[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PUBLIC SERVICE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S TECHNOLOGY WORKFORCE CRISIS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND PROCUREMENT POLICY
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 31, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-91
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-423 WASHINGTON : 2002
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
STEPHEN HORN, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
RON LEWIS, Kentucky JIM TURNER, Texas
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DAVE WELDON, Florida WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida ------ ------
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho ------
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee (Independent)
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel
Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JIM TURNER, Texas
STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
DOUG OSE, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
Victoria Proctor, Professional Staff Member
James DeChene, Clerk
Mark Stephenson, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 31, 2001.................................... 1
Statement of:
Kelman, Dr. Stephen, Albert J. Weatherhead III and Richard W.
Weatherhead professor of public policy, Harvard University,
John F. Kennedy School of Government; Martin Faga, CEO and
representative of the National Academy of Public
Administration [NAPA], the Mitre Corp.; Dr. Ernst Volgenau,
president and CEO, and representative of the Information
Technology Association of America [ITAA], SRA
International; and Steve Rohleder, managing partner,
Accenture.................................................. 89
Walker, David, Comptroller General, U.S. General Accounting
Office; Kay Coles James, Director, Office of Personnel
Management; and Stephen Perry, Administrator, U.S. General
Services Agency............................................ 12
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Davis, Hon. Thomas M. Davis, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Virginia, prepared statement of.......... 5
Faga, Martin, CEO and representative of the National Academy
of Public Administration [NAPA], the Mitre Corp., prepared
statement of............................................... 102
James, Kay Coles, Director, Office of Personnel Management,
prepared statement of...................................... 52
Kelman, Dr. Stephen, Albert J. Weatherhead III and Richard W.
Weatherhead professor of public policy, Harvard University,
John F. Kennedy School of Government, prepared statement of 92
Perry, Stephen, Administrator, U.S. General Services Agency,
prepared statement of...................................... 64
Rohleder, Steve, managing partner, Accenture, prepared
statement of............................................... 125
Turner, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas, prepared statement of............................ 9
Volgenau, Dr. Ernst, president and CEO, and representative of
the Information Technology Association of America [ITAA],
SRA International, prepared statement of................... 119
Walker, David, Comptroller General, U.S. General Accounting
Office, prepared statement of.............................. 14
PUBLIC SERVICE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S TECHNOLOGY WORKFORCE CRISIS
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2001
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas M. Davis
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Davis, Horn, and Turner.
Staff present: Melissa Wojciak, staff director; Amy
Heerink, chief counsel; George Rogers, counsel; Victoria
Proctor, professional staff member; James DeChene, clerk; Mark
Stephenson, minority professional staff member; and Jean Gosa,
minority assistant clerk.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Good morning. I would like to
welcome everyone to today's oversight hearing on the
information technology human capital management crisis facing
the Federal Government. As many of you know, the GAO added
human capital management for the Federal Government to its
annual high risk list in January of this year. Governmentwide,
we face significant human capital shortages that will only get
worse as 35 percent of the Federal work force becomes eligible
to retire in the next 5 years. The numbers are even more
startling in highly specialized fields, where the government is
recruiting in direct competition with the private sector.
Nowhere is this more evident than with the technology work
force. It is estimated that 50 percent of the government's
technology work force will be eligible to retire by the year
2006.
Today's hearing will examine the problems the Federal
Government faces in recruiting and retaining technology
workers, as well as the challenges facing the government in
competing against the private sector for this highly skilled
highly sought after work force.
Over the past decade, the Congress and the government have
worked together to bring about significant management reforms.
We have passed financial management reforms, information
technology management reform, acquisition reform and government
performance and results legislation. But unfortunately, no one
has updated the laws and regulations governing the management
of the government's single most valuable resource, its people.
The private sector long ago made an end-to-end review of human
resources management and learned a lesson our government has
yet to recognize. A company's value is only as strong as the
people that come through the door, and those people who come
through the door every day bring knowledge, new ideas and
innovation.
A recent KPMG report on human capital management within the
Federal sector noted that government is operating with
personnel tools utilized and developed in the 1950's and
1960's. The same study noted that industry undertook major
human management reform in the 1980's, followed by ongoing
updates that occur as often as three times a year.
For the past decade, the government managed through minimum
mandatory personnel ceilings and hiring freezes. Today we see
the results in nearly every GAO report on a wide range of
government programs. For instance, the Department of Defense
lost so many of its civilian personnel, the Pentagon faces
growing challenges in managing weapons acquisitions and
logistics. This is coupled by the fact that 50 percent of the
remaining DOD acquisition work force is eligible to retire by
the year 2002.
A July 2001 Department of Energy Inspector General report
found that recruitment and retention of highly skilled
technical personnel has fallen so far behind that the
Department was failing to meet mission goals. Specifically, the
work force at DOE has been downsized by 24 percent over a 3-
year period without any strategic planning by agency
leadership. This led to a 2-year shutdown at Livermore's
plutonium facility, as there were not enough Federal personnel
in place to oversee daily operations.
At NASA downsizing has left the space shuttle launch team
short of qualified personnel to oversee shuttle safety and
launch activities.
Unfortunately, I could share with you many additional
examples within Federal agencies. Today we must address this
reality, both in the long- and short-term. First and foremost,
we must move beyond black and white arguments for and against
outsourcing as a part of a comprehensive human capital
strategic planning initiative.
I am encouraged that the Office of Management and Budget
this year requested work force analysis reports from all
executive agencies that include identifying future personnel
needs, succession planning, and recruitment and retention
strategies. I would like to request that the GAO review these
reports that were due into OMB on June 29 to see if agencies
are actually tackling this challenge.
In addition, I am heartened that human capital is expected
to be a part of every agency's performance plan. In the coming
months I plan to work closely with the GAO, Federal employee
groups, the private sector, and the administration to identify
additional steps that must be taken to allow the government to
address the human capital crisis.
While it is my firm belief that the larger human capital
management crisis will not be solved without the efforts of the
Congress, the administration, Federal employees, and the
private sector, we have to look to more immediate solutions to
solve the work force shortages faced in highly skilled
technical areas to ensure that government agencies are able to
effectively and efficiently perform their missions while
enhancing service delivery to the taxpayers.
Today, e-government is a top priority for the Federal
Government. The promise of e-government is revolutionary, but
we face severe implementation challenges. As we heard at a
hearing on acquisition reform before this subcommittee in May,
too many of our complex IT procurements continue to fail,
upwards of 40 percent. In addition, we have over 1,300
different e-government initiatives under way. But we have no
measurement of which projects are worthwhile or which should be
expanded across agency or across government to truly make
service more accessible.
I am pleased the administration has just named an Associate
Director of Information Technology within OMB and a new eGov
council to review and assess IT spending. However, I believe we
need individuals who can work daily on reviewing the status of
IT modernizations or cross-agency initiatives to assist in the
success of this new team. Unfortunately, the government can't
attract mid-level IT managers who can perform these functions.
That is why I have introduced legislation today to create a
Digital TechCorps. I believe we can help government transform
itself by creating a new vision of public service for the
industry. According to the National Academy of Public
Administration study on the Federal IT work force, the primary
barriers to recruiting new IT workers are salary and length of
time between job announcement and the actual hiring of an
individual. Moreover, of the five categories identified by IT
professionals when considering job opportunities, the Federal
Government received a low score in all but one category. The
creation of a tech corps would help eliminate those hurdles.
First, my proposal sets up an exchange program that can
begin as soon as an agency negotiates an exchange agreement
with a private sector entity. Next the private sector
individual will come into government at the GS-12 to 15 levels
for a period of up to 2 years. But they will continue to
receive pay and benefits from their private sector employer. In
addition, the Federal Government's mid-level IT managers will
have the opportunity to go to work in the private sector for up
to 2 years, while retaining their government pay and benefits.
This type of public-private exchange program will allow for
greater knowledge and understanding between the public and
private sectors. I believe it will foster greater innovation
and partnership for government. I think it is a win-win
scenario.
The Federal Government sits on the brink of tremendous
opportunity. We must utilize every opportunity available to us
to achieve real transformation. This includes a comprehensive
review of our human capital management. For too long the
Federal Government has been considered the employer of last
resort, this despite the tireless efforts of Federal employees
who continue to be treated as costs to be cut rather than the
greatest asset of every agency and bureau within the
government.
I look forward to discussing what creative solutions can be
brought to bear against the looming crisis facing our
government today. The subcommittee will hear testimony from
David Walker, Comptroller General of the General Accounting
Office, Kay Coles James, the new Director of the Office of
Personnel Management, and Stephen Perry, the Administrator of
the General Services Administration.
On our second panel we will hear from Dr. Steve Kelman of
the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University;
Mr. Martin Faga, the CEO of Mitre Corp., representing the
National Academy of Public Administration; and Dr. Ernst
Volgenau, CEO of SRA International, representing the
Information Technology Association of America; Mr. Steve
Rohleder, the Managing Partner of Accenture.
I now yield to Congressman Turner for his opening
statement.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas M. Davis of Virginia
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.003
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today's hearing will
focus on the challenges the government faces in attracting and
retaining a skilled information technology work force, and on
possible innovative approaches to addressing those challenges.
This hearing is very timely. Despite the recent slowing
growth of the U.S. economy, the unemployment rate still remains
below 5 percent, and it has been there since 1997. We know that
much of the employment growth that has occurred in this economy
has been attributed to the growth of information technology,
and the rise of the so-called dot.coms. The demand for highly
skilled information technology workers has consequently grown
at an unusually rapid pace, despite the recent downturn in our
economy, and the resulting layoffs that we have seen.
A recent study by the Information Technology Association of
America found that U.S. companies will seek to fill 900,000 new
IT positions in the near future, and 425,000 of those positions
will go unfilled because of lack of applicants.
The shortage of information technology workers is
exacerbated in the Federal sector for a variety of reasons, the
disparity in pay between the private sector and the government.
Two years ago, the Commerce Department found that starting
salaries for computer science graduates from the Federal
Government averaged $10,000 to $15,000 less than the starting
salaries paid in the private sector. The Office of Personnel
Management has recently attempted to address this disparity,
and I look forward to hearing from the directors this morning
regarding progress that we have made.
We also need to examine the important nonpay benefits, such
as training for career advancement opportunities and family
friendly benefits, flexible work schedules, and meaningful
recognition for individual performance as a way to attract and
retain individuals with information technology skills. With its
generally recognized good benefits packages, this is an area
the Federal Government may be able to use to help attract IT
workers.
I was pleased yesterday that this committee's bill
regarding allowing Federal employees to keep their frequent
flyer miles was passed on the floor of the House, a small step
toward increasing attractiveness of Federal employment. I
commend the chairman for the legislation that he has announced
today on the Digital TechCorps. I think it is an innovative
approach to business by creating an exchange program between
the public and the private sectors for technology managers.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. I could hear you fine, just for
the record.
Mr. Turner. Particularly that last sentence. And I do, Mr.
Chairman, look forward to working with you on this innovative
idea.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Jim Turner follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.005
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you very much. Mr. Horn.
Mr. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is one of the most
leading issues that affects the executive branch, the
legislative branch, government all over America. And I commend
the Comptroller General, Mr. Walker, who has been on this for
months, and that's human capital, not just building bridges and
everything else. They're important, but if we don't educate our
human capital the government will not have the talent it should
have.
The President of the United States should tell everyone of
his political appointees that you spend a few days on a college
campus, either the community colleges, the private colleges,
the State universities, which are the ones that really turn out
most of the individuals that go into the government. The
Services have done well with upgrading their people, sending
them off to universities for master's degrees, doctor's
degrees, and that has happened.
We also ought to think about the retirees that are gone in
some areas, private, public, local, State, Federal, and these
are very talented people. They still have a lot to give and we
ought to work with those individuals, have retraining, have a
chance to upgrade their skills and help us. And those of us in
Congress who are elected, we ought to be out to the college
campuses and doing what we know, that you never get as much
responsibility in many of the service opportunities with
millions of dollars of equipment, millions of dollars in human
capital, and we ought to also start with the Department of
Education to work with those that know how to educate people in
IT and that they must do some work basically on the campuses in
their area, and we ought to be there right with people from the
executive branch and without that, and we ought to start in
kindergarten on educating people. And I think it's a shame when
we are importing people from abroad when these are $60,000 jobs
you're talking in technology, and there ought to be a
sequential education in terms of logic, computing, a liberal
arts education, a number of things. And we ought to get to it
right now.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you very much, Mr. Horn.
I'll now call on our first panel of witnesses to testify. David
Walker, the Comptroller General of the General Accounting
Office; Kay Coles James, the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management. This is your first time. Is it your first
time up here, Kay?
Ms. James. Absolutely, yes.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Kay is a Fairfax County veteran,
served on the school board when I was chairman of the county
board. It's great to have you here. And Stephen Perry, the
Administrator of the General Services Administration. If you
would just please rise. It's the policy of this committee that
all witnesses be sworn before they testify.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you very much. You can be
seated. We have read everybody's statement. What I'd like to do
is try to sum up in 5 minutes. You'll have a light in front of
you. It's green but after 4 minutes it turns orange and that
gives you a minute to sum up, and then we'll go right to
questions.
Thank you very much. Mr. Walker, we'll start with you and
move straight down.
STATEMENTS OF DAVID WALKER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL, U.S. GENERAL
ACCOUNTING OFFICE; KAY COLES JAMES, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; AND STEPHEN PERRY, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S.
GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be
here today to address the Federal Government's human capital or
people challenges with a specific emphasis on the information
technology and acquisitions work forces. I would ask that my
entire statement be inserted into the record, Mr. Chairman, and
I will move to summarize that statement at this time.
GAO, as you know, designated human capital strategic
planning, or I should say the lack thereof, as a high risk area
in its January 2001 high risk update. This is due in part to
the after effects of the downsizing of the Federal Government
in the 1990's. Those after effects include a smaller
government, but one that is out of shape with skills and
balances in major success planning challenges. Many agencies
and functions are at risk of not being able to effectively
achieve their mission in the future as a result of these
challenges. The acquisition and the IT work forces, based upon
the preliminary work that we've done, appear to be at above
average risks as compared to other Federal agencies and
functions in the human capital area. Failure to effectively
address these human capital challenges in a timely, reasonable
and responsible manner will have serious adverse consequences.
First, it will serve to reduce the economy efficiency and
effectiveness along a broad range of governmental activities.
Second, it will slow the effects of government's attempt to
better connect itself with its citizens and to improve overall
responsiveness. And in addition, it will end up serving to
increase potential national security or personal privacy
threats associated with rapidly evolving technologies and
related trends.
Human capital strategic management is not the only high
risk area with people dimensions on GAO's latest high risk
list. For example, we noted that the IRS, the FAA and the DOD's
systems modernization efforts are also deemed to be high risk.
Clearly the people aspect of these areas represent a major
contributing factor to the high risk designation. In addition,
DOD and NASA's contract management functions are also deemed to
be high risk. Clearly, the people element associated with these
functions are a major contributing factor as to why they're
deemed to be high risk.
Irrespective of whether certain governmental functions are
performed or--pardon me. Even if certain governmental functions
are performed by contractors, it is absolutely essential that
the government retain an adequate number of skilled and
knowledgeable professionals to be able to maintain--to be able
to manage cost, quality and performance of said contractors.
All too frequently this is not the case.
In addition, DOD's weapons acquisitions programs and
practices are also on our high risk list, in part because of
the planned turnover of key program officials which serves to
decrease the effectiveness and the accountability of these
major development programs.
And there are various Federal programs that are on our high
risk list, of which the human capital dimension is a major
contributing factor, including the Postal Service, the SSI
program, the Medicare program and selected HUD programs.
Many individuals have a role to play in effectively
addressing these human capital challenges from the President,
to OMB and OPM, to heads of different departments and agencies,
to GAO, to the Congress to the press and many others.
We believe at GAO that a three-step approach should be
taken to address this challenge. First, every agency should do
everything they can within the context of current law to
address these issues. We believe that at least 80 percent of
what needs to be done can be done in the context of current
law.
Second, selected legislative reforms that would provide
management with some reasonable flexibility and enhance the
appreciation that the government has for its employees should
also be considered. The frequent flyer legislation that
Congressman Turner mentioned is a small step, but it sends a
big signal.
In addition, we need to build the consensus for broader
Civil Service reforms in the future, which reforms should be
based primarily on placing additional emphasis on skills,
knowledge and performance as a basis for hiring, promoting,
rewarding and disciplining Federal employees, rather than the
passage of time and the rate of inflation, which is all too
frequently the case. GAO is attempting to lead by example in
this area.
Figure 3 on page 15 notes a number of administrative
systems that we have already taken. Figure 4 on page 16 notes a
number of legislative actions that we've also taken as well in
order to try to help us serve the Congress and the American
people. We also note on pages 18 and 19 of my statement other
possible incremental legislative reforms, including the
possibility of fellowship programs, which would be very similar
in concept, Mr. Chairman, to the legislation that you
introduced today.
In summary, the government overall and the IT and
acquisitions work force in particular, face an array of
challenges. Government must begin to treat its people as an
asset to be valued rather than a cost to be cut. In a
knowledge-based economy of which people are the source of all
knowledge, it is critical that the Federal Government have top
quality professionals. The Federal Government represents 18 to
20 percent of the U.S. economy. It is the only superpower on
Earth. We cannot afford to have anything less than top flight
professionals managing that type of enterprise. The stakes are
simply too great to do otherwise.
Government must focus more on results rather than process
in discharging its responsibilities, and the key missing link
in this regard is the lack of effective human capital
management, both as it relates to administrative matters, as
well as the need for legislative reforms in this area.
We will at GAO, Mr. Chairman, look to work with the
Congress in trying to help maximize the performance and assure
the accountability of the government, both overall and in the
area of human capital.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walker follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.041
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you very much. Ms. James.
Ms. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you today, and in your invitation
you indicated that there were four topics or questions that
you'd like for me to address, and I will try to summarize each
of them briefly. And also, for the record, I have a longer
statement that I would like to submit.
First, I was asked to address OMB's work force analysis
order. As you know, the Office of Management and Budget
recently asked all agencies to complete a comprehensive
assessment of their current and future work force needs. I have
not had the opportunity yet to review all of the agencies'
submissions or to analyze them, but I do know that OPM worked
very hard last year to bring attention to the importance of
work force planning.
Also, this year, we made a five-step work force planning
model and an information Web site available for all agencies to
use. OPM provided data and technical advice that helped
agencies carry out their assessments.
I share your concern about the impact of the technology
worker shortage and the government's ability to deliver
services to the public. Although we are still able to rise to
extraordinary challenges like the Y2K crisis, the government,
like virtually all our employers, is facing a shortage of
qualified workers in the information technology field. It
stands to reason that difficulty in maintaining a high quality
IT work force would affect agency missions.
We need creative strategies to address this challenge and
we know, for instance, that even though pay is not always
competitive with the private sector, it's not the only barrier
to hiring and keeping a highly qualified IT work force.
Outstanding technology workers also seek the chance to work on
very challenging problems as well as training opportunities and
work place flexibility. We at OPM are working with agencies to
improve recruitment strategies and marketing of Federal IT
employment opportunities.
What are OPM's proposed solutions? We've been exploring
both legislative and administrative remedies to these problems.
We have been considering proposals to enhance recruitment and
retention incentives for the Federal work force generally. For
instance, we've been considering ways to make the current
authorities for recruitment relocation and retention incentive
payments more flexible and easier for agencies to use in a very
targeted way.
Meanwhile, we've already taken other concrete
administrative systems to alleviate these recruitment and
retention problems. First, we have established special salary
rates for entry level and developmental level information
technology employees under the general schedule. The new rates
will be more competitive for recruiting the talent we so
desperately need.
Second, we have issued a new classification standard for IT
specialist positions. The standard which our customers are
using enthusiastically reflect new and emerging technologies
and identifies 10 new specialty areas. We've designed the
standard to be a flexible document that we can adapt as new
specialties and technologies emerge.
Third, we piloted a new approach to assessing
qualifications for IT work. The new model is much more flexible
than the old standard and will greatly assist managers in
developing vacancy announcements and selection criteria for any
IT position. The pilot project has the added advantage of
allowing agencies to bring in applicants at whatever grade
levels match their competencies, regardless of how much
experience they have.
Finally, you asked me about OPM's view on a government-
private sector employee exchange program for information
technology workers. Like you, Mr. Chairman, I find the concept
interesting and attractive. OPM has explored the idea in the
past although not exclusively for the IT work force. I know
that you just introduced a bill that would establish an
exchange program for technology workers, and I look forward to
reviewing your proposal.
I understand that there are ethics implications to some
specific approaches that need to be explored very carefully and
thoroughly. We would defer to the Office of Government Ethics
and the Department of Justice on those matters. At the same
time, we are eager to work with interested parties to design an
effective exchange program that would help strengthen not only
our technology work force, but the Federal work force
generally. Improving communication and cooperation between the
Federal Government and the private sector can help identify
new, more effective ways for government and industry to work
together. I am particularly interested in ways in which an
exchange program might create opportunities to improve customer
service and business practices in the government.
I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, to
explore ways to make this interesting concept workable. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. James follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.051
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you very much. Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry. Chairman Davis, members of the subcommittee, I
appreciate having the opportunity to appear before you today to
talk about the challenges facing the government in recruiting
and retaining information technology associates, and also to
discuss the proposed legislation to establish an information
technology executive exchange program. With your permission,
I'd like to submit my formal testimony on this matter, the
written testimony for the record.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Without objection.
Mr. Perry. It is certainly the case that IT skills are
critical to the performance of every single Federal agency, and
that certainly is true at GSA. In recent years at GSA we've
undergone dramatic changes in the concept of our operations for
purposes of improving our ability to meet our customer agency
needs and thereby help them better serve the public and
taxpayers. It certainly is the case that as we continue to
adapt to the new way of doing business, this will have a
continuing effect on the mix of skills and competency needed by
GSA associates, and chief among them will be IT skills.
My written testimony submitted for the record provides
details with respect to some items that GSA has been involved
in in recent times and what we plan to do, so I'll spend my
allotted time rather focusing on the specific questions that
was in the invitation letter regarding our IT work force.
First, with respect to the question on GSA compliance with
OPM's request for work force analysis, that analysis was
submitted to OMB on July 6th. We believe that is a very helpful
thing and an important part of our work force planning. The
next step that we'll take in that process will be a
comprehensive review of our existing work force and our future
work force needs, and this will be done as a part of refining
and clarifying our strategic plan. As part of this work, we
will identify the skills and competencies that the GSA IT work
force must have in order to achieve our performance goals. This
strategic planning work is currently under way.
Regarding the second question, we have reviewed the
proposed Information Technology Executive Exchange Act of 2001,
a legislative draft, and we support the concept, and we believe
that this proposal offers a creative approach to providing the
Federal Government with IT professionals from the private
sector. The administration looks forward to working with
Congress to craft the Work Force Exchange Program that achieves
the desired goals on behalf of the government.
The question regarding the impact of technology, as
resulting from the work force shortage, I would say that while
GSA has to this point been able to stay reasonably on track in
terms of delivering programs and accomplishing our goals, the
technology work force shortage certainly has created challenges
for us in developing and managing our IT systems, challenges
also in terms of carrying out any significant new initiatives
and challenges in terms of finding the staff with the technical
skills and competencies that we need for the future. As a
result of this, we have hired contractors to assist us in the
support and development of IT systems that we need to
accomplish our service and our missions.
You asked also about tools that I might be aware of from
the private sector that may impact upon this issue of work
force shortage and the issue of better work force planning at
GSA. Certainly as you're aware, private sector companies in the
United States have used approaches such as developing alliances
with universities to attract students, providing internships as
an approach, recruiting on a global basis, as opposed to a U.S.
basis, use of H1B visas and, in fact, in cases outsourcing
technology projects to be done by workers in other countries.
Obviously, not all of these tools would be desirable from a
public sector perspective. During the short term the public
sector will continue to have difficulty competing with the
private sector to attract and retain highly skilled IT workers.
Consequently, we will need to aggressively apply the
recruitment and retention tools that are discussed in my
written statement. We will also need to develop additional
creative solutions such as this information technology exchange
program.
Better work force planning will be accomplished at GSA by
improving our human capital management process and integrating
this into our performance management process as is necessary to
build the organizational capability that we need to accomplish
our mission and goals. In our strategic planning, which we at
GSA are calling Creating a Successful Future at GSA, we have
identified the need to do this as a part of an initiative to
create a world class work force and a world class workplace.
This process will buildupon the work that's already in place at
GSA and it includes the following steps, which I would mention
as being part of best practice, as David Walker has pointed out
in many occasions on work force management.
The first step is to have more clearly stated and
documented goals with performance accountability measures;
second; to define the organizational structure and the specific
skills and competencies that we must have in each position
within the organization in order to be able to achieve our
goals; third, to conduct a comprehensive assessment of our
existing organizational structure, our existing skills and
competencies and thereby identify the gap between the desired
organization and the existing organization that we need to
achieve our goals, bridging this gap through succession
planning, associate training, associate development, targeted
recruitment and targeted retention initiatives. This process
will be pursued consistent with the administration's
competitive sourcing initiative.
In closing, I want to reemphasize our agency's commitment
to work with the subcommittee and other agencies to develop
creative solutions to address the information technology work
force shortage challenges that we face. We will work with you
to identify and implement solutions that will be effective, and
will enable us to help our customer agency better serve the
public.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal oral statement. I'll
be happy to answer questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perry follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.066
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Great. Thank you very much.
We'll go right to questions. I'll start with Mr. Horn.
Mr. Horn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The one
question I want to raise is--and I'd like--it may be within
your document here and I just haven't had a chance to get it.
But Ms. James, I am curious about the incentives for
management. And I do that based on an experience. Back 35
years, members of the old Civil Service Commission were hired
to start what is now the California State University System,
the largest in the country. And we changed that when I got in
there and in the 1970's and we got a management operation that
would go from $10,000 to over $100,000 and it was all based on
a contract and a number of things the manager is going to reach
in, say, 6 months or 1 year. And we had an absolute turnaround.
And they could have the contract, they could see what they had
done, hadn't done, so forth.
So I am curious since you--and I am delighted to see you as
Director of the Office of Personnel Management. What's your
thinking in that area to stimulate management?
Ms. James. Thank you. I am sure that there's much more
going on inside OPM right now than I am fully aware of, having
been on the job for about 10 working days, so I can't give you
a complete answer to that. I will tell you that I think that
managers should be given all the appropriate tools in order to
manage effectively, which means that they should have the
flexibility that they need as a matter of principle to attract
and recruit and retain.
What that means in practice is that they have to have the
training that's necessary and required, the flexibility, as I
mentioned, that would give them the opportunity to manage their
agencies in ways that would be productive. There's probably a
lot more going on inside OPM that I am not prepared to share
with you just yet. I do know that is a principle that we
believe in very strongly.
Mr. Horn. Well, I appreciate that.
Mr. Perry, do you have any thoughts on this? You have a
huge organization and a lot of talent there. What can we do to
stimulate management?
Mr. Perry. Well, among the things that in addition, along
the lines of what Ms. James has said, I would just comment to
the need for focus organizationally, and one of the things that
brings about the focus is to more clearly define our goals and
objectives. Every agency if asked would say, of course we have
goals and objectives. But when pressed to say well, what are
they, and how detailed are they, how specific are they, I think
oftentimes we find that they are not as specific as they might
be.
To my mind, one of the things that managers can help
themselves with is by making sure that their organization is
more focused and then they spend their time obviously on
working on having the associates of the organization be
strongly aligned and committed to achieving those goals.
Now, things that are done in terms of incentives,
compensation and so forth are----
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Mr. Perry, could you pull that
microphone a little closer?
Mr. Perry. I am sorry.
Things that are done in the area of compensation and
incentives are very important, as studies have shown. At the
same time this issue of having a positive, productive work
force is also very energizing and challenging to managers. So I
think that's an aspect that I would add to what Ms. James had
to say.
Mr. Horn. Comptroller General, you have a different type of
personnel system.
Mr. Walker. We do----
Mr. Horn. Yes.
Mr. Walker [continuing]. Mr. Horn. But let me comment first
on your question. I think one of the things that has to happen
in government is that we have to be able to take the strategic
plans which are required by GPRA. We need to make them more
than an annual paperwork exercise. They need to become the
framework for how these do business every day. We need to
define key performance indicators. We need to link
institutional and individual performance measurement reward
systems to those key performance indicators to achieve desired
outcomes, and we need to reward people more based upon their
skills, knowledge and performance in achieving those outcomes.
We're a long way from that today in the government as a
whole. Fortunately, we're a lot closer at GAO. We're a lot
closer at GAO because, A, of all the things that we've done
administratively in order to put us in a position to be able to
do that. And second, as you noted, we do have some additional
legislative flexibilities available to us that other agencies
do not. However, I think other agencies that don't even have
these flexibilities can go a long way toward achieving this
linkage within the context of current law if they just get on
with it.
Ms. James. Mr. Chairman, there's one thing that I would add
to that, and that is that in--one of the things that I think is
so vitally important is to, in those linkages, link not only
mission goals and objectives in terms of bottom line, but to
make sure that our managers today understand that the human
capital issue is a strategic issue that should be an important
part of the agency's mission and objective. Many times we have
to fight to make that a priority for our managers without them
understanding that it does have a very important bottom line
function in their ability to achieve their mission. And so I
think we have to link that to performance as well.
Mr. Horn. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. One quick followup on that. I totally agree,
and one of the things that we've tried to do at GAO is that
we've tried to have a so-called balanced scorecard approach
from a philosophical standpoint. What we are looking to try to
achieve and how we evaluate people is, No. 1, results, desired
outcomes. So results are No. 1.
No. 2, client feedback. What do our clients say about what
type of job we're doing? And third, employee feedback. What do
our employees say about how we're treating them?
I think those three factors are very important and they can
take you a long way.
Mr. Horn. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, Mr. Perry, you have----
Mr. Perry. If I just may add a small detail. Often the
question comes up, what best management practices could we
apply to government operations in order to improve our
performance? And I think again I would just emphasize what Mr.
Walker has said. What GPRA embodies is the answer to that
question. The issue then is how rigorously will we apply it,
and it's a matter of execution. I don't think we need to search
much further for the best management practice. I think it is
well-outlined there. It's a matter now of rigorously executing
that directive.
Mr. Horn. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you very much, Mr. Horn.
Let me start, Mr. Walker, with you. I'll just go straight
down and there's no one else here. I'll just go till I finish
my question and we'll get on to the next panel.
In 1969, an exchange program was established that lasted
through the early 1990's. What's your opinion of that program
and do you know if there are any other initiatives that are
currently underway?
Mr. Walker. My understanding is that program involved
exchanges, both public sector people going to the private
sector and private sector coming to the public sector, for up
to around 2 years, which is similar to yours, that there were
about 800 to 900 individuals that took advantage of that
program during that period of time, and that ultimately I
believe it was terminated in the early 1990's by former
President Bush, if I am not mistaken. My understanding is that
as time went on, there became some reluctance on behalf of the
Federal managers to allow their employees to go out into the
private sector; that there was a desire to be able to obtain
private sector individuals to come into government for a period
of time, but there was less desire on behalf of the public
managers to allow their people to go out to the private sector
because in many cases they felt that they didn't have enough
people to begin with and they needed to have a net plus if
there was going to be some type of a fellowship program rather
than just an even exchange.
I am not aware of any overall programs. Director James may
be. I know that we at GAO from time to time have had exchange
programs and fellowship programs, and I have found that one of
the things you have to be careful of in that regard, and I
think your bill incorporates this, you need to have a cooling
off period. You need to have a cooling off period whereby if
the private sector sends somebody to government, then there's a
period of time in which the government promises not to hire
that individual, and vice versa. If the government sends
somebody to the private sector, there's a period of time in
which that employer promises not to hire that individual in
order to provide reasonable assurance that they'll come back. I
think you do have that in your bill. I think that's important.
But I think in reality what's going to end up happening is
you're going to find that there will be great demand on behalf
of the public sector to have private sector people. There'll be
some willingness to allow public sector employees to go to the
private sector, but not in as great a number, I believe, as the
other way.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. OK. You've seen the basics of
what we've proposed. What are your comments on that? You
skimmed over it in your remarks. What are the pluses and
minuses as you see it?
Mr. Walker. Well, I haven't read the exact bill. From a
philosophical standpoint I think it has great conceptual merit.
As I mentioned, you know, you've got it as a two-way program.
You've also attempted to deal with some of the conflict of
interest issues. That's obviously a matter that was always in
the forefront of people's minds. I think those are manageable,
but we need to have them in the forefront of our mind. You also
have a cooling off period, which I think is a positive. I think
the major point that I would make, Mr. Chairman, is I think
realistically, given the fact that we have a significant
shortfall in an adequate number of skilled and knowledgeable
professionals in the Federal work force in the IT area, I think
from a realistic standpoint you're going to find that this
program will work best if you have more people coming into
government than you have going out. And I think realistically
that's the way it's going to work.
But you do allow flexibility, as I understand, for each
individual department and agency to decide what should be done.
And I think that's appropriate because I think, you know, it's
going to vary agency to agency as to what the right answer is
there.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. You've reported that agency
efforts to address human capital challenges in the IT area have
generally been challenging. It's still a serious issue even
though we're seeing layoffs and so on. Do you see the
government stepping up their recruitment efforts as we get
layoffs in the region at this point? And I'll let Ms. James or
Mr. Perry answer that as well.
Mr. Walker. I think we need to try to capitalize on the
current slowdown, but I think we have to recognize that it's
just a slowdown in the IT sector. The fact of the matter is the
numbers that I have seen is there's still 400,000 to 500,000
net unfilled positions in the IT sector, you know, U.S.-wide.
It was up to 900,000 to a million, and so while the imbalance
is not as great as it was before the slowdown, it still is
significant.
And you know, clearly we have to sell what we have to sell.
I mean, the government has some things to sell that the private
sector doesn't. It has the ability to sell in many cases
additional responsibility, the ability to be able to make a
difference for your country, better work-family balance, I
think, than many private sector, somewhat better job security.
There are certain things that it does have to sell and it does
provide reasonable compensation where I think we need to look
at whether or not we need to have even more flexibility with
regard to critical occupations.
But if people are looking to maximize their net worth
rather than their self-worth they're not going to come into
government. They've got to be looking to maximize their self-
worth.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. I just have an article in front
of me from a local newspaper. It said that the jobless rate
rose in Prince William County, which is right outside of
Washington, which is in my district, last week. It rose to 2.1
percent. And that Manassas Park rose to 1.6 percent
unemployment. So you have to put it in perspective, which is, I
guess, what you're saying.
I am going to ask if Ms. James or Mr. Perry have any
comment. You don't have to. And then I am going to yield to Mr.
Turner.
Ms. James. Certainly. I would just say several things to a
couple of the questions that you posed to Mr. Walker. In terms
of governmentwide exchange programs there have been, from time
to time, programs like that within the Federal Government, not
specifically targeted necessarily to the IT profession like
this particular legislation that you're proposing does.
Yes, there was a program that was much talked about and
heralded in the early 1990's and I would just like to say that,
Mr. Chairman, my understanding of that is that program did not
fail on its merit, but failed because of some of the
administrative and management issues surrounding it. And so I
think that it's important to understand that it is a good idea
and one that the Federal Government I believe could benefit
from.
I know that in your specific legislation you try to address
some of the issues that were surrounding that first program.
The one that seems to be most troubling of course is the
conflict of interest that caused some serious concern. And I
trust that as it goes through the legislative process, that
those concerns will be addressed and even strengthened.
Yes, I think you point out quite accurately that while
there may be some cooling off in the IT market, that certainly
isn't indicative of what we see in this particular area. It is
still highly competitive and it is still difficult. All you
have to do is ask some of our managers how difficult it is for
them to recruit and retain a skilled IT work force. And so
there is a lot yet to be done and we look forward to working
with you on resolving some of those issues.
Mr. Perry. Just a quick followup on one point that leads to
a thought about the two-way flow of these people. First of all,
as has been pointed out, as we are all keenly aware, this is
not a short-term imbalance shortage issues. This is a very
long-term issue. And as Mr. Walker pointed out, many statistics
show that many of the IT jobs of the type that we're talking
about will remain vacant because the people in the short term
are just not available. So as we think about this, I think that
has to be a part of our thought process. We're not fashioning a
solution to bridge some short-term problem that's going to go
away in 2 years. This is going to be with us for a while.
And in that regard, if you, in my judgment, take a look at
the issues facing the Federal Government, IT security, and
again the things that Mr. Walker eloquently outlined in his
opening statement, one could easily argue that the crisis or
emerging crisis facing the government is even more significant
than that which faces the private sector. And as a result,
there should be an effort to make sure we take care of what the
government needs to have done, which may mean that there should
be a greater emphasis on bringing people in.
Now, it's obviously the case that as we move people out to
the private sector, they can gain some knowledge that will be
useful to the government when they return. The question is, can
we wait 2 years to make that happen?
My only point is I think the situation that we face would
cause us to want to give heavy emphasis to bringing people in.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Let me just make one comment. If
you go back 10 to 15 years, a lot of people went to the
government because of security. You did get security in a
government job. You did get some of the financial rewards or
advancements but there was some predictability. However that's
no longer true if you look at how the Federal work force has
shrunk.
We have also cut benefits. The FEHBP has been threatened
back and forth. We have seen COLAs that have been cut. If
you're retired getting your Social Security, you got your COLA
on time. If you're a Federal retired employee, you got your
COLA delayed. We have seen parking taken away. We saw
government shutdowns.
Again, we have just used this as a budget item to be cut
instead of our greatest asset. And the legislation that we have
proposed here is just a small step in trying to--it is still a
recognition that our employees are an asset. And we have these
folks and if we properly train them and motivate them for the
taxpayers of America, we can get more out of it. We've got some
great people who have given their lives to government service.
And we abuse them, from our perspective. We are just not using
that asset. This is an opportunity to ask some of these people
to go out and grow professionally and bring ideas, cross-
pollinate public and private and bring them both--that's all
we're talking about here.
Let me yield to Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
followup, Mr. Perry, on what you've said. You seem to be saying
that you believe that the more important thing to accomplish
with the chairman's legislative proposal is to bring people
into government, rather than to send government employees out.
Expand on that just a little bit for me and what is your fear
about Federal employees going out or your concern about that?
Mr. Perry. Yes, Congressman. I don't have a fear about
Federal employees going out. In fact, I think, as I say, it
will be a useful thing. The experience that they would gain and
bring back would be very beneficial, no question about it.
It's a question of as we think about what we want to try
and accomplish, for example, in the area of government and in
the area of providing IT security and all that entails, it just
seems to me that as we would supplement our current Federal
work force with people from the outside who may have had
different experiences with respect to those matters, and I can
envision them now working side by side to accomplish some of
these really big tasks that are on the table in front of us, I
think both the private sector person and the Federal employee
working together in that scenario would benefit from the kind
of things they would be working on and it would enable us to
get out in front of the curve on some of these issues.
So my concern is a matter of urgency. If, in fact, we
believe that some of the IT issues facing the government are
that urgent, then it would appear to me that we would put the
full court press on those urgencies.
Mr. Turner. Now I would assume that current practice is in
many cases to bring private contractors in to perform tasks and
to take on these big projects you are talking about, so that we
really don't depend currently on Federal employees to do a lot
of these bigger tasks. Is that an accurate assessment?
Mr. Perry. At least in part. But I think it falls to the
Federal Government manager to develop the idea or the business
process improvement. We don't go to the private sector, for
example, and say--I don't think in many instances--ask them to
initiate what business processing improvement we should work on
in a given agency.
So I think there is some level of IT management inside the
organization, which is under the jurisdiction of the Federal
employee, to first decide what it is that we need to do. And
then I do agree with you that when it comes to execution, then
we often would defer to contractors in the private sector to
help with the execution. But the initial idea generation or
system design is often done by people inside the agency.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Mr. Turner, I think you will find that most IT
operations in the Federal Government will have a core group of
Federal workers and they will rely, to differing extents, but
fairly significantly, on outside contractors, in part because
they made the judgment that there are certain types of
activities that should be contracted out and in part because
even though there are certain activities they would prefer to
be done by Federal workers within the government, they have not
been able to attract, retain and motivate an adequate number of
qualified people to get that done. And therefore, they have
been placed in the position of having to contract out in
certain circumstances activities, because they really have no
other choice in order to be able to get it done.
What is critically important is that irrespective of what
does get contracted out, is that we got to have an adequate
number of people with the right kind of skills and knowledge to
manage cost, quality and performance of those contractors.
Because without doing that, then both the government, the
taxpayers and, frankly, I would say the contractors as well are
at risk as a result of that. So it is going to be a serious and
continuing challenge, I think, in this area.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Walker, Mr. Perry of course made the
emphasis on the more urgent need of bringing outside private
sector folks into the government, and I was interested in your
assessment of whether or not there may be some resistance on
the part of the private sector to participate in this exchange
program because I would think that if they felt we were
bringing people in from a company that might have the
opportunity or currently be contracting for those IT services,
they may not want to loan that employee to the Federal
Government and transfer that skill in-house for the government
rather than having the option of continuing to contract it.
Mr. Walker. My personal view is I think it needs to be a
two-way street. I think it is beneficial for it to be a two-way
street. However, I think from a practical standpoint that there
will be more people coming into government than will be going
out of government.
Clearly, in exchange, there are a number of potential
benefits. First, both sides benefit from the exchange of
knowledge and experience. No question about that. But post-
exchange program, I would argue that the private sector is in a
position to benefit potentially more on a recurring basis than
the government might benefit because both are benefiting from
the exchange and that is because a growing percentage of
information technology projects are being done by contractors.
And obviously, to the extent that you have a contractor who is
willing to participate in this exchange program and they gain
knowledge of the government and how it operates and its systems
and its processes and the key players, then they are obviously
in a good position to hopefully more effectively compete for
future government work.
There's nothing wrong with that. I mean, we need quality
contractors to be able to help us address our challenges here.
But I think realistically, my view is that while exchange
is a good idea and while it ought to be a two-way street, that
realistically, we would need relatively more people to come in
than we're probably going to be able to send out. And I hope
and I expect, quite frankly, that firms like Accenture are not
doing this merely for the profit motive, they're doing this to
do something for their country. Personally, I believe everybody
ought to do something for their country, and this is a pretty
constructive way to get that done, I think.
Mr. Turner. Ms. James.
Ms. James. There's a sort of hidden benefit, I believe, in
this program and it's sort of an unspoken benefit that I think
is worthy of note, and that is, as we talk about the exchange
and, you know, who is to benefit more, people as they go out to
the private sector or the private sector as they come in, one
of the challenges that we have before us with the Federal work
force right now is to create environments where workers--to
recruit and retain excellent employees. One of the unspoken
fears, I believe, is if they go to the private sector, they
might not come back, that they will find that environment so
seductive.
I think that our challenge as Federal managers in this,
people who have been given the task of building a Federal work
force is that we will create an environment with the proper
incentives, with the proper authority for managers in terms of
the work and creating interesting work. The challenges that
people have in the Federal Government in terms of the types of
work that are available to do just aren't available in the
private sector. If you are an IT manager and you want to be on
the cutting edge and have the opportunity to work on some of
the most interesting and exciting work going on in your field,
in many cases that is happening in the government.
So I think it creates an opportunity for us to become
competitive and more excellent in terms of what we offer
workers in the work force, in terms of the work itself, not
just in terms of incentives.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry. If I may add on this issue of the two-way
street, I think what is really good about this legislation is
that it enables that flexibility. I am only suggesting that we
don't stay only with that.
There certainly will be some contractors in particular who
will be very interested in the exchange for various reasons.
But there, I believe, on the public service side of this, will
be a number of companies who are not contractors and have no
continuing interest in doing contracting IT work with the
government, but who nevertheless have IT professionals on their
staff doing e-government types of things, and those people
would benefit immensely from having an opportunity to come to
the government to work on a project that is much bigger than
they might work on in their own place. It would be a
developmental thing for that person to come to the government
to work on such a project.
And in addition, there is that issue of public service. And
as it is the case that we've got some big challenges ahead of
us, I think there would be a number of private sector companies
who would be willing to participate in this on a nonexchange
basis. The legislation enables it to happen both ways, and I
think we ought to take advantage of both aspects of that.
Mr. Turner. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you very much. Let me just
go through my questions.
Mr. Walker, last October, Congress gave GAO additional
personnel authorities through legislation. These included the
authorities to offer voluntary early retirements, voluntary
separation incentives to reshape the GAO work force as well as
the authority to establish senior level positions to meet
critical scientific, technical or professional needs in such
areas as economics and information technology. Do you think
other agencies would benefit from this flexibility?
Mr. Walker. From a conceptual standpoint, yes, I do, Mr.
Chairman. I would divide them into two categories. In the area
of the senior level position and also the area of voluntary
early outs and buy-outs in order to realign the work force
rather than downsize the work force, I believe that has broad
application and, in fact, broad acceptance based upon my
experience last year.
The last proposal, which is the proposal that we had which
changed the way in which RIFs are conducted, is somewhat more
controversial. I believe it has merit, but I believe it is an
issue that should be considered within the context of broader
Civil Service reform at a later date as part of a comprehensive
package with discussions with all the interested stakeholders
in conjunction with that, because it's really focused on the
central premise that more decisions in government should be
made based on skills, knowledge and performance rather than
years of service. And I think while that has considerable
merit, it relates to more of the element of more fundamental
Civil Service reform.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. It's also come to our attention
that many agencies view legislative relief from Title V as
their only option to solving hiring challenges. Many agencies
view the application process for existing flexibilities to be
either too burdensome to meet or too time-consuming.
In your view, do you think agencies understand what hiring
and recruitment and retention flexibilities are available to
them?
Mr. Walker. I don't think that they have a good sense of
all the flexibilities that are currently available. And I know
that OPM recently published a document that was intended to try
to help them gain a better understanding of what flexibilities
are available.
I think that it's also important for OPM to take a look at
how many of those flexibilities require OPM approval and to
what extent can more authority be delegated to the agencies,
possibly with periodic followup to make sure people aren't
abusing any of that delegated authority, because clearly one of
the biggest challenges we have right now is being able to hire
people in a timely manner. That is a huge problem. People have
too many different options. They aren't going to wait around
when they have these other options, and so I think it's clearly
an area that needs additional focus.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Mr. Perry, let me ask you a
couple of questions. You mentioned mentoring in your testimony
as an important benefit offered to employees. I agree with
that. Some of the testimony today mentions the importance of
reverse mentoring, which is where young IT professionals are
paired with senior level managers for a specified period of
time. Have you considered offering such a benefit to your
acquisition and IT work forces in your recent recruitment and
retention efforts? And have you measured the percentage of
individuals under 30 or under 35 coming into government, and do
you know how many of these individuals are coming in at the GS-
12 to 15 range? Do you have any feel for that?
Mr. Perry. Let me talk about the mentoring aspect first. I
certainly agree that can happen and should happen. That's very
powerful. We haven't talked about it in terms of one-on-one
mentor-protege, as I have used it in the private sector, but we
have certainly talked about that in terms of groups.
Now with respect to the work force, people that we're
bringing in and their average age, I am not able to quote the
average age of our recent recruitments. I know that we have
brought in about 29 IT professionals. My expectation is that
they are under 30, but I don't know as a fact. I know our
average age for our IT people is about 46, and we have a little
over 1,100 of them. So that tells you that our work force is on
the higher age side.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. That's the younger age side from
my perspective.
Mr. Perry. Relative to their remaining work years, on the
higher side.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Also, you mentioned the newly
created CIO University. Is this a governmentwide program?
Mr. Perry. It is a governmentwide program. It is an on-line
self-paced study program. As I understand it, there is a great
deal of utilization by IT people and that is the case within
GSA as well. So it's just another one of those tools to provide
for the updating of the IT work force. I think it is being used
very successfully at this point.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. I think those are the questions
that I wanted to ask. Anybody want to add anything before we
get to the next panel?
I would like to say to all of you, we appreciate your being
here. Ms. James, thank you on your maiden testimony up here.
You did great. We look forward to hearing from you again. And
why don't we take about a 2-minute recess as we switch panels.
[Recess.]
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. I would like to welcome our
second panel to the witness table. We have Dr. Steve Kelman of
Harvard University; Martin Faga of MITRE Corp.; Dr. Ernst
Volgenau of SRA International; and Steve Rohleder of Accenture.
And as you know, it is the policy of the committee to ask
everyone to swear and raise your hands.
And let me just say, Dr. Kelman, to start with, I have seen
your daughter is in the room and your father-in-law, Senator
Metzenbaum, is here, and we welcome you, Senator, to these
proceedings.
Would you stand, please, and raise your right hands. We'll
swear you in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. I think you know the rules.
Orange light will go on 4 minutes in, and try to sum up and
we'll go right to questions.
Steve, we'll start with you and then Mr. Faga and move
straight on down the row.
STATEMENTS OF DR. STEPHEN KELMAN, ALBERT J. WEATHERHEAD III AND
RICHARD W. WEATHERHEAD PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC POLICY, HARVARD
UNIVERSITY, JOHN F. KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT; MARTIN FAGA,
CEO AND REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION [NAPA], THE MITRE CORP.; DR. ERNST VOLGENAU,
PRESIDENT AND CEO, AND REPRESENTATIVE OF THE INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA [ITAA], SRA INTERNATIONAL;
AND STEVE ROHLEDER, MANAGING PARTNER, ACCENTURE
Mr. Kelman. Thank you very much for holding this hearing
today to try to focus attention on the government's need and
ability to get good people working in public service.
Congressman Turner, in his opening statement, made some
reference to the passage in the House yesterday of the bill on
allowing government employees to keep frequent flyer miles. I
had the privilege while I was in the government of getting such
incredible travel perks as a trip to Warren, MI in February to
visit the Army Tank and Automotive Command. There were other
similar perks of my office. And I think----
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. That explains why you are at
Harvard, I guess.
Mr. Kelman. Whatever. I think as the Comptroller General
pointed out in his testimony, it is a small thing, but it is a
good signal to the Federal work force about a more positive
attitude.
As a professor in an institution devoted to training people
for public leadership, I see myself as a sort of frontline
soldier in the government's war for talent. And we should all
be disturbed, though, by a very dramatic statistic, which is
that 20 years ago or so, about three-quarters of graduates in
our Public Policy Program at Harvard took their first job in
government. And now that figure is down to about one-third.
And, in fact, our dean, Joe Nye, is so concerned about this
problem that he is going to be personally chairing a series of
four meetings up in Cambridge during the next academic year
with senior government and private sector people to try to
figure out what we can all do together to help the government
win its war on talent.
Let me just highlight a few things from my testimony. First
is the issue of recruiting people from outside government for
mid-level positions, and there are three facts I think is very
important to keep in mind. One is about how the government
works, which is traditionally the government has recruited from
people from the outside only at two levels, entry levels and
senior political levels. That is fact 1.
Fact 2 is that a lot of my students and a lot of young
people today fully expect to be doing a number of jobs during
their career and not stay in one place.
Fact 3 is that a lot of young people, actually more than
ever before because of high school and college programs, have
experienced an interest in doing some public service.
When my older daughter--not the one who is here today--my
older daughter was applying to college this last year, a number
of the college applications from the schools she was applying
to include in the application a thing saying, what public
service have you done?
So the idea of doing some public service is more and more
something that a lot of young people understand.
So I think that these three facts together suggest to me
that government is missing an opportunity, No. 1, because
people switch jobs a lot, to recruit some people at mid-levels
rather than just entry levels, taking advantage of people
switching jobs or whatever; and No. 2, by, in the career work
force, only having people who are going to be doing entire
careers in the Federal Government, missing an opportunity to
allow young people who want to do a brief period of time in
public service to do that. And I think there are potentially a
lot of strategies the government should be looking at to try to
take advantage of mid-level recruiting.
The one we are specifically considering today and I think
is a fantastic innovative initiative that you announced this
morning, Mr. Chairman, together with Steve Rohleder from
Accenture, is the idea of giving industry an opportunity to
lend some of their mid-level employees to do a 1 or 2-year
period of public service and help the government out with its
human capital crises in the IT area.
And some conversations I've had with senior government
career people, I know they're very eager to get this Digital
Tech Corps underway. So I hope we can do it at something more
like Internet time than traditional time.
Second thing I wanted to talk about briefly is addressing
human capital problems through other than just traditional H.R.
kinds of issues, because there are a lot of things that are in
the jurisdiction of this subcommittee and the full committee
that don't come packaged to you as human capital issues, but
really are human capital issues or partly human capital issues.
One area that I'm obviously interested in is procurement
reform, where you and this whole committee have been engaged.
One of the benefits of reducing for the customers within the
government of the procurement system, of reducing the hassles
and delays in the procurement system, is to make the government
a more attractive workplace for those people so they don't have
to deal with something where they have to wait 3 months to get
a simple thing delivered to their office.
In this regard, just to take something that's been in the
news the last few days, there have been these reports, you
know, on small numbers, tiny numbers of abuses of the
government credit card; you know, 100 out of 50,000
transactions or something like that, some of which, on closer
examination, turn out not even to be abuses.
But if we were to react in an old-fashioned knee-jerk way
and say we have a few abuses and say we are going to destroy
the whole system, it would not only hurt the taxpayer because
the administrative cost savings of this--of the credit card are
far, by a factor of 10, 20, 30, 40, greater than the cost of
abuses, but it also would have a bad implication for the human
capital crises for the government because it would return the
front line government employee to a situation where they need
to wait months just to get the simplest of things in their
office.
So that's an example of where things that don't come under
the rubric of human capital crises actually are part of it.
Similarly, and I will conclude here, the work that we do--
you do in the subcommittee and the full committee does with the
Clinger-Cohen Act or the Government Performance Results Act,
young people want a workplace that is results-oriented, that is
a high performance workplace. Taxpayers need that. So anything
this committee does to get the Federal Government workplace a
more results-oriented workplace is making the government a more
interesting place to work for young people.
So as we think about the human capital crises, we shouldn't
just think about narrowly things called ``HR,'' but broader
kinds of changes, many of them under the jurisdiction of this
committee, that make the government a more attractive
workplace.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.074
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you. Mr. Faga.
Mr. Faga. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a
pleasure to appear here this morning on behalf of the National
Academy of Public Administration. As you know, Mr. Chairman,
the Federal IT Work Force Committee of the Chief Information
Officers Council has asked the academy to undertake an
alternative pay systems study and also to assess related human
resources management issues as it affects the Federal
Government's ability to attract and retain information
technology talent.
It hardly needs to be said here that the number of
qualified workers currently available in the United States is
way below the number of growing vacancies in the field. We find
not surprisingly that the Federal Government needs a flexible
and responsive human resources management system that it does
not currently have. The currently available tools we find are
not sufficient to the job.
The academy project team undertook an extensive search of
literature and, importantly, interviewed chief information
officers, financial officers, human resource directors and line
managers from the public sector, from nonprofit organizations,
from academia and the private sector. We paid particular
attention to the innovative practices that we found in some
private sector companies.
Several themes emerged from this. Research is clear on one
thing--not surprising. To compete for and retain qualified IT
professionals, salaries must be within a competitive range. Now
the usual definition of competitive range is within 10 percent
of the market norm. Interestingly enough, there are categories
of IT workers in the government that are in that range. There
are many others who are not.
There are a number of new and modified compensation
approaches that may help to improve recruitment and retention
of IT professionals. They certainly do in private sector. They
do at MITRE. One is establishing market-based pay systems.
Second, a broad-band approach to the pay structure, that
is, allowing pay for a given job to range as much as plus and
minus 50 percent from the average for that job. Moving to
compensation systems where pay is based on skill and
experience--I'm sorry on skill and experience in the field and
not on the definition of the job. Pay systems where annual pay
increases are based on merit rather than length of employment,
a change we made at MITRE just a few years ago. Ensuring that
compensation is linked to the organizational goals and
objectives, as we invest in training people so they can carry
out jobs that are important to the institution, not something
that is just a peripheral interest perhaps of the employee.
Compensation systems for IT professionals need to be
separate from the compensation system for other kinds of jobs.
This is the case at MITRE and many private corporations. And
there is the need to use various mechanisms to increase total
compensation. These are bonuses and other special forms of pay.
Once pay is in the competitive range, it does not play a major
role in retaining IT professionals. In our studies of ourselves
at MITRE, it ranks fourth.
Five key nonpay factors that are important include good
management. In fact, employees generally don't leave employers,
they leave managers; that is, their immediate manager is
somebody they don't want to work for.
A good work environment. This includes physical environment
but also the IT environment, of course, and the nature of the
work.
Challenging work. This has been spoken to by the previous
panel, and it cannot be overemphasized.
Flexible working arrangements, allowing people to work
essentially on flex hours to the extent that the job permits,
and the government is in pretty good shape in this regard.
Training and development. Throughout a career, people need
lots of additional training, including a form of training we
find very important at MITRE, and that is supporting employees
toward getting a degree, which is something generally the
government doesn't do.
Now we have been able to implement most of these principles
in our technical work force at MITRE with good results, And I'd
be happy to talk about that in the questions. I'd also like to
add my support to your information and technology executive
exchange initiative. I think this is an important step in
bringing people to government with special skills as well as
loaning people from government. Moreover, importantly, I think
that it recognizes that government won't and probably shouldn't
hire all of the skilled people it needs on a full career basis.
This is a big change for government, as has been said before.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, information technology has the
power to transform the level, quality and quantity of
government services provided to American citizens. To realize
this goal, the Federal Government must have the tools needed to
win the war for talent. The tools in the current system are not
adequate to do the job.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Faga follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.090
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you. Dr. Volgenau.
Mr. Volgenau. Mr. Chairman, as CEO of SRA International, we
are very familiar with the problems of the information
technology shortage. We are a system integration and consulting
firm in the area of information technology and we understand
the problem quite well.
I also have a second job, which is chairman of the
Information Technology Association of America Work Force and
Education Committee. ITAA represents 500 companies in its
membership and works very hard to solve work force and other IT
problems. Each year, we have an annual information technology
work force convocation. We bring together government, academia
and business to discuss work force issues.
In addition to that, we have partnerships and grants with
various government organizations that look at such subjects as
how to make education and training more relevant to the
workplace and how to employ more people with disabilities and
minority members.
In January, ITAA completed a study, which is one of a
continuing set of studies that we have had of the work force.
We found there are more than 10 million IT workers in the
United States, and that this year, 2001, there will be a demand
for 900,000 workers. In addition to that, the projected
shortfall at that time was about half that number, 425,000
workers.
Now these figures are dynamic. If we were to take that
survey today, it might be a smaller figure of openings.
Nevertheless, we believe that there is a shortage of supply
compared to demand.
I've been in information technology for about 40 years and
I have seen it grow almost continuously.
Recently, ITAA completed its 11th annual survey of Chief
Information Officers of the Federal Government. They all cited
the concern that other speakers have made about the large
number of Federal employees who can retire in the next few
years, and they all cited competition with the private sector
as far as recruiting and retention. Government can alleviate
some of this shortage through outsourcing, which is an
increasing practice, even in the private sector. But even with
outsourcing, government still needs people to manage the
contracts, and there are certain government jobs that simply
don't lend themselves to outsourcing.
Government should, as other speakers have said, use some of
the practices of the private sector in terms of attracting and
retaining workers.
ITAA supports the Information Technology Executive Exchange
Program. As a matter of fact, we attempted an exchange program
in 1999 with the Department of Justice, and that concerned the
Cyber Citizen Program. After fairly extensive discussions, we
abandoned that program for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless,
the objections to that exchange program we feel are
surmountable. ITAA and its member companies want to work with
the government to deal with this problem, and we look forward
to working with this committee to help you do that.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Volgenau follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.094
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you very much. Mr.
Rohleder, thank you for being here.
Mr. Rohleder. Chairman Davis, thank you for inviting me to
testify today on the Federal human capital crises.
I would like to ask that my full testimony be submitted for
the record, please.
I am Steve Rohleder, the managing partner of Accenture's
U.S. Government Practice. Accenture is the world's leading
provider of management and technology consulting services and
solutions. We employ more than 75,000 employees in 46
countries, generating $9\3/4\ billion in revenue in year 2000.
We employ about 2,500 people in RST, and the majority of which
work in our U.S. Government practice.
Today my testimony will focus briefly on the impact the
technology work force shortage has had on the ability of
agencies to develop effective solutions to improve taxpayer
services and highlight three areas where I believe the private
sector can help address government's human capital challenges.
The shortage of high-tech workers over the past decade is
legend. That shortage has had a disproportionate effect on the
Federal Government, which has been unable to compete with the
private sector for these critical, new-age workers. The impact
on government's ability to manage its $44 billion annual IT
investment has been profound. There's a shortage of highly
skilled managers to oversee complex IT programs. There is a
severe shortage of IT professionals with cutting edge Internet-
based skills. And the IT work force has not been able to fully
harness the power of technology to save taxpayers billions of
dollars while improving efficiency.
One solution we support is the establishment of a Digital
TechCorps. It would allow public IT middle-level managers to be
loaned to the private sector and, conversely, the commercial IT
managers to be loaned to government for 1 to 2 years. Accenture
believes that a Digital TechCorps comprised of the best and the
brightest of both government and industry can be funneled
toward projects that will help transform the Federal Government
into a 21st century government.
Accenture applauds the legislation you've drafted, Chairman
Davis, and believe it will pave the way toward helping address
the human capital crises by committing managerial high-tech
talent to unique e-government challenges. It will also serve as
a model from government and private sector collaboration. It
will break the paradigm whereby entry to government service
generally takes place only at the entry level and very senior
levels with very little entry at the mid-career.
And finally, it will serve as a final step to
reinvigorating a culture of public service for a whole new
generation of technology managerial workers.
There are three areas I believe the private sector can
help.
First, Accenture has committed to loan five of our best and
brightest to the Digital TechCorps for the first 2 years as
soon as the legislation is passed and will challenge others in
our industry to match our offer. We would hope that the initial
TechCorps would be comprised of government and industry
professionals dedicated to working on cross-agency e-government
initiatives at the direction and in collaboration with the
Office of Management and Budget and the Chief Information
Officer Council.
Second, there are many innovative human resource management
best practices that government can and should adopt from world
class private sector organizations. In our written testimony,
we have offered some innovative solutions on how an
organization can assess their work force, prioritize their
risks and then mitigate them.
Specifically, we believe agencies and Congress should
review strategies to preserve the brain trust, embrace talent
management and deployment, develop the next generation of
Federal servants and achieve operational excellence.
Third, as Federal agencies begin developing their human
capital management assessments and mitigation strategies, it
will be apparent that they do not have the tools to adequately
track, manage and assess progress in aligning their human
capital with their organizational mission. Human resource
technology can enhance the quality of performance evaluation,
skill tracking, training, knowledge transfer in recruiting and
retention efforts.
In conclusion, consistent with Mr. Walker and Mr. Perry's
testimony, we believe the private sector can play an integral
role in helping the Federal Government reshape its work force
for the 21st century. Accenture is committed to helping launch
a government-industry Digital TechCorps fostering a knowledge
exchange beneficial to both industry and government.
There are numerous human resource management commercial
best practices that can and should be adapted to the Federal
Government. Some will need legislation. Others need only be
implemented.
Finally, Accenture recommends that Congress continue to
urge agencies to utilize technology to help manage the Federal
Government's most precious asset, its people.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rohleder follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81423.105
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you all very much. Let me
start, Mr. Faga, with you.
Does MITRE, being an FFRDC, have constraints on its hiring
and the way it can remunerate people through other government
contractors? You can't do stock options because you are not a
stock company.
Mr. Faga. We have to attract people basically purely on
salary and opportunity to serve the public service, which by
the way, proves to be a very important incentive. Because of
those limitations, though, a year ago our attrition rate was
running about 12 to 14 percent. Right now, it's running 5.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. The tightening job market also
helped that, you think?
Mr. Faga. Absolutely. And employees who are staying are
talking about now the stability of the work as opposed to the
attraction of going for the brass ring.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Sure. I was intrigued when you
talked about good managers making a big difference. We lose a
lot of people because they are managed badly and go out. I
think this can help with that. But most of all is making this
challenging work, giving people an opportunity to step outside
of government for a year or two and see what it is like there,
learn new innovative techniques as part of a career path in
government.
Mr. Faga. Let me say just one more word about the idea of
challenging work. One of the things I found, having been in
government and also at MITRE, the challenge is to some degree
self-generated by a group and there needs to be a critical mass
of people. For example, in the field of information security
engineering, we have about 200 technical people. They work on
projects throughout the company. If they did not stay together
as a mass--doesn't have to be as large as 200, but it can't be
one and two. And one of the problems that you see in government
is having--trying to hire 1 or 2 people who are specialists in
a field and then hope that they would stay current and
productive in that field for many years. Cannot be done.
That's one of the beauties of your TechCorps is--I mean, we
have all kinds of people, and I'm sure that my colleagues do,
too, who would love the opportunity to spend a couple of years
right inside of government helping with problems they think are
important.
And I might add further, Mr. Chairman, there is a related
program called the Intergovernmental Personnel Act Program,
which allows the government to exchange and nonprofits like us
to contribute. We have about 12 people in those assignments
now. This does not supplant what you are doing. It doesn't meet
the need, but it does prove that it can work because it is
already working in a small scale way.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Dr. Kelman, I have a question
for you. You noted in your testimony that one-third of your
graduating professionals are interested in entering the
government work force, which is down, and I ask if that means
you are letting more Republicans into Harvard.
Mr. Kelman. Many Republicans go to work for the government,
especially now.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. What type of career paths are
they interested in? What are they doing instead of government?
Mr. Kelman. We still, even now, we have 70 percent of our
graduates going into what I would call some version of public
service broadly conceived. So this is ballpark. We have about
35 percent go into government, about 25 percent go into
nonprofit and about 20 percent go into the public sector
divisions of private sector firms. They might work for the
public sector division of Accenture or another firm. So we
still got around 70 percent going into public service of one
sort or another. And we consider that, broadly speaking, part
of our mission.
But we agree with the statement that you made and a number
of the statements witnesses have made earlier on, the
government--there's public service that's not just government
service. However, the government needs talented people.
So we want to make sure that a significant number of our
people do go into government service. Now the ones who don't go
in--and many of them, because we got concerned about these
numbers--we do interviews both when they graduate--students who
don't go into government--or we do interviews a few years out.
Many, many of those who have not gone into government express
an interest in an opportunity during their career or more than
one opportunity to have a chance doing some public service,
even if it's not their whole career. We need to make it more
easy for people who don't want to devote a whole career in
government and are not at the level of senior political
appointees, assistant secretaries, whatever, to have some
chance to do public service.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. It seems, then, of your graduate
pool, most of them aren't going in to make money. They are
really going in to, like you said, nonprofits, other public
sector areas for the mission. And our key is to give them a
mission in government. So many times, it seems you go into
government and there is no mission. It's regulation-driven.
Mr. Kelman. And I think that, again, when we interview our
students--and we are doing a lot of work on this because we are
very concerned about this problem--I mean it's the center both
to our commitment to public service and the mission of our
institution--when we interview our students, a lot of them
express--and I'm going to call it stereotypes because I don't
think it is necessarily true across the board by any means--but
a lot of them express a stereotype that if you go into
government, it is not results driven, that it is filled with
bureaucracy, red tape and regulations and so forth.
And there--and in early May, the fairly newly elected mayor
of Baltimore, Mayor O'Malley, came to speak at the Kennedy
School and talked about some of the things he's trying to do in
Baltimore. He brought with him a bunch of overheads about--and
he sort of sees his goals that there are about five or six
performance measures for the city of Baltimore: Crime rate--he
had a bunch of them. He's tracking them every week and brought
along charts. And I happened to be in the audience and a number
of my students came up to me and asked, can I go to work for
this guy?
I think that young people, talented young people want
challenging and results-driven work. And as I said in my
testimony, anything that we can do as a government that you can
do from your perch on this subcommittee to get the government
workplace less bureaucratic, more results-driven, we couldn't
do anything more to attract good Federal workers than that.
That's the biggest thing we can do in a lot of ways.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Dr. Volgenau, let me ask a
couple of questions. What are some of the benefits that you
extend to your employees to get them to come there and to
retain them--I guess many were constrained by going into
government? And what could you offer us in government?
Mr. Volgenau. First of all, as other speakers have said,
Mr. Chairman, the best thing that any organization, government
or private, can offer its people is leadership and the
inspiration that comes with good leadership.
In terms of financial incentives, we compensate our people
better than the average in the private sector. We offer bonuses
for good performance. And on top of that, we have stock
options. We are a privately listed firm, but we have a
provision where we're appraised by an independent outside
company so people can, even in a company that is not publicly
listed, can do very well in terms of stock options.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. You are obviously a very highly-
regarded company. Do you feel there would be managers and
employees in your company who would welcome the chance to come
into government for a year?
Mr. Volgenau. Yes, particularly if they felt they could
really make a national contribution. Again and again, people
are inspired by that. I'm a product of that system. The
government sent me to the Naval Academy and then during the
course of my military service for a Ph.D. in electrical
engineering, and I ended up spending 20 years in the military
and another 3 years in a senior position in Civil Service. And
I felt for most of that time, even though the salaries were
better for engineers, that the idea of national service and
having real responsibility, the opportunity to make a
contribution, caused me and many other people to stay. And I
think that still holds today.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. How often do you undertake a
work force assessment of your organization to ensure that you
are adequately meeting the needs of the changing marketplace?
And what kind of attrition rate do you have?
Mr. Volgenau. Mr. Chairman, are you talking about my
company as opposed to ITAA?
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. You can do both.
Mr. Volgenau. ITAA wouldn't have a formal----
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. So your company would be a good
example.
Mr. Volgenau. I'll start with ITAA.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. And you're here for them. That's
fine.
Mr. Volgenau. We do an annual assessment. And it's very
comprehensive and it includes not only openings, but skilled
categories. And then every year, ITAA does an assessment--
survey of Chief Information Officers in the government. From a
company standpoint, we are continually assessing our
competitiveness and we use many outside studies to make sure
that our--particularly our executives are paid well. We pay our
people in the 75 percentile in terms of cash compensation. And
when it comes to stock option, we are up in the 90 percent. But
for that, we demand performance. If they are going to be paid
at the 75 percentile, then our company must perform at the 75
percentile and they individually must perform at that rate.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. You note that the ITAA tried for
a year to develop an information security work force exchange
program. What kind of roadblocks and difficulties did they
encounter?
Mr. Volgenau. Well, some of the things that the government
speakers mentioned this morning, there was the concern about an
exchange being perceived as a gift. There was the worry on the
government side that people might, having gone to the private
sector for a year or so, decide to stay there. Pay inequity was
an issue. And then there was the concern that if those
executives came from government contractors, that somehow or
other those government contractors would have an advantage in
competition compared to others. All of those items we feel are
surmountable.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Sure. Thank you.
Mr. Rohleder, let me ask you a couple of questions. You
mentioned 6 percent of Accenture's annual budget is spent on
training. Do you know what it is in the Federal budget?
Mr. Kelman. The best we have is about 1 percent.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Have you measured the results of
your training to ensure that your employees are receiving the
most up-to-date skills and how critical is that? This is a
bell. We will go on for about 10 more minutes and then we will
adjourn.
Mr. Rohleder. First of all, the training is absolutely
critical. It's a fabric of the firm. We hire about 80 percent
of our people right off of campus. Next to the Federal
Government, we are the largest recruiter off of campuses in the
United States. So training is an absolute critical component to
a person's development with our firm. In fact, they've got a 5-
year training program that they go through. And we manage and
promote them based on that training and their performance on
the job.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. And for you, then, that is a
recruitment tool, the fact that they are going to be constantly
trained?
Mr. Rohleder. Absolutely. I think the people that we
recruit see that as a differentiator for our firm. They see
that training program and that commitment to development as a
key component in their decision to come work for us.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. I think one of the problems in
government is that when budgets are cut, training is just one
of the first things to go. And it's a demoralizer, but it also
just puts us behind the 8 ball on so many different issues.
Mr. Rohleder. Especially in the technology area where
technology is changing so often that you have to keep your
skills current to be able to develop the solutions that are
going to help you.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. You note in your testimony that
part of e-government is improving communications and service
delivery between the Federal Government and State and local
governments with whom they have to communicate. Would Accenture
be interested in pursuing this type of an exchange program with
State and local governments as well?
Mr. Rohleder. Yes, we would. In fact, I have had
conversations already in California with the commissioner of
the tax board out there. Interestingly enough, his point was he
wasn't interested in information technology exchange, but
auditors. So they were interested in going into a different
direction, but the need is still there. I don't think the human
capital crises is only an issue in Federal. You can see it
happening in State and local governments as well.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Some of today's testimony noted
that many agencies view legislative release from Title V as
their only option for solving their hiring challenges. Many
agencies view the application process for existing
flexibilities as either burdensome or just too time-consuming.
In your opinion, do agencies understand what hiring and
recruitment and retention flexibilities are available to them
now?
Mr. Rohleder. I think some do. I think you take some
agencies that have been relieved from their Title V
requirements and they have gotten a little bit more creative.
Most, I think, are still caught in H.R. policies and practices
in the last 10 years. And I don't think they really do
understand.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Doctor, let me go back to you. A
recent Computer News article stated that over 57 percent of
government managers believe that information systems are
critical to the agency's mission. In your experience, in and
out of government, is the current IT work force shortage
impacting the ability of government agencies to accomplish
their missions?
Mr. Kelman. Yeah. I think particularly--again, as Dave
Walker and others have suggested--from a contract management
perspective--and I think that--my own view is it doesn't make
sense to say we need to keep a whole bunch of computer
programmers in the government just so we can have people come
up the system and be able to manage contractors. If it doesn't
make sense to have the programmers in the government and it
makes more sense to outsource them, we should outsource them.
But we do definitely need IT--or skills of people who know
something about IT to help establish strategy, requirements,
evaluate RFPs, do contract management.
I think that we need to be--and again, I think a lot of
those people can initially come in at the mid-career level and
move up there. They can come in, you know, at an 11, 12, 13
level and work up from there. But I think that, as you
mentioned earlier, we still have a big problem with failed IT
projects in the government. And we just--yes, IT is crucial to
the government's ability to serve citizens better and being
able to manage IT at the front end of strategy and design and
at the back end, of managing contractors, is a crucial, central
skill for the government. And I think actually being able to
manage--it's really a management issue, not doers, managers,
executives, leaders. I think this is becoming a core competency
for government to be able to manage those kinds of situations,
and it hasn't got the attention it needs.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Let me ask each of the private
sector reps. I mean the idea of coming in and working on a
massive program at the governmental level that they may not be
able to get for your company would have an appeal, wouldn't it?
You get that kind of experience and then they can come in and
it gives you--later on, it gives your company someone who has
actually worked with a wide body. You probably get some of that
when you hire people from the Federal Government already. But
for a younger person to work on that level could be a great
tool.
Mr. Rohleder. Absolutely.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Dr. Kelman, have you shared the
concept of the Digital TechCorps with your students, and what's
their reaction to this kind of thing?
Mr. Kelman. I haven't shared this specific idea with the
students. I was involved in a focus group with some 30
something Accenture employees on this and they were as a
group--we did a focus group with eight of them. Seven of them
said under the provision of your legislation, it was important
that they continue to be able to maintain their association
with their own firms and salaries. But with those conditions,
they were very, very--seven out of the eight said they want to
apply.
So Steve may have--you said the best and the brightest. You
probably got a lot of people to pick among. I think it's
interesting--if I could just tell another interesting story.
I have shared this with my colleagues back at Harvard. I
went and saw a government team unit at Accenture, some new
employees working in their Government Division, and they showed
a little training film developed within Accenture for new
employees in the Government Division. You know, it was
interesting. The appeal to public service there and the flag
and making a difference, I'm almost embarrassed to say, I think
they did a greater job selling public service to their
employees at Accenture than we a lot of times do in the
government selling public service to our own employees.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Well, we forget the product we
have sometimes when we do that. But I'll tell you, the last 10
years have been--20 years have been difficult for Federal
employees with the downsizing and the benefit cuts and
everything else. It's been very demoralizing. And I think when
we can start recognizing employees as an asset instead of a
line item to be cut and nibbled at, it just changes the whole
perspective.
Mr. Kelman. You know, Mr. Chairman, I mentioned this in my
written testimony. One of the things that you could do and this
subcommittee could do is why not hold a hearing every 6 months
or even once a year, whatever, where you bring in career people
in the government who have been involved in delivering some
improvement and service through information technology and
start sending the message that when career people are called
before a committee like this, they are not just being called to
be hectored; that every once in a while at least they are
called to be honored because they deserve it. And that's a
contribution that you could make and the subcommittee could
make.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. That would be a first.
Mr. Kelman. Let's show we can break the mold.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. We are long overdue. And I will
take that under advisement. And that's a good idea.
Let me ask Dr. Faga. They have now changed some of the IT
positions in government in terms of their salary that you and
Ms. James have testified on that. Is that going to be helpful?
Mr. Faga. I'm sure it will. I am not very familiar with how
they're doing it in government at this moment. I did discuss
with your staff the fact, for example, at MITRE, we moved a few
years ago to 29 different job categories, to recognize the idea
that, you know, some skills are hot at any given time and some
skills are not. We have to differentiate them.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. And you can do that in the
private sector a lot easier than we seem to be able to.
Mr. Faga. And I think that's what Ms. James is talking
about, is better recognizing what are the skills.
Another point I might throw in while I have the mic that I
think is related to this is there can be a tendency to
overspecify positions and their requirements to fulfill them.
There are a large number of people who have IT skills who would
not qualify for jobs in the government and many cases in a
place like MITRE. And I'm trying to break that mold at MITRE.
For example, we just hired a young man who went into the
Army after high school, got excellent technical training and
became familiar with some programs that we work on for the
Army, and we have hired him as a technician. He has some
college that he gained while in the Army. He will complete his
degree while at MITRE and become a member of the professional
staff 2 or 3 years downstream. So we and the Army are getting
good service from him now at the technician level. We'll see
him as a computer engineer downstream. We have to go on our
own. We just have to make more of them.
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia. Thank you. We have a vote on and
I don't want to hold you longer. So I want to take a moment to
thank everybody for attending this very important oversight
hearing today. I want to thank all the witnesses, Congressman
Turner, Representative Horn and other Members who participated
and thank my staff for organizing it. I think it's been a very
productive hearing.
I'm going to enter into the record the briefing memo that
was distributed to the subcommittee members.
We will hold the record open for 2 weeks from this date if
you want to forward an additional submission or an additional
thought that occurs to you. We very much appreciate your time
and your testimony today.
Thank you. These proceedings are closed.
[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]