FY02 ASA Presentation Lead and Manage ORS

1
FY02 ASA Presentation Lead and Manage ORS

• Presented by
• Shirl Eller, Director, Division of Intramural
  Research Services
• Office of Research Services
• National Institutes of Health
• 18 November 2002

2
(No Transcript)
3
Customer Segmentation

• ORS leaders have 3 primary customer segments
• ORS program staff
• NIH community at large
• NIH senior leaders/decision makers
• Groups surveyed/response rates
• ORS Leadership Group 66
• ORS Executive Committee 100
• NIH Senior Leaders 29
• NIH OD IC Scientific Directors, EOs, ORSAC,
  FARB

4
Unique Customer Measures

• ORS program managers/supervisors perception of
  involvement in decision making and business
  planning.
• Key external customers perception of the value
  ORS provides to the NIH.

5
Perceptions of Decision Making FY02 Mean Ratings
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
6
Perceptions of Decision Making ORSEC FY01 and
FY02 Mean Ratings
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
7
Perceptions of Decision Making Leadership Group
FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
8
Conclusions of Decision Making

• EC members believe they have input into/authority
  to make decisions
• LG members believe they have input into/authority
  to make decisions in their own program areas
• LG members have lower perceptions of
  decision-making authority on improving ORS,
  ORS-wide initiatives, future direction of ORS
• FY01 FY02 ratings approximately the same for
  both groups
• Assumption Expect LG perceptions to change with
  new organizational structure governance model

9
Perceptions of Information AccessFY02 Mean
Ratings
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
10
Perceptions of Information AccessORSEC FY01 and
FY02 Mean Ratings
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
11
Perceptions of Information AccessLeadership
Group FY01 and FY02 Mean Ratings
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
12
Conclusions - Information Access

• EC members believe they have easy access to
  information needed and that program managers
  receive timely information.
• LG members rate access to timeliness
  information slightly lower
• FY02 ratings slightly lower than FY01 ratings for
  both groups indicating need to focus on better
  communication tools
• Assumption Expect LG perceptions to change with
  new organizational structure governance model

13
Perceptions of Understanding of ORS Business
Processes FY02 Mean Ratings
Strongly Agree
Neither
Strongly Disagree
14
Conclusions - Understanding of Business Process

• LG members overall perceptions of their
  understanding of business processes slightly
  higher than EC members perceptions
• Most ratings near midpoint of scale indicating
  room for improvement
• Varied responses on 6 questions indicating
  respondents have very different perceptions of
  program manager understanding of business
  processes

15
Ratings of Satisfaction with Performance of ORS
Leadership during FY02
Unsatisfied
Outstanding
Mean Rating
16
Conclusions NIH Sr. Leader Survey

• Ratings of satisfaction with ORS leadership were
  all above the mid-point of the scale
• Most satisfied with how ORS advices NIH community
  on situations that impact daily activities
• Least satisfied with how ORS communicates with
  senior leaders about the determination of its
  fees
• Competence, handling of problems, reliability,
  responsiveness the highest rated dimensions that
  are important when considering ORS
  products/services
• Comments reinforced ratings data
• Positive about handling of campus and
  security-related matters
• Communicating methods for setting fees, managing
  facility issues needs improvement

17
Conclusions from Deployment Flowcharts

• Our Service Group completed 2 deployment
  flowcharts that cut across all 4 of our discrete
  services
• Budget Decision-making process
• Minimize number of iterations and provide more
  time for program mangers to accurately compile
  data
• Organizational Change Communications process
• Improve communications down and across ORS
• Apply lessons learned during successful DSFM
  realignment to current restructuring efforts

18
Process Measures

• Budget Decision-making
• Track lead time program managers have for initial
  development
• Track type number of questions at each stage
• Track number of iterations at each stage
• Study relationship between days allocated for
  development and number of iterations
• Assumption More development time more
  accuracy, fewer iterations

19
Process Measures

• Organizational Change Communications
• Track effectiveness of organizational change
  communications
• Use process flowchart to identify lessons learned
  from DSFM realignment communications and apply to
  current restructuring effort
• Track and classify questions received through ORS
  Employee Hotlines (e-mail and phone)
• Team developed automated web-based information
  management tool to collect and categorize data

20
Learning and Growth Perspective
No EEO complaints, ER or ADR cases
About 1 and 3/4 awards per employee
About 8 turnover
About 2 days sick leave per employee
All data within ORS mid to low range
21
Readiness Index

• Critically evaluate Managers and staff
  competencies and describe strategies for
  addressing gaps
• Critically evaluate tools and technology
  supporting discrete services and describe
  strategies for meeting deficits
• Forecast ability to meet future demands on
  service group with and without specific
  intervention
• Report on training infrastructure

22
Proposed Approach to Readiness Index Part
1Managers Competencies
23
Proposed Approach to Readiness Index Part 2
Staff Competencies
24
Proposed Approach to Readiness Index Part 3
Tools and Technology
25
Proposed Approach to Readiness Index Part 4
Capacity
26
Readiness IndexPart 5 Training infrastructure

• Is there a training plan for staff supporting
  this service group?