongo: Glen, I sort of alluded to this a second ago when we were talking about how we’re leveraging technology or how we’re perhaps using technology to transform the delivery of financial services. A couple of things going on here.
First, I asked our folks to take a hard look at what it is that we do as financial managers and to filter all of what we do through a core competency lens. In other words, the Air Force does three things, three core competencies better than anybody on the planet: it develops airmen, it brings technology to war fighting, and it integrates operations from an air and space point of view. Better than anybody on the planet. Nobody else can do that. So in the financial management world, what is it that we’re doing that strengthens, promotes those core competencies? And the notion being is that whatever it is that we do that does that, that’s what we should keep doing. Whatever it is that we’re doing that doesn’t necessarily do that, then perhaps we should examine that for divestiture.
So with that kind of insight, I then want to say now that we know the kind of services that we want to deliver, in other words, the what that we want to deliver to the Air Force, to the war fighter, now let’s figure out how we’re going to deliver that. What channels are we going to use to deliver those services? And in doing so, can we leverage technology so that we’re delivering those services at a lower cost point?
So again, to what I was saying previously, rather than relying and defaulting solely to face-to-face delivery, which is very costly, let’s use the face-to-face for advisory services; in other words, the financial manager advising commanders and decision-makers. But for routine financial management service delivery, perhaps we can do that with call centers, perhaps we can do more of that with the web. And that’s how we’re trying to streamline our service delivery model so that we’re delivering just exactly what the Air Force needs from us, but at a much lower price point.
Mr. Lawrence: That’s a good point.
What’s the appropriate level of government interaction with the private sector? We’ll ask Mike Montelongo of the Air Force for his perspective when The Business of Government Hour returns.
Mr. Lawrence: Welcome back to The Business of Government Hour. I’m Paul Lawrence, and this morning’s conversation is with Michael Montelongo, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management and Comptroller.
Joining us in our conversation is Glen Gram.
Mr. Gram: Mike, can you share with us your vision for Air Force financial management operations over the next 5 to 10 years?
Mr. Montelongo: Glen, we talked a little bit about this in the previous segments, but I will tell you, I’m very optimistic about our future. When I think about perhaps a 15-year reunion that I might have with some of my colleagues that are my present-day colleagues, I really am very optimistic about what I think I’m going to be seeing. I think that I will see auditable financial statements. I really feel that. I think I’m going to see clean opinions. I’m going to see the fact that our financial and management information is indeed reliable, accurate, and timely. I’m going to see people that are currently in the workforce then who will look at me incredulously when I mention the term “data calls.” They’ll look at me and say, geez, we don’t do that around here, we just hit the Enter key and, in fact, I just hit this little switch here on my PDA and everything that I need is available to me.
I really do think that we’re going to be in a position, a much better position to actually do the kinds of things that we’re envisioning now 5, 10, 15 years from now. In other words, being the strategic partner to our decision-makers and commanders, being individuals that will leave our footprint, our collective footprint, on the future of the United States Air Force. I feel really good about that.
Mr. Lawrence: I understand that you’re a great proponent of the interaction between the public and private sectors. Why do you think this interaction is important?
Mr. Montelongo: 9/11, Paul, has really dramatically changed the landscape, more so than well, it’s hard for me to certainly compare this to back in other eras, like World War II, World War I, and others. I guess I can only speak to this era because this is the era that I am here in. But to me, I think it’s dramatically changed. So much so that we just can’t leave the business of taking care of America entirely, exclusively to just those of us in public service.
America’s scarcest asset is her talent. And over time, what we have done is bifurcated that talent, compartmentalized it between public and private sectors. And in some cases, the relationships have been adversarial and confrontational. We can’t afford that anymore.
I read the other day that 85 percent of America’s infrastructure is owned by the private sector. Goodness gracious, if we’re going to win this global war on terrorism, we have to have the private sector -- business -- partnering with us here in the public sector. I, frankly, think because of the fact that I think America would like to have its best and brightest at key positions in public service, well, then we have to then figure out ways to have exchanges and have this talent move back and forth between both sectors.
Now clearly, we have to figure out how we can do that, facilitate that, and still make sure that there aren’t any conflicts of interest, and I think we can work that out. But I think over time, what we’re going to have to do for the sake of America is be sure that we can have some permeability between the two sectors that in the past has been almost in some cases, at the very extreme, a solid wall. We have to take advantage of every bit of talent that America has regardless of where it is.
Mr. Gram: Mike, we know that you’re very active in the Hispanic community and promoting, you know, the participation in the military and public service and education. What advice would you give a new person joining the public sector or considering joining that as a career?
Mr. Montelongo: Glen, great question, because I have spent the better part of my lifetime, both professionally and personally, in promoting opportunities for everyone. And because my background is Hispanic, I guess I’m a bit sensitive to the fact that this particular segment of our great society is growing leaps and bounds. And as we sort of project demographically how things are going to be, gosh, in the next 30 to 40 years, that segment is just going to continue to grow and be much more of a percentage of our population than it is today.
My view is that America has to take advantage of, as I was saying before, every bit of its talent regardless of where it is, regardless of what color it is, regardless of what background it is, regardless of what faith it is. It has to use every bit of its talent to remain competitive in this very global and increasingly global society.
When I go to neighborhoods that I grew up in that are predominantly a minority, in my case Latino, I encourage our young folks to explore opportunities, to be involved in society, to contribute to society, to make a mark on society, to give back to society, and that if they prepare if they prepare -- they will have every bit of opportunity to contribute. They will have every bit of opportunity to step up to the plate and knock the cover off the ball, but they have to prepare. They absolutely have to prepare. This is big league stuff.
And once again, this issue of 9/11 has really changed the complexity I think of things. And so we need the very best that America can prepare to lead America into the future. So I think that one of those opportunities that young people have from all walks of life is public service. And it’s one that I think sometimes our young people in our colleges and grad schools aren’t introduced to enough. And that’s kind of our fault a little bit, because I’m not sure that we have made a concerted effort, at least on the civilian side, to get the message out that, hey, there is a significant civilian workforce in the federal government that needs the kind of talent that we have in our schools.
So I would tell young people give us a look. There is an extraordinary opportunity here, I think a very compelling value proposition for public service. It is an opportunity to give back to society. It’s an opportunity to be part of something larger than yourself. It’s an opportunity to give a little bit back to America for what it has given an individual. It’s an opportunity to touch lives in a very meaningful way that very few professions can do. That would be my advice to young people.
Mr. Lawrence: In the earlier answer this segment, you talked about the 15-year reunion with your colleagues. And I’m curious, when you’re at that reunion, how would you want them to describe your legacy as the CFO of the United States Air Force?
Mr. Montelongo: Gosh, Paul, it is tremendously early in the game to talk about legacies. I think that what I would feel very good about is that along with the wonderful people that I’ve had the privilege to serve with in the United States Air Force, supported by the leadership, starting with the President, frankly, and the Secretary of Defense and my boss and General Jumper. We are well on our way to launching a journey here and have had some modest success with transforming and strengthening our capability as financial managers. And that in the process of doing that, we are then delivering that much more value to the United States Air Force so that the United States Air Force can be that much more capable 5, 10, 15 years from now.
And I also want to sort of look back in having sort of done that, or at least started that process and be able to feel good about the fact that while we were doing that, we stayed loyal and true to our values. And it’s tremendously important.
I think that one of the things that is also part of that compelling value proposition to young people that I was talking a second ago about, Glen, is that certainly in the Department of Defense, but I would say this extends to public service in general, we’re talking about a values-based organization, an organization, an institution that places a high premium on values, on deciding, on doing things on the basis of values, and using that as an anchor. We talked throughout this entire set of segments of the imperative to change, of the imperative to transform, because if we don’t do that, then we are doing a disservice to the American people. But what we can count on that will transcend change and transformation is the fact that we will remain true to values. And if we can do the kinds of things that we’ve described in the course of this broadcast, but remain true to our values, then we have really accomplished a great deal. And those values for us in the Air Force are that we place a high premium on integrity, selfless service to the nation and to each other. And then finally, excellence in everything that we do.
So if we can have that 15-year reunion, Paul, and look back and say that we did all those things, I think that we can feel pretty good about what we did.
Mr. Lawrence: Well, that’ll have to be our last question, we’re out of time. Glen and I want to thank you for squeezing us in your very busy schedule.
Mr. Montelongo: Paul, I want to thank you and Glen and certainly the crew at IBM once again, as I mentioned earlier this morning, for doing this and, frankly, giving our listeners an opportunity to gain, frankly, an insight as to what government -- what public service is all about and what government is doing today to meet the demands of the American people. And this program in particular is quite innovative and gives listeners, I think, an opportunity to just have that kind of glance as to what’s happening. Because oftentimes unless you’re actually doing it, you don’t get that perspective. So thank you for doing that. My hat’s off to you and your colleagues.
And I just want to mention one last thing parenthetically to our audience. If there’s anything that you’ve heard this morning, based on what I’ve said, or anything that certainly Glen and Paul have mentioned that interests you, that piques your interest, and that you’d like to pursue a bit more, I’d welcome your feedback or comments; or anyone who might be interested in pursuing a career in public service, then I invite you to contact us. And you can get ahold of us by hitting our Air Force website, and I believe that’s www.airforceaf.mil. And then from there, you can navigate to my website and you can certainly contact me through that. So if you’re so inclined, I welcome that very much.
Mr. Lawrence: Thank you again, Michael.
Mr. Gram: Thank you.
Mr. Montelongo: You bet.
Mr. Lawrence: This has been The Business of Government Hour, featuring a conversation with Michael Montelongo, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management and Comptroller.
Be sure and visit us on the web at businessofgovernment.org. There, you can learn more about our programs and get a transcript of today’s fascinating conversation. Once again, that’s businessofgovernment.org.
This is Paul Lawrence. Thank you for listening.
Friday, October 4, 2002
Mr. Lawrence: Welcome to The Business of Government Hour. I'm Paul Lawrence, the co-chair of The Endowment for The Business of Government. We created The Endowment in 1998 to encourage discussion and research into new approaches to improving government effectiveness. Find out more about The Endowment by visiting us on the web at www.businessofgovernment.org.
The Business of Government Hour features a conversation about management with a government executive who is changing the way government does business. Our conversation this morning is with Dr. David Chu, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness for the Department of Defense.
Good morning, David.
Mr. Chu: Good morning, Paul.
Mr. Lawrence: And joining us in our conversation is Bill Phillips.
Good morning, Bill.
Mr. Phillips: Good morning, gentlemen.
Mr. Chu: Bill, how are you?
Mr. Lawrence: David, what's the mission of the Office of the Undersecretary for Personnel and Readiness?
Mr. Chu: We're the 'people' people of the Department. That is to say, we manage everything ranging from what the pay table is going to look like for military personnel, through the health care system that provides for them and their families, all the way through to questions of overseeing the readiness of our units, in terms of the training that they get, and where they get that training and how it's going to be conducted.
Mr. Lawrence: And how does it fit in the overall mission of the Department?
Mr. Chu: People, as you all I think appreciate, are the heart of the Department. And of course, there are a lot of people. We have about 3-1/2 million people when you count the active reserve and the civil force of the Department, in terms of the direct employee workforce of the Department.
And without those people, who are quality people, who are well-trained, well-motivated to do the kind of job that the nation needs, there really isn't a military. So this is the heart of the Department's capacity to fulfill the nation's needs.
Mr. Lawrence: David, as the Undersecretary for Personnel and Readiness, what are your specific duties?
Mr. Chu: My job is really to set policy within the framework that the Congress provides by its statutes and consistent with the administration's aims and agenda. Now, in some cases, we'll go back to the Congress and ask for a change of policy.
But to give an example, we supervise the health care system for the military. We buy somewhat over half of the health care services that our people need from the private sector. We have contracts through which this is managed. In fact, at this very moment, we're re-bidding those contracts.
And so my job is to set the parameters that are going to describe those contracts. How many regions are we going to have, how many contracts are we going to pursue, what degree of competition should we aim for, what's going to be the nature of those contracts, what are going to be the incentives that those contracts contain.
I don't actually run the programs myself. The office doesn't run the programs directly. But it may administer the programs, or it may administer the agency that actually carries out the task at hand. That's an example, again, from the health care sector. We have the so-called Tricare Management Activity that actually runs the contracts for us.
Mr. Lawrence: Tell us about your career prior to this appointment.
Mr. Chu: I spent most of my life in and around the Defense Department in some fashion. I came in as a young Army officer during the Vietnam War. I got my chance to visit Southeast Asia, as every Army person I think in that era got to do. And coming out of that experience, I looked around and was fortunate enough to be hired by RAND, which is a research corporation, headquartered in Santa Monica, California.
And quite by accident, I started working on military manpower questions. I was originally trained as an international trade and development economist. But this was the focus of great deal of attention, this question of military manpower, in the early 1970s. Because as you remember, the country had made a decision to go to a volunteer force. Big experiment. No one had ever attempted to put together this big a military composed completely of volunteers before. The British had a volunteer force. Much smaller scale.
And so the Department of Defense engaged RAND, among others, to help it think through how are we going to make this successful? How are we going to make this work? And it was a big challenge. And you may remember some of those years in the '70s. The volunteer force didn't do so well at first, in fact, almost failed. Partly because they set the pay numbers wrong in the mid-1970s. And the quality levels of the force fell, and in fact fell further than people managing the Department of Defense understood to be the case, because they'd made a technical mistake. They had misnormed the so-called Vocational Aptitude Battery tests, the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery tests, the ASVAB.
And the managers thought they were getting reasonably qualified people, maybe not quite the level they'd like to have. The sergeants kept saying, you know, these people aren't like the ones we used to get. They just aren't very good. It turned out the sergeants were right. It turned out they were taking in large numbers of people only marginally qualified for military service, by mistake in the mid-'70s.
Congress reacted to all this by setting standards for the military, in terms of the quality of recruits enlisted in the military. And part of RAND's job was to help the military and say, okay, if these are the standards, how are we going to get from here to there? How are we going to make this successful?
I came to work in Washington in 1978, at the Congressional Budget Office, where I ran the section responsible for national securities issues broadly. And I was invited by the Reagan administration to become what's called the Director of Program Analysis Evaluation, which is the sort of inside think-tank in the Pentagon. It's there to advise the Secretary on choices, on alternatives.
In some ways, it's the black hat of the Department. Your job is to be the Secretary's set of intellectual shock troops, to advance new ideas, ideas that may not be popular, in fact, generally aren't popular, but later come to be received wisdom.
I'll take an example. One of the issues we took on in that period of time is who should conduct the air defense mission of the United States? In that era, it was the air sovereignty mission. In other words, the airliner comes to the United States, you know, appropriately, who goes up and checks it out kind of thing. And it was being done by active Air Force units, even though it was a mission that we thought could be done equally well, and at somewhat less expense, by Reserve companies, Air Guard, Air Reserve units.
And you would have thought that we were heretics for raising this possibility that the Reserve components could do this. Well, after a long battle, the Air Force grudgingly agreed to try out using more Reserve component crews for this purpose. And of course, quite ironically, I came back to the Department, having been there from '81 to '93, came back in 2001 to discover we now had, at that time, all the air defense being conducted by Reserve component units.
So part of your job in that post is to get new ideas tried, to get them advanced, get people to look at them. I served in that post for almost 12 years, left as the administration left office in January of '93, Bush 41, as people call it. And I returned to RAND, as it turned out. I worked in RAND's Washington office, which I was the head of for a while, and then later ran one of RAND's major units, the ROIA (?) Center, which is the unit that advises the Army. And then I was invited by the present administration to come back in the post I now hold in June of 2001.
Mr. Lawrence: Given that career, what made you decide that you wanted to come back this time?
Mr. Chu: I have always found public service extremely rewarding. I recognize financially, often people take a significant step down in income to take these positions. But the psychic rewards, the sense of contribution that one gets, and the opportunity to help the nation do its business, is tremendous compensation. It gives you a tremendously good feeling about what you're doing with your life. And so it's that more than anything else that I think makes public service attractive.
Of course, the Defense Department, as I think you know, is a great place to work. It's a terrific set of people, highly motivated, very mission-oriented. Polite (?) did a survey of federal employees recently. You may have seen this piece of research. And while we have our faults -- and he pointed some of those out -- nonetheless, he was really struck by the degree to which morale in the Defense Department was not only good but getting better over time after the events of September 11th, because it's so mission-focused.
And it's just a great set of people to work with. It's a real sense of community, a real sense of pulling together, common purpose. And of course, in some sense, defending the country and its interest is the ultimate public service, the ultimate reason one had a central government.
Mr. Lawrence: It's interesting that you mention that it's such a great place to work, because the Department of Defense is the largest of the federal government agencies. And I'm just wondering with things of that scale, how do you communicate? How do you do the traditional management functions on that size?
Mr. Chu: Well, you use every instrument at your disposal, including programs like this, obviously. Part of it is just very straightforward. It's a bit like Woody Hayes and 3 yards straight up the middle. You write the memos; you make the announcements.
More important I think is getting out and talking to people, if not face to face, at least in some way that they can ask you questions, they can express their concerns. I am struck that many of the problems of the Defense Department -- and I think it's true of any large bureaucracy -- arise from miscommunication. As the military would like to say, what's the commander's intent? What are we trying to do here? What are we trying to accomplish? And why did we pick this way of getting to that goal?
And I am impressed at the power of just sitting down and talking with people. And of course, in an organization that large, a lot of what you need to do is talk to the leaders of subordinate units, to convey to them what are we trying to accomplish here? Why did we choose this method?
And of course, even better to have talked to them before you've made a choice, to engage them in thinking through how might we solve this problem? How might we address this issue? And I have always found that if you can get the leaders together like this, that you may come in the room with no idea of what to do about the problem at hand. And I am impressed at the number of times you leave the room with the outline of an answer, with the framework with which you can proceed. Because each person has contributed his or her particular insight.
And so I find the meeting -- I know people laugh a bit about meetings as being the bane of their existence. Actually, I find the meeting extremely productive. And with the tasks I have to be responsible for, a terrific way to get them to explain what we have to do, and to get them help tell us what a solution might look like.
Mr. Lawrence: That's a good stopping point. Rejoin us in a few minutes as we continue our conversation with David Chu of the Department of Defense.
Human capital transformation is a key part of the President's management agenda. What's the Department's plan to address the human resource issues? We'll ask David when The Business of Government Hour returns.
Mr. Lawrence: Welcome back to The Business of Government Hour. I'm Paul Lawrence, and today's conversation is with Dr. David Chu, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness for the Department of Defense.
And joining us in our conversation is Bill Phillips.
Mr. Phillips: David, can you talk to us a little bit about the efforts at the Department's human capital transformation process? How do the different pieces fit together, and how is that going to impact the overall mission of the Department?
Mr. Chu: I'm delighted to do so. Let me start with why we are trying to change things. We recognize this is a different world than the one that characterized the Cold War. The Cold War is over. The United States, as we all know, faces different military problems. We have to have the right kind of people, the right set of skills that are appropriate to that new set of problems.
The other thing of course that has changed is American society. It's a society a lot more educated than it was true before. It's a society where families have different aspirations than might have been true in earlier years. One of the most important changes is that most young Americans now want to go on to college reasonably soon after they finish high school.
In the old days, so to speak -- I'm almost old enough to be able to say that -- most high school graduates went out and got a job. And so the competition, so to speak, was not college. It was the job market.
Given all these changes, we have to change both what we're aiming at, and how we're going to get there. And that's what the human capital transformation is all about. To do that, what we've tried to do is to borrow from the business playbook, develop a set of strategic plans that look forward. In other words, instead of back to what our past practices were, let's look forward to what our future practices ought to be.
And separately for the military and civil forces of the Department, we have a set of efforts that are intended to give us those strategic guidelines. And I can say more about that in just a few minutes.
At the same time, for both the civilians and military, we recognize that a key part of why someone would want to join and stay with our organization, and really work hard and contribute with our organization, is the set of understandings between us and them of what this position, what this commitment is going to be like, what the social compact is, so to speak, emphasizing that we're all in this together. This is not us versus them, not employees versus management. We have a combined interest here.
And so, yes, we're going to ask you to do some difficult things, and to take on some fairly significant burdens, in particular in the military case, to risk your life or your health in the process. But at the same time, we're prepared to do various things to make sure that you're well taken care of. And part of what we want to do for both the civilian and military forces in the Department, is to make sure that that social compact is in good shape, that we are appropriately taking care of you.
That doesn't mean coddling people. It means being sure that their circumstances are what they find attractive that makes them want to come to work in the morning, want to contribute.
The terrific spirit we saw on September 12th, when the Secretary of Defense made a decision that if at all possible, the Pentagon would reopen after that attack. And I was really struck at the awe in the tone of media reporting, that my God, all of these thousands of civilian and military personnel are trooping back into the building while the building was literally still burning. And no one had any hesitation about coming back to work.
That kind of dedication is why you want to be sure that people are well taken care of.
Mr. Phillips: You mentioned the strategic plan and linking the human capital. Could you tell us a little bit about that strategic plan?
Mr. Chu: Yes. We start by asking ourselves, both military and civilians, what kind of skills are we going to need in this future world that we face? And then of course -- and that's a large debate. Obviously, there are going to be different opinions about that debate. I think the common element for both military and civil personnel is this is going to be a more educated force in the future. And so the old view that a high school diploma was enough, and that on the military side, let's say, and that we didn't really care very much if you got any further formal education or not, that's out.
We recognize that both for our good and for your -- to meet your desires, most young people enlisting in the military want to continue their education, since we have a whole set of programs designed to respond to that. And part of the strategic plan issue is how do we position these programs correctly. So, how much do we do on tuition assistance, for example.
The Army has a wonderful program called Army College Online, in which, if you meet various criteria, they will give you a "free computer" that allows you to do courses from various universities on an online basis.
Impressive results. I happened to be at Fort Lewis the day they were giving out the computers. Even though they had emphasized there were plenty of computers for everybody, that you didn't have to wait, people were there in line at 4:00 a.m. in the morning to make sure that they were going to get their computers. And these were not just privates. There were people wearing quite a lot of stripes on their arms who were there, making sure that they got the computer, and saw them signing up for their courses, and so on and so forth.
So there's a terrific thirst for continuing education on the part of our people. We want to slake that thirst, because we recognize it's also in our own interest. So defining what we need, thinking through what we're going to have to do to attract, retain, and motivate those people is the essence of what these plans are all about.
And so what they consist of is a series of, as we were phrasing it, lines of operation. In other words, areas we have to pay attention to. And then within each, the specific steps we'll need to take in order to achieve the results that we want.
Mr. Phillips: Let me just extend that thought a little bit. You've talked about some of the challenges you face with respect to college as an alternative to the military. You've talked about some of the programs that the Army has in place. What are the key things that the Department needs to do to continue to attract young people to the military?
Mr. Chu: Well, one of the first things that you have to do always, is to make sure that your compensation package is fair, competitive. No one's going to get rich serving in the military. But they shouldn't have to absorb undue financial burden either. And so you have to constantly pay attention to what are we competing against? And that's one of the big changes taking place that we have to react to.
Twenty years ago, the standard for thinking about enlisted compensation in the military was what could a high school diploma make in the American economy? That's no longer relevant. If most young Americans, particularly the ones that we want, seek to go on to college, the standard is what could someone with some college education, let's say a year or two, make in the American economy. That's a very different set of numbers. It's a higher set of numbers.
The President has responded to that by saying that a part of our pay raise in the last 2 years should be targeted to the mid-range in terms of experience of our both enlisted and officer communities, because in both those areas, we're kind of weak, when you, on the enlisted side, vet it against some college earnings line. We were not competitive, and we still aren't as competitive in that regard as we wanted to be. So we're slowly trying to bring our compensation level up.
But it also means, back to what you mentioned earlier, that we have to convince young people regarding college, it's not either/or. The military is not an alternative to college. We have to give you the chance to continue your education while you're in the military. Or the military could be the vehicle by which you accumulate the savings -- the Montgomery G.I. bill being the example -- so that you can, post-military service, resume a college education.
So we're trying to position ourselves so that it's not either/or, that you can do both, you can have your cake and eat it, too, and that's what we're trying to tell young people.
Mr. Phillips: You mentioned earlier the strategy for civilian members of the Department of Defense. Could you contrast that with the military strategy for H.R.?
Mr. Chu: We are starting from a much lower base with civilians. I think it's true of the federal government at large, and certainly the Department of Defense that we have not thought about our civilians as the kind of strategic resource they truly are. And one of the things I think that's giving everybody a wake-up call on this front is the coming wave of federal retirements. Everyone understands that because the civil workforce has been on a decentralized basis, what we have is a workforce with a lot of people nearing retirement age. Standard numbers are in 5 years, half the federal workforce could retire. That number applies to DoD as well.
Now, not all the people are going to retire when they become eligible. So it's not upon us quite as rapidly as some of the doomsayers may assert. But certainly in the next 10 to 15 years, the way we see it strategically as a problem within Defense, we have to recruit a number of people equal to approximately half our current workforce. That's a huge challenge.
It's also a different mindset. The last 10 to 15 years of DoD workforce management, true I think in most federal agencies as well, has been how to move off the payroll. How to downsize. How to shrink. We are not in the recruiting business. I'll take a very simple kind of issue. Do we have a booth ready to go to job fairs? Well, a few weeks ago, we didn't have a booth ready to go to job fairs. So, if I would call up and say "You know, XYZ is having a job fair. Where is our booth?" I would sort of get blank looks, because until recently, that hasn't been our problem.
Now, it is our problem. And we want to approach it strategically. We don't just want to wait for the retirements to swamp us and to drain all the talent at once. What happened, in fact -- you may recall this episode in New York City, when Mayor Lindsay let the senior workforce of New York City subway system maintenance unit all retire at once.
Well, a funny thing happened. For the next several years, the trains didn't work. Because not everything was written down in the manual. And it was those senior guys, mostly guys -- some gals, I suspect, though not many in that era -- who knew how to -- who knew those tricks, who knew how to make the trains actually run. And we don't want to let that problem happen to us. So we're trying to get ahead of that problem.
On the civil side, we're just beginning this journey. We're just starting to put the tools in place necessary to achieve these objectives. And one of them, a very simple one, is simply being candid with ourselves. How many people do we need to hire each year? Up to now, we'd never set a goal. We decentralized it, told, you know, component managers well, it's your problem Bill or Paul. You know, here are the civil service rules, here are the lists. You go hire someone.
We think we have to take a more strategic approach than that, in order to be successful.
Mr. Lawrence: That's a good stopping point. Rejoin us in a few minutes as we continue our conversation about management with David Chu of the Department of Defense.
This is The Business of Government Hour.
Mr. Lawrence: Welcome back to The Business of Government Hour. I'm Paul Lawrence, and today's conversation is with Dr. David Chu. David is the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness for the Department of Defense.
And joining us in our conversation is Bill Phillips.
Mr. Phillips: David, in our last segment, you were talking about strategic planning with regard to human capital transformation and a number of those things. Your current planning talks about a capabilities-based workforce, and that model. Talk to us about that, and how is it changing the way the Department does its business?
Mr. Chu: Of course, in the Cold War, we faced a single -- or often thought we faced a single major opponent. And we had a well-defined idea about how that opponent might act and threaten our interests. And so, if I may use sort of an economist's jargon, we had a point solution to every problem. We could optimize. We could pick what we thought was the best answer, because we thought we knew what the problem was we had to solve.
Now we face different problems, where the threats are not as clearly defined, where we may face over time a very different kind of problem, and one that we can't fully now foresee as I think the events of September 11th illustrated. So we're much more into a portfolio management problem, if I may continue the analogy, where we have to hedge against a variety of possible outcomes.
I'll give you an example, a practical example that I'm struggling with right now. Language training. What kind of language capacity do we want our military and civil workforce to have? Indeed, what kind of language resources will the Department of Defense need over time?
Now, 15-18 months ago, no one would have forecast that finding the Pashtun speakers in the military ranks would be a high priority task for the personnel system. Now of course we'll take every Pashtun speaker we can discover. And yet, you can't keep every possible language on hand. So, how do you get the capability here to interact with a variety of societies, some of them very different from the United States, certainly very different from Western European notions of what's the state, what's the role of government, so on and so forth. How would you function in this society?
And we need to be able to solve that problem to have the capability to operate wherever on the globe the President might send the military forces of the United States. So, it is a matter of being able to act effectively in a wide range of circumstances, whose specific parameters we cannot foresee that now constitutes the problem that we've got to solve. And what we're really coming to is I think a conclusion that to do so, you've got to have a range of capacities within your institution, not just something optimized for one particular problem.
If you're optimizing one problem, you know, it's like the watch that is stopped. It will be accurate twice a day, but it will be useless the rest of the time. Much better to have a timepiece that's perhaps not quite so precise, but that's more or less on the mark across the entire 24 hours. And that's where we want to try to take the Department.
Mr. Phillips: You have a number of initiatives in place to improve quality of life. Could you talk to us about those, and describe how they're impacting readiness and recruiting and those elements?
Mr. Chu: That's a critical issue for both the military and civil personnel in the Department. On the military side, I think it's something that's long been recognized. The military has a saying that goes something like retention decisions are made at the kitchen table, that it really isn't the retention officer that's doing the job. It's what the family decides is right for them. And that means it's not simply a matter of what is the work responsibility of the military member. It's also what happens to the family.
And that affects all aspects of their lives. Several are of course more salient than others. One is housing. The state of military housing is not good. The President spoke to that during his campaign and has emphasized it since. It's one of his personal interests. Our problem is that we have an old housing stock for those who use military houses. It was built, much of it, to the standards of the 1950s.
And to think back on what those standards were, I think we usefully recall what was a Levittown house. Levittown, as you know, was the late-'40s, Long Island, first suburbia kind of development. And it had just under 1,000 square feet. And it had one bathroom. There was no such thing as a family room, breakfast nook, or any of that sort of thing. There was only a one-car garage. That's not the standard that American families aspire to today.
What have we done? Starting in the last administration -- and I have to give a lot of credit both to Congress and our predecessors in this -- they realized that we couldn't do that all ourselves. And it was time to turn to the resources of the private sector, and to offer them essentially a long-term lease kind of proposition on government land, in which they would build the houses, and we would give them a preferential opportunity to rent those houses to our people. So we have a vast set of housing privatization efforts out there right now.
What does that do for us? First of all, it brings the capital of the private sector to bear so the government doesn't have to raise the capital outright. Second, it brings the skill of the private sector in figuring out what the housing -- what do people really want in a house? We're not necessarily all that good at it, and we shouldn't probably be writing those specifications. We want a result, which is we want a happy set of families. You tell me what they're going to like. Here's how much money they can spend, because everyone knows what the housing allowance is going to look like.
What's in it for the developer? Well, we have a good set of customers. Our people pay on time. Because in fact what we'll do is just send the housing allowance directly from the Treasury to developer if you want to buy the house. The developer still has to compete, typically, in these arrangements. He has to build a house, or a condo type unit that's attractive enough that the military members want to say, yes, I'd like to live in this. And so he's got a strong incentive to build a good community. And typically in these arrangements, he has a 25-year lease maybe with an option to roll over for another 25 years and certain refreshment stands. They're fairly complex vehicles.
But they're very imaginative. And the results, at least so far, are extremely promising. You can go to these various bases. An excellent set at Fort Carson, as one example. They're great houses. Military families are delighted to live in them. They're nice communities. The developer has a strong interest in making a successful community, because he wants to fill it with these high-end families that come on with their housing allowances, which means there's no vacancy rate, there's no cash flow problem, there's no delinquent payment issue for him. It's a win-win situation for everyone.
So that's just one example of how we have to respond to what our people aspire to. We can't just stick them in a 1950s Levittown, even if it's "free," and assume they're going to be happy.
Mr. Lawrence: Health care costs are rising throughout the country, and I'm assuming the Department of Defense is no exception. What are the major concerns about health care in the Department?
Mr. Chu: Well, the big transition in health care in defense was the move to a managed care like paradigm in the late '80s, early '90s, which we call Tricare. The early years, to be candid, were not a happy situation. We had a lot of performance issues. We're proud of how far we've come over these last 10 years. We treat this just as a private sector health care operation, where we do survey of our patients after their last visit. We send them a questionnaire and say what about this last visit? How did you feel about it?
We're very proud of our scores. We're right up there just about where the better private plans are in terms of patient satisfaction with the encounter that they've had. We do face the same challenge the civil sector faces, and that is the rapid rise of health care costs, although we're very proud of the fact that this past fiscal year, for the first time in 4 or 5 years, we finished the year within our budget.
And that relates to a major management effort we've made as the Congress likes for us to optimize the mix of resources we bring to delivery of health care, to improve how well we use both the contracts we have, as well as the set of military treatment facilities, hospitals and clinics that are government-owned and government-operated and staffed by government personnel.
Often we had a bad match in a particular local market. And increasingly, the way we're going to try to deal with the cost issues over time is to view the health care system as a set of important local markets. Each one has different conditions. For defense, there are 15 or 20 really big ones around the country. Washington, D.C., is an example; Norfolk, Virginia, is another example. San Diego is an example. Fort Hood is an example. San Antonio is an example.
In other words, a place where we've got a lot of people, and we have a significant number of assets, both government and purchase character. And the issue for us is how to put those together in the best possible fashion. We'll be appointing a set of market leaders, market managers, really, who will be the guru for that area, and with certain powers to reallocate resources, and reapply resources within that small region to get the best outcome for our people, and the best deal for the government.
Mr. Phillips: Does the changing nature of the population, its age and its size, pose different complexities for managing health care?
Mr. Chu: Absolutely. We have an older patient population now than was true 20 years ago because a lot higher fraction is composed of retirees and their families. And of course as you know, Congress made a decision 2 or 3 years ago to extend the Tricare benefit to those who are otherwise Medicare-eligible. Prior law had said once you became Medicare-eligible, you dropped out of our system, except insofar as we had space available in a military hospital.
That led to an outcry on the part of the retirees as they reached 65. Congress reacted by saying, okay, they're eligible, too. So, within the last 18 months, we've rolled out what's called Tricare for Life, starting October 1st a year ago. The pharmacy part actually started a little bit before that.
It is I think a great tribute to the people working with our health care system. They made this all work. This is a huge -- this is hundreds of thousands of additional households, for which we suddenly became responsible and the whole issue of paying their bills as second payer to Medicare. So it was a significant financial transaction operation to manage here. And then it's gone, I think, at least we believe, quite well. In terms of the transition, people are generally satisfied with the outcome.
But yes, it is a population that's much older on average than was true before. And we suddenly added all these much older families, so we've got a whole new set of issues to deal with in terms of how we manage the system, including -- you know, some of these things you don't think of in advance, in terms of what public administration requires -- including the whole question of eligibility.
And the way the military medical system works, to be eligible, you have to have a military ID card. Well, many older retiree families, especially surviving widows, haven't had an ID card in years. In fact, had no idea they were supposed to apply for an ID card, because there was no benefit to them doing so. So we had a big effort to get the word out, and to help people who haven't had an ID card to get one so they can be in the system. And it's not so much the card per se that's critical. They have to be in our automated register, so to speak, so that when you come to a treatment facility, they say oh yes, here's Bill. He's on my list. We'll pay his bills. We'll cover his care.
Mr. Lawrence: That's a good stopping point. It's time for a break. Rejoin us in a few minutes as we continue our conversation about management with David Chu of the Department of Defense.
This is The Business of Government Hour.
Mr. Lawrence: Welcome back to The Business of Government Hour. I'm Paul Lawrence, and today's conversation is with Dr. David Chu. David is the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness for the Department of Defense.
And joining us in our conversation is Bill Phillips.
Mr. Phillips: David, in the last segment, you clearly demonstrated a passion for the quality of life and the social compact with the military. Talk to us about education of children of military dependents.
Mr. Chu: I think this is one of the sleeper issues out there. And it illustrates the fact that what people worry about in terms of our quality of life shifts over time as the aspirations of Americans change.
And one of the things people aspire for now, as we all appreciate, is good quality education for their kids. We've done a terrific job overseas with Department of Defense educational system. Our schools overseas, if we were a state, and you gave us a standardized test -- and we do actually do take these tests like everybody else we'd be between 1 and 5 in the nation, in terms of test score outcomes, which is I think a terrific record.
But as I go around the country and I ask people stationed at Base X or Camp Y, how is the school system, too frequently, I get poor answers. I get answers where you recognize from their behavior that they are not satisfied. We have, in many locations, people either living a fair way away from the base in order to find a school system that they find adequate for their kids, or actually sending their kids to private schools. And it's not just officers. We now have some senior enlisted personnel, who, while we pay them decently, I don't think we're really paying the level where they can typically afford a private school, who are saying I'm going to somehow find this money, because the situation is unacceptable.
This is a big issue for the Department. The Department, of course, should not be running the schools in the United States. We do, for historical reasons, run a small set on the few bases around the country. But we shouldn't be in the school business because that's a local responsibility. And one of our big challenges in the Department of Defense is to find a way to work with local communities so they can improve the school system for everyone, but importantly including the children of our military personnel.
Now, one of the improvements which we seek all around the country, both from strong school systems as well as others, is being sure that they're sensitive to the needs of kids of families who move around a lot. One of the difficulties that occurs is, you know, tryouts for the sports are let's say the last week in August. Well, if you don't show up till September, you may not be considered by the school system.
Likewise, each school system has its prerequisites in order to take the calculus course, let's say. Well, if you didn't quite meet those, you know, you might not get that chance. And so we've got an organized program, importantly advanced by Mrs. Reimer (?), the wife of a former Underchief of staff, to try to sensitize school systems and school system leaders to the need to think about how your rules will affect an important part of your student body in those communities where you've got a lot of military children.
And I'm delighted many school systems are responsive to that overture when we make it, and start to think about how they could do things a little bit differently so that our kids have an equal chance as someone who has lived for 20 years in the same place.
Some of it's hilarious, and the local school superintendent can't do anything about it. One of the problems, as you know, in many school systems, is you have to take a course on the history of the state in which you live. And some of our children have taken the history course for several states, which is more I think than anyone really anticipated.
Mr. Lawrence: Many have wondered I think about the relationship between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Now, as I understand it, you're part of an Executive Council that's looking into the coordination between the two. I wonder if you could tell us about the goals of that Council?
Mr. Chu: This is something that Leo Mackay, the Veterans Affairs Department Undersecretary and I put into place within the last year to respond to the President's interest in seeing better coordination between the two departments. But obviously share, in some sense, the same population. The veterans are all graduates, alumni, so to speak of the Department of Defense.
VA runs a big medical system, as we all know, of course, to deal with veterans' problems, which are somewhat different from the active force. In some locations, we have facilities in the same place. And so one obvious issue is shouldn't we collaborate more? Shouldn't we find a way to work together? We also have issues of how we organize the benefit program so it's easier for them to deal with those programs. For example, could we not make the exit physical from the military the same physical that VA uses for assessment of disabilities?
Well, in the past, the physical didn't do all the tests the VA needs to have. So it's a matter of making sure that we have the same form, that the record can be read by both institutions since all records are now increasingly electronic, and that we make sure we cover all the testing VA has.
Some of it is quite straightforward. Some of it is quite complex, in terms of how we do things. And I'll give you an example. We already do a fair amount of business where they take care of our patient, we take care of their patient. An example in Honolulu is Tripler (?) Army Hospital has a VA outpatient clinic on its grounds. And if you need inpatient care, you go to the Tripler Hospital.
But each of these has to be crafted one by one as a separate agreement between the two institutions. A lot of argument of what the costs are, who's supposed to pay for each element of cost. And what Dr. McKay and I agreed was let's find a way to cut through these arguments so that the two institutions can work together more easily. And so what we did was simply say if you take care of my patient, there is an externally established schedule of prices. Essentially it's an extension of the Medicare schedule.
And we'll both agree to accept that, because we want to be able to meet -- actually, accept it minus 10 percent because there ought to be some savings here for the government and the taxpayer -- and let's not argue over exactly whether I used one more bandage on your patient than would be normal, and therefore I've got to charge you a little extra. It will all come out in the wash in the end.
And the idea behind this is to release the energies of the local leaders so they can come to the agreements, which they typically seek and want, because they want to do the best thing for their patient population.
Mr. Lawrence: David, let's shift and talk about the future. You talked earlier about the challenge of the pending retirement over the next number of years, significant people leaving. As you look out, what are the most significant personnel and readiness issues and challenges that you face and the Department faces?
Mr. Chu: It's how you sustain the contemporary success of the volunteer force. As American society changes, and the aspirations of young people change, and as we're conducting a probably long-term global war on terrorism -- this is not a short conflict, this is a long haul event, much like the Cold War in some respects, I think is the way we ought to think about it. That ought to be our mindset.
And how do you keep this force as it is today the best military in the world? Important because it's got the best people in it, and they are motivated and properly trained to do their job. And that's the other big challenge. How units will operate in the future, as I think operations in Afghanistan demonstrated, is going to be very different from the past. It's a much more, as the military like to say, joint operation.
So you had Army Special Forces operatives on the ground calling in air strikes from Air Force and Navy aircraft. And we don't practice enough for real, so to speak, in peacetime, in the peacetime settings with those kinds of joint operations. Not that services don't work together well, not that they can't work together - not that they can't improvise well. But our standard is and should be not to improvise.
In other words, this should be second nature. It shouldn't be okay, I've got to solve this problem on the aircraft on the way to the theater because I'm now facing the enemy. I should have done this over and over, so it's automatic, so I know what I'm doing, and I know how to work with someone from a different service, a different kind of weapons system than my own service provides.
And providing that joint national training capability is one of the Secretary's premier objectives. My orders are, stand this up by 1 October 2004.
Mr. Lawrence: Given all the conflicts you alluded to, what's going to happen to the size of the Department if that's --
Mr. Chu: Our expectation is the number of people in active service will probably be relatively constant over the foreseeable future. We need to realize the challenge the secretary has issued to the Department. Don't just solve the problems, react to the pressures of the present day by adding without thinking about what you're going to subtract. In other words, if I have a new, high priority mission, what older mission that maybe isn't quite so important, can I take off the table? What can I stop doing?
And why does the secretary want to do that? The obvious reason is we do not have an unlimited budget. Although we have a big budget, there is a constraint out there. And the secretary has to do two things with the budget. He has to win the current conflict, and he has to invest in those transformational articles that will change the face of the Department for the future.
If he allows new missions simply to be added on top of everything else we're doing, he'll never have any money with which to transform. And so my clear instructions are figure out what we can drop off, what's low priority, what doesn't have a real payoff in this environment, which might include civilianizing the function, which might include going to a contract to provide that function.
The constant question that I'm charged with examining is does this need to be uniformed personnel, which is our most expensive resource in the Department.
Mr. Lawrence: What advice would you give to a young person who is now considering an opportunity for career service?
Mr. Chu: Well, first of all, I'd congratulate him or her, because I think it's a terrific choice. Second, I'd emphasize pick something that interests you. Because if you don't have a passion for it, if you don't enjoy it, if you don't like it - there are a lot of vicissitudes that come with public service. There are a certain number of burdens. I don't want to be unclear about this.
And so you've got to love what you're doing. I think it's less important to chart a career in some kind of managed sense. If you do well, my take on the federal government is if you do well, you'll get a great chance, a great set of chances. So start with something interesting. Start with a set of issues that turns you on. Start with a set of people that you like to work with, especially pick a boss that you respect and that you think you can learn from, and it will take care of itself from there.
Mr. Lawrence: David, we're out of time. Bill and I want to thank you for being with us this morning.
Mr. Chu: It's my pleasure. Thank you.
Mr. Phillips: Thank you very much.
Mr. Lawrence: This has been The Business of Government Hour, featuring a conversation with Dr. David Chu of the Department of Defense.
Be sure and visit us on the web at businessofgovernment.org. There, you can learn more about our programs, and get a transcript of today's very interesting conversation. Again, that's businessofgovernment.org.
This is Paul Lawrence. See you next week.
Wednesday, April 3, 2002
Mr. Lawrence: Welcome to The Business of Government Hour. I'm Paul Lawrence, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers and the co-chair of The Endowment for The Business of Government. We created The Endowment in 1998 to encourage discussion and research about new approaches to improving government effectiveness. Find out more about The Endowment by visiting us on the web at endowment.pwcglobal.com.
The Business of Government Hourfeatures a conversation about management with a government executive who is changing the way government does business. Our conversation this morning is with Major General James Jackson, Commanding General, U.S. Army, Military District of Washington.
Good morning, General Jackson.
Gen. Jackson: Good morning, Paul.
Mr. Lawrence: And joining us in our conversation is another PwC partner, Brian Dickson.
Good morning, Brian.
Mr. Dickson: Good morning, Paul.
Mr. Lawrence: Well, General Jackson, although most of our listeners have probably witnessed the ceremonies and events that MDW orchestrates, could you give us a sense of its roles and the responsibilities?
Gen. Jackson: I have three major missions. The first one deals with something we saw during 9/11, which is to respond to any crises or disaster or any kind of special security operation inside what we call the National Capital Region, which is just roughly a big goose-egg in and around Washington, D.C., Arlington, and the surrounding territory.
The second one deals with providing base operations support for five different installations that work for me, ranging as far away as Fort Hamilton, New York up in Brooklyn, and as far down south as A.P. Hill, Virginia.
And then the last one is the thing that most listeners might be most familiar with is the official ceremonial part of our business and public events which we conduct on an annual basis.
Mr. Lawrence: How large is your MDW team?
Gen. Jackson: I have a staff that is several hundred. And then of course the command across the board ranges -- is approximately around 7,000 people, split between military and civilian.
Mr. Lawrence: And what type of skills will these people have? You described such a range of activities. I'm curious.
Gen. Jackson: Well, I pretty much run the gambit of all skills. For example, I have operators whose job it is is to plan and control operations. Much of what you saw during 9/11 -- those people were involved with that. I have personnel people to keep track of people, both civilian and military, and take care of them.
I have a ceremonial staff that provides oversight and guidance as far as the events we do at both the White House, and then of course anything we do for the Department of Defense in and around the city. I have logistics personnel who deal with that part of the business. I have personnel who look at the garrison functions, or the functions that take place on a day-to-day basis on all those five installations.
And so I pretty much run the gambit. I've got lawyers to take care of the contractual issues and some what we call the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the legal part of our business. And of course, I've got Arlington National Cemetery and people like that. So it pretty much runs the gambit.
Mr. Dickson: Can you talk a little bit about what it's like to be a commanding general?
Gen. Jackson: I guess the first thing you say, it's great. It's good to be in charge. Most of us spend our lifetime in this business wanting to command and to be in positions where we pretty much are the senior authority in an organization. Of course, we temper that with understanding we all work for somebody. So we're not necessarily always the end to the food chain.
The job is a good one. It's fun to be part of everything that an organization does. And so, kind of as a CEO kind of person, I have my fingers pretty much spread across a little bit of everything that goes on in the command. While I won't be the most knowledgeable on any specific subject, I might be able to argue that I know a little bit about everything. And my job is to find out or know where the experts are who can give me that detailed information at the right time.
Mr. Lawrence: General, can you tell us a little bit about your career in the Army, some of your highlights that have brought you to this point?
Gen. Jackson: Sure. I come from a military family. My father served 33 years, World War II, Korea. And so he was -- I guess I grew up in a military family. And I respond to people who ask me where's my hometown, that I really don't have one. I've been all over the country.
I've served 30 years. Started out after graduation out of college serving in the 82ndAirborne Division, and then continued to multiple assignments with some Special Ops units and some -- with the Airborne forces, primarily in the light infantry side, which just means we do mostly walking or jumping and that kind of thing.
And through a variety of different command and staff positions, that has ultimately brought me to here. I've served overseas in Korea twice, across the United States in multiple different locations. I was checking the other day, by chance, and reminded myself that in 20 years of marriage with my wife, we've moved 13 times. So we tend to move a lot. And I have in the meantime been able to raise three daughters that are great kids.
Mr. Lawrence: Normally, we ask what drew you to public service, but I think you answered that by virtue of your family. But I'm wondering what kept you in public service. I can't help but imagine you had other opportunities throughout your career.
Gen. Jackson: I'm not so sure that public service itself is what I focus or I see the military as, to be quite honest. But the fact that I stayed in the military I think is an important one. And the fact that dealing with people tends to be something that is interesting and exciting.
I had it explained to me years ago that you can be in charge of things -- equipment -- and you'll see the same thing pretty much every day. When you work with people, you are always surprised, because people do so many different things.
And I have found working with people to be a really exciting part of the job. And so as a leader, my job is to interface with people. So that's what I do all day long, and that's what's been bringing me back to achieve a 30-year career.
Mr. Lawrence: Which jobs in your career have given you the most interesting challenges?
Gen. Jackson: Well, I'll be honest and say any time I've been in command, be it from the company level, which is about an organization of 150, up to regimental size, which is several thousand, and then into the job I'm at now, which is multiple thousand -- any time you're in charge of something, you draw more satisfaction from the business.
But I would tell you also that any time I've dealt with soldiers in the role of -- be it jumping out of airplanes or any kind of operations we've done, it has brought me great satisfaction, because of the things that they do and the way they operate, and the kinds of people they are.
And all you've got to do is turn on the TV any night and see the kinds of things that are going on in Afghanistan today and kind of recognize that. These young kids are just great, and 18, 22 years old. And the real challenge is be careful what you ask them to do, because they're going to do it. And you need to be right.
Mr. Lawrence: What were the positions or the events that trained you to be in command?
Gen. Jackson: Well, I think it's something that you gain by exposure and experience over time. Obviously, you know, you go through your formative years in college, you've got four years there. And then you start in the Army as a young second lieutenant, and you start to learn. You're a dry sponge, soaking up everything that comes across your path.
And you also learn by contact with other people. I would say that I am a composite of everybody I've ever worked for or worked with. I see things that they do that I like, and I steal them and I try and emulate those some way. And so I am a real composite. I couldn't really articulate any single thing that's mine; someone else's that I've taken on and decided that I think that's the right way to go about doing business.
Mr. Lawrence: Was the learning taking place at a technical level or a management level, a general management level?
Gen. Jackson: I think both. There is a tremendous technical side to our business that most Americans who have no Service experience probably have trouble comprehending. Many Americans, their only connection to the military is what they see on television or what they see in the movies. And I would tell you that the complexity of the operations, just as an example, the things going on in Afghanistan are surprising.
I mean, most people would find them to be daunting when you stop and think about trying to build an event that involves multiple things to try and happen all at the same time or very close together. And they're all mutually supportive. It gets to be a very technically demanding business.
From a management perspective, you're growing every day. If you aren't improving and growing and learning in everything you do, then you have no business being where you are. And I think any major CEO or CEO of any organization would tell you the same thing: he's learning every day.
Mr. Lawrence: Let me ask you about leadership. In your opinion, what are the top qualities of a good leader?
Gen. Jackson: Well, I think that's a very broad question. And I could give you a litany of answers. But I guess I would come back to things that have always stuck with me. And first of all, as a leader, I've always carried with me -- I've got two major responsibilities. One is to get my job done, and the other is to take care of the people who work for me, who are going to be accomplishing that work for me. And if you think about those two things in the way you deal with people, you really can't go wrong.
And I guess the third thing I would tell you, I label the trait, the character trait of the ability to adapt to change as being the most significant. And that's -- even how you adapt from one job to another, how you adapt when you're working for one boss and all of a sudden you get a new boss -- how do you adapt between being in a command position versus a staff position?
And how do you adapt to just change in your environment? 9/11 brought some changes to the way we live in this country. The question is, how do we adapt to deal with that change? Good leaders, great leaders can do that.
Mr. Lawrence: That's a good stopping point. Come back with us after the break as we continue our conversation with General Jackson of the Military District of Washington.
In our next segment, we'll ask him about the events of 9/11 and how they have affected his team and the challenges it's presented.
This is The Business of Government Hour.
Mr. Lawrence: Welcome back to The Business of Government Hour. I'm Paul Lawrence, a partner with PricewaterhouseCoopers. And today's conversation is with Major General James Jackson, Commanding General, U.S. Army, Military District of Washington.
And joining us in our conversation is another PwC partner, Brian Dickson.
Mr. Dickson: General Jackson, can you talk to us a little bit about what you were doing on the morning of September 11th, and how your day progressed in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy of that day?
Gen. Jackson: Sure. Actually, we were in a staff meeting, so I was sitting at the head of the table with my entire staff. And my aide brought in a note to me, and indicated that an airplane had run into one of the Twin Towers in New York City, to which I read and discounted it as some wayward pilot who couldn't fly very well.
So we continued with the meeting. And then, shortly after, he came in again and said there had been a second plane, to which we indicated, or it was quickly obvious to us that coincidence didn't happen this way. So we cancelled the meeting and went and started watching the TV to see what had happened.
Shortly thereafter, someone came into the office and indicated there was a rather large smoke plume coming up from across the river, which is where the Pentagon is. So we walked outside the building and took a look, and sure enough recognized that this was something bad that had just happened over there.
We went back inside, talked about it a little bit, and then decided that we would change clothes, get into our go-to-business suits, the BDUs, battle dress uniform, fatigues, and take a ride over to the Pentagon. And that pretty much started the day. And we stayed at the Pentagon probably until about 10:00, 11:00 that night, went back to the office, got some sleep real quick, went home, got cleaned up, and went back to work about 3:00 in the morning.
Mr. Dickson: Can you describe the scene that you found upon arrival at the Pentagon?
Gen. Jackson: Yeah, sure. Well, obviously, we got there, and it was somewhat chaotic. And there was a lot of people moving about. There were obviously some people who were trying to apply some coherency to the situation. And they were pretty much gathering up a bunch of volunteers to assist in handling any casualties if they found them.
As we assessed the situation and linked up with the fire chief, who we were told was going to be the incident commander, I asked him what he needed and what we could do to help. And his first response was: "I need some manpower." Well, as it so happens, that's one of the things we can provide, and so we made some phone calls. And within an hour, we had brought some troops down.
The initial operations on the site was to apply some degree of coherency to what's going on, and the troops came in to backfill the volunteers. The volunteers weren't dressed properly, and their organization was rather loose, as you might imagine. Bringing in soldiers as part of organizations, I can line them up very quickly; I've got a chain of command I can deal with and I can control them better.
And it allowed us to allow the volunteers to go home, see family members, call family members and then to basically get back to work doing the things that they are required to do. An interesting note is that none of the military functions that go on in the Pentagon stopped. And so we freed those people up to go back to doing what they're supposed to do, and allowed us to do the work we were supposed to do. And basically was providing support to the fire chief, who was the incident commander at the site.
Mr. Dickson: Does your organization -- are you still involved in recovery efforts at this point?
Gen. Jackson: No, not as such. The recovery operations have stopped. As you know, the building's being repaired and fixed, and I'm being told they're ahead of schedule. The only thing we're still doing is we have collected some personal effects, both from the building itself as we cleared it, and also stuff that has been identified as personal effects from the individual remains that were retrieved from the site. And our job, the organization that works for me, is to identify those, catalogue them, and then make them available to family members in the event they wish to identify them and claim them. And that process is still going on, just because it's a very painstaking and detailed process. And we expect it to conclude somewhere this summer.
Mr. Dickson: In the aftermath of September 11th, how have you adjusted your priorities and your organization to meet the new challenges that the country faces?
Gen. Jackson: Well, the most significant that we're dealing with right now is the added security that we've established on all our installations. In fact, we started drifting towards that back in August, with the attempt to get back to controlling access to our installations, because they do house a lot of people, and some sensitive assets that need to be protected.
So we were well on our way. And so, since September 11th, we have just continued on that, and remained at the high level of alert that we're at.
The other thing that I would offer is more of a broad-brush approach. And that is to deal with change in itself. Obviously, since 9/11, lots of things have changed. And so as those things change, they cause other changes. And we have to deal with those on a day-to-day basis.
And those kinds of things are happening. Not just the security on bases, but other things that we've become more attuned to. You know, cyber security. We're talking about reviewing all our contingency plans, taking a look at them, seeing if we can improve some of our communications capabilities, and the other things that we might be able to do to make our response to something like this or something similar to this in the future, go better. And so that eats up a lot of our time.
Mr. Dickson: What type of planning or preparation pre-September 11th had you done for events like that?
Gen. Jackson: Well, obviously, we've got some plans. I mean, we go out and write some and we prepare them. But we can't write a plan for every eventuality. As a matter of fact, someone asked me after this if we had a plan. I said: "Yeah, we had a plan. But we didn't have a plan that talked about what we did if a plane flew into the Pentagon."
The interesting thing is we didn't need a plan for that. We took the plan we had, we modified it, and that's what senior people get paid to do, is to deal with those kinds of changes. And we executed the modified plan. And it worked exceptionally well.
Mr. Lawrence: Let me follow that up with another question about working together. You talked about working with the Arlington Fire Department. I know that the FBI and FEMA were involved. I wonder, you know, what the lessons are working across organizations like that?
Gen. Jackson: We had a great relationship with all the people and all the organizations that came in and worked at the Pentagon. I think the biggest lesson was that the system that's in place across the country, the Incident Command System that they have, the Federal Response Plan that is in place, is a good one.
In this case, inside the United States, the military does not take the lead. Even though that was military land in the Pentagon, the guy in charge of the operation was in fact the fire chief out of Arlington. And that's where I reported, and I worked for him, basically.
I asked him what he wanted me to do. And if he asked, and if there was something I could do for him, we provided it. It was a very collegial, cooperative kind of environment, and it works great.
As the fire chief slid out of that command role, because the fire was out and the structural damage to the building had been taken care of, the crime scene part came up, and then the FBI took over. No problem. I then start working for the FBI, doing the things they want me to do.
Once the FBI was done with the building, they turned it back over to us, and then we continued to do the things we had to do until we were complete, and then we gave it back to the Pentagon folks.
The value of the working across the interdepartmental and interagency work that we did was manifested by our relationship that we have established over time, because we live in the city, we work in the city, we know these people. We talk to them, we review our plans together, and we have a relationship.
That relationship is built on trust and on capability. We understand what each of us brings to the fray, and what things we should be able to do. And we don't look at doing someone else's job, we do what we can do best. And in this case, it worked out exceptionally well. The people that we worked with on 9/11 were just wonderful folks, and great leaders and great people in their communities.
The interesting thing is the relationships that we built have just increased in significance, in that we still talk to each other, go see each other, and spend time together. And that's what makes things work, is that interrelationships that we've built.
Mr. Lawrence: You've talked about the value of relationships. You obviously didn't begin building those relationships on the morning of 9/11. What were you doing before to build relationships with those groups?
Gen. Jackson: Well, interestingly, the Inaugural that we had for President Bush brought us all together, because of the significant event in Washington, D.C. and the kinds of stuff that happens there, the security aspects, the volume of people that come in, and the military participation, and the fact that we help prepare and plan the whole -- the inaugural, at least the parade portion and some of the rest of the stuff that is done.
We have to sit down and talk. And you go through a lengthy process of building a plan, executing it on a tabletop or on a floor, and then rehearsing it. And so throughout that event, over a period of several weeks, we become very close, and we get to understand.
So I know pretty much or have met every police senior member throughout the District, and certainly in the surrounding counties. Some fire chiefs, I've known. We train periodically with their own search-and-rescue people, because I have a search-and-rescue element. And they train together.
And so that's where we build those relationships.
Mr. Lawrence: That's a good stopping point. Stick with us as we continue our discussion about management with General Jackson of the Military District of Washington.
When we come back, we'll ask him about the challenges of managing Arlington Cemetery.
This is The Business of Government Hour.
Mr. Lawrence: Welcome back to The Business of Government Hour. I'm Paul Lawrence, a partner in PricewaterhouseCoopers. And today's conversation is with Major General James Jackson, Commanding General, U.S. Army, Military District of Washington.
And joining us in our conversation is another PwC partner, Brian Dickson.
Well, General Jackson, one of the things that I've always been most impressed about MDW is Arlington National Cemetery. Could you describe the management challenges one faces in operating a cemetery, or operating the cemetery?
Gen. Jackson: The biggest challenge with Arlington is space. We're fast running out of space. Where it sits geographically, it's bounded by a variety of different things. And so we're concerned that at some point in time, we'll just run out of ground.
We're building plans to be able to take us well into this century, beyond 2050, and a little bit further than that to be able to do the things we have to do. But there's going to have to be some other innovative ways to deal with it. And that's why we're building things like columbariums for cremation and so forth.
The other aspect is that we run anywhere from about 28 funerals a day, and average about 24. But we can go as high as up to 28. And we inter both Army and of course all the other services. Regardless of which service is participating, I could have elements of my own participating, depending on the level of the funeral. Depending on the individual veteran, there are certain honors that are rendered based upon what level that individual worked. And so we go through a fairly lengthy process to figure all that out so that we render proper honors for all of them.
But as you might expect, Arlington has a lot of emotion tied to it. And we deal with that as best we can, because we have families that are deserving of our attention at this point in time in their lives. As far as they're concerned, that's the most important thing that's happened at that point in time in their lives. And we deal with that.
Overall, things operate very smoothly. One thing I would pass on to all your listeners is that as a veteran, if you're out there, you need to make sure that your paperwork and stuff is available and properly set aside so when the time comes, your family is properly prepared. And there is a degree of paperwork associated with everything we do. And if you don't have that available, you can make things a little bit more difficult.
And there are ways to deal with that. All you've got to do is pick up the phone and call, and people can be happy to provide that information to you either through the veterans' services, or, of course, you can Arlington itself.
Mr. Lawrence: From personal experience, as well as talking to people who have been involved at a ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery, the response is all very, very positive. And so my question to you is how does it run so well? How does everything, with 20 or 28 ceremonies, how does it all work so well?
Gen. Jackson: Well, we've had lots of time to perfect that. In all honesty, we have had lots of time. And over time, the experience causes people to be able to find ways to make it better. Additionally, I would tell you that the young people and all the folks that we have working down there are focused keenly on that one event. And they take it very seriously.
The soldiers who participate in Arlington will tell you to a man that they are very proud to be able to provide that service to veterans who have served their country, and now they're paying their last respects. And so every time I've witnessed a funeral, I've never seen anything but a tremendous sense of dedication and desire on the part of everybody to render those honors properly. And it ranges from the very top down to the
lowest-ranking individual, to include family members who receive some honors.
Mr. Dickson: General, I know from my work with the Army that you personally, and also the Military District of Washington, has taken a leading role in developing innovative ways to managing your post infrastructure, including moving out into some innovative approaches in the area of privatization. Could you talk about what you're doing in this area?
Gen. Jackson: Basically, it's a fairly simplistic approach, but it's complicated as you get into details. The simplistic part is that the U.S. Army is good at many things. But some things we're not as good at as the private industry. And so the desire is to -- let's go get the experts to do the things that they're good at, and let's let us go back to doing the things we're good at.
And so running installations and providing utilities to an installation is not something you learn about in the Army. And maybe we ought to go out and find those experts. And so that's what we're doing. We're trying to bring them in -- all with the stated goal of being more efficient and effective with the dollars that the taxpayers give us.
Another example would be the Residential Community Initiative, which is RCI, in short. But it's just a fancy way of finding out how we can build new houses, or improve the maintenance on the existing housing that we have on our installations.
For example, the house I live in is 100 years old. Everything you do to that house is now historically based. And so it costs us money to be able to do that, and it costs more money than you might on a younger house.
But how do we go about fixing all this old infrastructure that in some cases we can't tear down because of the preservation and the historical requirements? And so we took at look at that, and the Army decided the best way to do that is to partner with private firms who build houses. And we pay for them by using the housing allowance that we receive -- if you own a house and you're living off the installation, you forfeit that when you move into government quarters.
Well, in this case, we won't forfeit it any more. We will take that money and pay the private contractor who has built the house. And they're contracting to do this, or building this partnership for long term. The one up at Fort Meade is a company called Piscern Real Estate, and they're tied in for 50 years right now.
So they see -- the novel approach here is, here's an American business that is not necessarily concerned with instantaneous gratification or profit. He is building his program to make money over 50 years. And he's partnering with the military to do that.
And so we are going to get newer houses, better-maintained houses while he gets a
long-term return on his investment, which is kind of novel.
Mr. Lawrence: You said it was a simple concept, yet it was hard to do. What's the hard-to-do part about?
Gen. Jackson: Well, the hard part is because it's new. No one's done this before. And so you're kind of groping as you go, trying to figure out how to do it. As you break new ground, it just causes new things to occur, and things that you haven't thought of necessarily.
There were some hurdles. There's legal hurdles; there's some political concerns. And there's also just the issue of how do we go about maintaining a relationship for 50 years with a private entity? You know, when was the last time the military built a partnership, a literal partnership, with a commercial entity? And so that's the difficult part, putting together the product or the process so that it produces the product you want and at the quality you want to give our people the kind of living standards that they deserve.
Mr. Lawrence: What are your special authorities as the commanding general of MDW?
Gen. Jackson: First of all, one of the extra functions I have is to function as the general court martial convening authority for all of the elements in and around the National Capital Region. What that basically means is when there's an infraction or some kind of legal problem, I'm the decisionmaker as to whether we take that to a court martial or we process it with another way.
So I will deal with all the military who work in the Pentagon and throughout the area from, again, as close as Fort Meade, Fort Belvoir and all the other agencies who, while they may not work for me, they will still fall under my jurisdiction for this.
The last time we counted, it's over 90 different organizations. The other interesting part that falls to me is we have elements of Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard that also work in the Capital Region that have jobs similar to mine. And so what we do is we constantly interface with them so that we all know what each other's doing to try and facilitate the jobs.
Because again, in a crisis situation, we might very well need their assets to assist us, and so we work together.
Additionally, in the area of joint ceremonies, either at the White House or dealing with the Department of Defense, my organization takes the lead and all the others follow what we do. And they'll take instructions from us.
Mr. Dickson: As the commanding general for the Military District of Washington, you have jurisdiction over both Army soldiers and a large number of civilians. What are the significant cultural differences between these two groups?
Gen. Jackson: You know, that's an interesting question, because before I came here, I might have answered it a lot differently than I will today. I will tell you today that I find very little difference between good workers, be they civilian or military. I mean, good workers, good employees do things well, regardless of what clothing they wear and what their background is. They just want to strive to do well, and they'll do well.
Now, there's those that aren't so good, and then there's lots of differences with those. But I have not-so-good that wear uniforms sometimes, too. So, again, there's a commonality there that I don't really think transcends culture here. So I would offer that in my job, that the people I've worked with, both civilian and military, I've found to be very capable, able, dedicated. And they desire to do a great job. And therefore, there's really no difference between either one of them. And I'm blessed. I've got good folks who work for me, and those problems don't seem to take up much of my time.
Mr. Lawrence: That's a good stopping point. Rejoin us after the break as we continue our discussion with General Jackson of the Military District of Washington.
This is The Business of Government Hour.
Mr. Lawrence: Welcome back to The Business of Government Hour. I'm Paul Lawrence, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers. And today's conversation is with Major General James Jackson, commanding general, U.S. Army, Military District of Washington.
Joining us in our conversation is another PwC partner, Brian Dickson.
Mr. Dickson: General Jackson, I'm aware that the Military District of Washington is also playing a leading role in helping the Army improve its technology infrastructure and to develop more standard approaches to using information technology. Can you talk a little bit about your efforts in this area?
Gen. Jackson: The Pentagon has decided to take the lead, and to develop a program to do all those things you mentioned. Our part is to kind of be the test bed, or be a laboratory to take some of their ideas and actually put them into place and see how they work. We're a relatively small command as Army commands go. And so we can do that with a fairly small overhead, and we can see if it works.
The whole purpose behind it is to try and make our organizations more effective, more efficient by using not only common business practices, but also technology, by re-engineering the current technologies to give us the ability to get to information that is important and critical for us to make better decisions. And we're doing things like remoting our servicing capability for our computers. We have that capability now to basically reach into a computer and fix a software problem without ever having to send a service member down to touch the machine. It can be done from a remote site.
Looking at consolidating our information techniques, our ability to store information in a database so that it makes it available for more people to get to, so that you, one, know that information is available so you can go retrieve it quickly and make it go. And it's just a matter of trying to take all these tools and make them available to the decisionmakers.
Mr. Dickson: People who are technologists often talk about the introduction of technology changes organizations. And in many ways, they say that when they get rid of the middle managers, they flatten the structure because they're able to do the kind of things you just described. And I'm curious. Can you imagine that happening to the Army? It somehow seems counterintuitive to think that a structure that has lasted so long in history would change.
Gen. Jackson: I guess what I have learned over my 30 years is don't ever say never, because you'll probably be bit after a while. I think those kinds of changes are worth looking at and exploring. I think the Army has got ways to improve itself, and this may be one of them. My only caution would be we need to look at it and address it. And if we think it's going to work, then we move ahead.
And certainly our civilian and military leaders are taking a look at these things. I know General Shinseki is working hard to do what he's calling the transformation business, to transform the Army into a different organization that can better meet the nation's needs.
You know, if you don't change, to adapt, or adapt to the environment you're dealing in, sooner or later, you're going to become inconsequential or superfluous, and you'll go away.
Mr. Lawrence: What might be some of those differences? Does that mean different way that the members of the Army do their jobs, would it mean different type jobs? What?
Gen. Jackson: I think both those, certainly. Obviously, there's many different ways to accomplish the same role. And we should be looking for ways that are more efficient and more effective all the time. Some jobs will go away.
We've got new jobs today that weren't around 30 years ago when I came in the Army. One of the little vignettes I tell my people is just the PCs, the personal computers that we're dealing with today, there weren't in the Army 30 years ago. And today, when I'm standing in front of a big group, I ask them: "Is there anyone here who does not have a PC on your desk?" And no hands go up.
That has affected the way we move information. I mean, e-mail has taken away the old buck slip, the handwritten note. Very rarely do we do that anymore. Now, I do some because it carries a little bit of added weight sometimes. But the point is the routine way of transferring information now has become the computer.
Just take a look at your own organizations and ask yourself what happens when the computer goes down? What if the system breaks? You find out you're all of a sudden got lots of spare time on your hands. Because a tool has been taken away that you've become very accustomed to. And so that has changed. And that's just one example, which is not necessarily a big one, but it's been one example that has reached out and touched almost everybody in the military.
Mr. Lawrence: There's still talk about the coming wave of retirements of individuals in government. Is this a challenge to MDW?
Gen. Jackson: I don't think so. You know, we have been having people retire in the military for many, many years. In fact, it comes to all of us sooner or later. And we have procedures in place to deal with that. We have incentives, and we retain the people that we want to retain and that want to stay with us. And we have a program to do that. I think it's just the way we do business, and it's one of the things that we deal with every day.
Mr. Dickson: Sir, is MDW heavily involved in recruiting and the retention of soldiers? And what are you folks doing to try to improve recruitment and retention?
Gen. Jackson: Overall, recruiting has been a good story for the Army, although I personally -- my command -- does not get involved in recruiting initial entry soldiers, the first-time people coming in.
But my understanding is the Army is doing well across the board. And in the area of retaining soldiers, my command does do that, and we're doing very well. At this point in time, we're about 117 percent of our stated goals up to this point in time.
And we have a variety of different ways we deal with that in the way of incentives. Some monetary incentives; college education that can be provided through the GI bill; training choices. And the one that seems to pop up most readily in our command is the option to re-enlist, to stay where you're at. And about half of our re-enlistments that are retention of soldiers comes in that category, which means people are pretty much happy with what they're doing, and they're going to stay with us, or try to stay with us longer.
And so right now, that's all going pretty well for us.
Mr. Dickson: Do you focus a lot on improving or maintaining a high quality of life for the soldiers as a means for ensuring high retention rates? And what kinds of things are you doing in that area? style="font-WEIGHT: normal">
Gen. Jackson: We are doing things to affect the lifestyle of the soldiers. We've got some programs in place called wellness, and a wellness program that is designed to look at how you treat the whole family as opposed to just the soldier. We need to recognize that if the soldier's going home upset, or has a family life that's not doing too well, he's not going to be very good on duty.
Mr. Lawrence: What advice would you give a young person interested in the military?
Gen. Jackson: I would ask him to stay in school, learn all you can, be as good a student as you can. Remember that you're going to go through high school, like most of us, once. Get as much as you can out of that. And then if you have a desire to come to the Army, get yourself in good physical shape, keep yourself as morally straight as you possibly can, and step forward. But be prepared for challenges, and be prepared to face some things new in your life. And the Army will in fact bring those things out.
But we look forward to bringing on every young able-bodied American citizen who wants to serve. And I think there's a value added to every life that comes in and participates with us, because there's things we can do for them that probably are fairly unique.
Mr. Lawrence: I've heard about two programs. Perhaps you could tell me more about them, Twilight Tattoo and Spirit of America.
Gen. Jackson: Well, Twilight Tattoo is our summer program that occurs out on the White House Ellipse. We do it every Wednesday at 7:00. We're going to start April 17th, and we'll go to mid-July. And it's about an hour, hour and a half, or a little over an hour show. And it's intended to basically provide the viewer a snapshot of what the Army has done over time, and some of the assets that are available within MDW. But it's an historically based show that talks a little bit about the Army over the years. And then it also gives them an opportunity to see some of the more visible assets that are available to me and that we put on the show.
Some music. It's all built around music. We try to build it with some of the more contemporary music, which is rather difficult for an old person like me. But I've got folks who help me with that. And so the intent is to reach out to young people and to make it both an enjoyable but an informative event.
Spirit of America is really a large musical show that is done up in the MCI Arena. We'll be doing that 26 through 29 September. And what it amounts to, it's a patriotic version of any kind of a show that you might see. And it's again designed around the Army, and what kinds of things we've done or meant to the country, and what the country means to the Army. And it's put on by all our soldiers. I mean, there's no professional actors there. These are our people who are taught how to do this.
And we write the show from scratch, and then put it on. And we were going to do it last year. But as you know, with the 9/11 events, it was decided that we would cancel that event. And so we're going to come back this year, and hope that the public comes out and spends an evening with us or an afternoon with us, and hope they learn something, and also hope they enjoy themselves.
Mr. Lawrence: Well, those certainly sound interesting, but I'm afraid we're out of time.
Brian and I want to thank you very much, General Jackson, for being with us this morning.
Gen. Jackson: My pleasure. Thank you.
Mr. Lawrence: This has been The Business of Government Hour, featuring a conversation with Major General James Jackson, commanding general, U.S. Army, Military District of Washington.
Be sure and visit us at the web at endowment.pwcglobal.com. There you can learn more about our programs, and get a transcript of today's interesting conversation. Once again, that's endowment.pwcglobal.com.
This is Paul Lawrence. See you next week.