I was looking to see if I had a copy of the FS response to the “litigation and appeals are not a problem” GAO report, and ran across this in my files.
This letter is a bit of a hoot, especially given the current discussion about focusing on the basics. I hope I softened the language before it was sent out (to a team in the RO).
Below is a sample. It was a response to questions from the Transformation Team in 2007. I don’t remember who the Foundation Principals Group was or what they did.
In answering the questions below, provide specifics to your Region, Station, Area, or Washington Office Staff, along with suggestions and ideas that are more corporate in nature for the organization as a whole. Please present ideas that will assist the Forest Service in maximizing capacity, increasing effectiveness, and reducing costs. Avoid focusing on the status quo.
Questions are in italics, my answers in bold.
Transformation Efforts and Transition
1. Please list other recent, current, or projected Forest Service initiatives (e.g., other organizational efficiencies, consolidation, or shared service initiatives) that could compete or align with this effort’s success. Provide the name and contact information of who leads these efforts.
What does this mean? Region 2 has set up a partnership organization within the Region. Is this an example of an initiative that should be included.
Planning directors are working on coordinating economics expertise across regions to reduce the need for an economist in each RO.
2. What are some of the important lessons learned from past change efforts within your area/unit AND Forest Service-wide?
• The August 1999 NAPA study Restoring Managerial Accountability to the Forest Service was required reading for the Foundation Principals Group and it should be required reading for the Transformation effort.
My lessons learned:
YOU NEED TO OPTIMIZE ALL LEVELS AT ONCE
From the Pilot (all parts of the agency need to be aligned: problems during the Pilot with the Region not going for the “bucket of money” approach; certainly partially due to a need for accountability with Congress but
From Region 9 decreasing their RO a number of years ago- I experienced people who would have called the RO now calling other regions and using theirs or WO expertise. Leeching off others is not efficiency.
From efforts to centralize and improve the efficiency of administration – again, making your workload less by giving it away to others does not increase the efficiency of the organization- it is a shell game.
IT SHOULD BE KNOWN IN ADVANCE WHO WILL DO WHAT WORK AND IT MUST BE COSTED OUT, AGREED TO BY THE NLT, AND PASS THE LAUGH TEST (perhaps an outside group less likely to be invested in the desire to “go with the flow” or not be seen as an obstacle).
THE KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND TECHNOLOGIES SHOULD BE PILOTED PRIOR TO FINALIZING THE CHANGE
Efficiency is impaired by nonfunctioning computer systems and applications or poorly designed ones. It should be very clear who is responsible for each application and to whom questions should be addressed. Each should have a board of customers to advise on issues and possible improvements.
IF THERE ARE TOUGH CHOICES TO BE MADE WE SHOULD INVOLVE STAKEHOLDERS IN THOSE DECISIONS. Perhaps an advisory board? Perhaps some academics from public administration schools? Our tendency is to circle the wagons when we’re in trouble and appeal to our internal constituencies (example, EMS) and potentially build a monstrosity that doesn’t meet the original need to due the need to garner internal political support. Internal politics is important for sure, but shouldn’t be the main determinants.
3. What effect would a “soft freeze” have on your program areas as we move through this process?
This is an odd question. Don’t know what a soft freeze is. The impacts would depend on who retires or gets a different job, and how easy it is for someone else to learn those skills – in my case, running an appeals process (easy) , NEPA expertise (not easy).
4. What recommendations do you have for implementing a “soft freeze”?
• Attrition is not the best way to design a Transformed Forest Service. Our experience from past efforts is that it is a good way to loose critical skills needed by the agency.
If you must implement a freeze, then give RF’s discretion over which positions to fill. Otherwise we are managing by random factors (who retires or leaves). Don’t know anyone who would run a business not knowing who was coming to work the next day.
Back to Basics
5. Before we can look at organizational concepts, we first need to look at what work we are organizing to do. What do you think is the core business of the Forest Service?
• A finalized Foundational Principals document is key to the Transformation effort in that with the Foundational Principals one could discern the core business of the Forest Service and the design and organizational concepts for the Agency.
o The National Leadership Team needs to approve a “Core Business of the Forest Service” and Transformation design criteria or organizational concepts statements.
• Much of the Agency’s time and energy now goes into things the public does not care about (where our financial organization is located, how we structure the WO and Regions, etc.). We as an agency are focusing more and more on ourselves and less on the customers we serve.
• Organizational Concepts
Running the national forest public lands (research and helping state and private forests). Keeping the campgrounds running, the permits processed,
The streams running clear, etc. If all we had left was a ranger, a visitor information specialist and a contracting officer on each district, and some folks to inspect the contracts we could do the core business. (this model places high value on presence in communities).
6. What do you think are the priority areas of work needed to “take care of the land and serve people”?
• Upward reporting is taking more and more time away from the field to measure aspects of performance at the Washington level. The question to ask instead is whether we are delivering services to the field better.
• Things on the land the people on districts do and the advice they need to do them right.
7. What skill sets are needed to accomplish the Agency’s mission in the future?
Natural resources, conflict resolution, contracting.
Organizational Concepts
8. Are there any organizational concepts or ideas that you feel should be evaluated as part of this transformation effort?
• If all we are trying to do is reduce costs, why not use a simple across the board WO/RO cut of 25% or a 40% cut in the WO and a 15% cut in the RO.
• The follow-the-money analysis the Team is considering is very important to the process.
• Want to know how much of the Agency’s funding goes to the WO and the ROs.
9. Are there any key areas deserving extra focus and evaluation as a part of this transformation effort?
• Human Capital Management should be on the table in the Transformation process.
• Specialists of all kinds in terms of project and broader scale planning – we need them but how many do we need and can we share better and actually have higher quality available at a lower cost?
• When can people work from wherever and when it is important that they be together? Our organization seems to be unclear on this and makes different decisions at different points in time before we spend beaucoup bucks on TOS shouldn’t we have a corporate principle about this?
• There is so much change going on right now. How does it all fit together and when will it stop? The agency as a whole may be at a breaking point in so far as continual change is concerned. There is a perception at the upper levels of the Agency that the field is resistant to change, while in fact change has been continuous. The agency has gone from a predominately timber focused organization to one focusing on fire ecology and management, a very significant change.
• The Agency as an organization is not functioning well.
• The Charter says we will leverage new technology but we have not been able to do so. For example, we cannot pay our bills on time.
• Many Forest Service organizations have undergone efficiency changes. Don’t penalize those organizations that have already made efficiency changes.
• The Case for Change in the Charter is written defensively and needs to be written with a positive focus such as:
o We want to be able to do our mission better, here are some reform ideas.
o Need to explain the origin of the Case for Change
Roslyn leases were up and an opportunity to operate more efficiently became apparent.
The Regional Foresters agreed to being able to deliver an extra Million dollars in funding to each National Forest. This later became a 25% reduction in WO/RO funding.
• In the Charter Key points it says, “Leverage the capacity of the Agency’s centralized business operations services in Albuquerque.”
o Albuquerque has not been a success. There is not any capacity in Albuquerque to be leveraged, and they have not been able to deliver what has been asked of them.