John Kamensky

John Kamensky

OMB Burden Reduction. Federal News Radio reports: “The Office of Management and Budget is cleaning out its policy closet and in its first sweep found 59 data reporting requirements that are no longer necessary. . . . Of those 59 requirements, 50 have been rescinded and nine have been modified or suspended for the near future.”

However, last month the federal government managed a quiet, yet successful, implementation of a key element of the DATA Act. A website of financial data from across the government went
“live,” and nothing bad happened! What lessons were learned that could be applied to other large-scale, government-wide initiatives in the future? A panel sponsored by the National Academy of Public Administration recently explored this question.

John Kamensky

John Kamensky

Restored Faith.  FedScoop reports on comments by Cong. Gerry Connelly at a conference, noting: “With agencies now required to report their spending data in compliance with the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act, it’s a chance for the federal government to earn some trust from the American people.”

It recently released a nine-point agenda recommending actions that Congress can take to ground funding decisions on this basis.  One of its recommended actions is to expand the use of “tiered evidence” grants.

But do they work?

Good News: Acquisition Reform Works. Steve Kelman writes in FCW: “cost growth in the development of new weapons systems has slowed.”  He explored “why” and concluded that the acquisition reforms over the past decade has finally made a difference.

John Kamensky

Exciting Opportunities. Government Executive reports: “Though their written plans remain shrouded from public view, agency officials charged by the Trump White House with making government more efficient say they are “excited” about what they see as a rare opportunity for systemic and lasting change to government operations.”

The common perception is that, as a group, federal managers tend to be risk adverse.  However, new research based on data from the annual federal employee viewpoint survey concludes that the answer is: it depends.  Managers in both high-performing and low-performing organizations tend to be risk takers.  They probably feel they have little to lose by trying something new.  In contrast, managers in stable, middle-of-the-road organizations tend to be risk adverse and do not want to rock the boat by taking risks.

A new article in the Harvard Business Review by a team of researchers led by Raffaella Sadun, Nicholas Bloom and John Van Reenen, have done just this, for private sector companies.  But their lessons apply in government as well, observing: “Core management practices can’t be taken for granted.

But there was a ray of hope embedded in GAO’s report.  The opening section assesses agencies’ progress in working together across organizational boundaries, noting “Many of the meaningful results that the federal government seeks to achieve . . .