Office of Personnel Management: Opportunities Exist to Build on  
Recent Progress in Internal Human Capital Capacity (31-OCT-07,	 
GAO-08-11).							 
                                                                 
Given the importance of the Office of Personnel Management's	 
(OPM) role in managing the nation's federal workforce, GAO	 
assessed OPM's internal capacity for human capital management.	 
This report--the third in the series--extends prior work and (1) 
looks at the extent to which OPM has addressed key internal human
capital management issues identified by examining employee	 
responses to the 2004 and 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey	 
(FHCS) and (2) has strategies in place to ensure it has the	 
mission critical talent it needs to meet current and future	 
strategic goals. To address our objectives, GAO analyzed 2004 and
2006 FHCS results, summaries of OPM employee focus groups, and	 
analyzed OPM strategic and human capital planning documents.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-11						        
    ACCNO:   A77829						        
  TITLE:     Office of Personnel Management: Opportunities Exist to   
Build on Recent Progress in Internal Human Capital Capacity	 
     DATE:   10/31/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Agency missions					 
	     Employee training					 
	     Federal employees					 
	     Human capital					 
	     Human capital management				 
	     Human capital planning				 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Surveys						 
	     Training utilization				 
	     Program goals or objectives			 
	     2004 Federal Human Capital Survey			 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-11

   

     * [1]Results in Brief
     * [2]Background
     * [3]OPM 2006 Survey Results Show Improvement in Employees' Perce

          * [4]OPM's 2006 FHCS Leadership Responses Show Strong Improvement
          * [5]2006 FHCS Performance Culture and Accountability Responses S
          * [6]2006 FHCS Talent Management Responses Show Challenges Persis
          * [7]DOD Investigative Service Transfers' Survey Results Show Nee
          * [8]OPM Addressed Human Capital Issues through 2004 and 2006 FHC

     * [9]OPM's Workforce and Succession Plans Align with Selected Lea

          * [10]OPM's Top Leaders are Involved in Workforce and Succession P
          * [11]OPM Has Aligned Its Workforce and Succession Plans with Its
          * [12]OPM Has Assessed Gaps in Numbers and Competencies and Create

               * [13]Competency Assessments Conducted
               * [14]Competency Assessments Show Overall Improvement with
                 Some Ga
               * [15]SHRP's Mission Critical Workforce
               * [16]HCLMSA's Mission Critical Workforce
               * [17]Gap Closure Plans

          * [18]OPM Lacks a Well-Documented Process of Evaluation for Some o

     * [19]Conclusions
     * [20]Recommendation for Executive Action
     * [21]Agency Comments
     * [22]GAO Contact
     * [23]Acknowledgments
     * [24]GAO's Mission
     * [25]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

          * [26]Order by Mail or Phone

     * [27]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * [28]Congressional Relations
     * [29]Public Affairs
     * [30]PDF6-Ordering Information-Young-10-25-07.pdf

          * [31]GAO's Mission
          * [32]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

               * [33]Order by Mail or Phone

          * [34]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
          * [35]Congressional Relations
          * [36]Public Affairs

Report to Congressional Requesters

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

October 2007

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

Opportunities Exist to Build on Recent Progress in Internal Human Capital
Capacity

GAO-08-11

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3
Background 5
OPM 2006 Survey Results Show Improvement in Employees' Perceptions of
Leadership: Challenges Exist in Talent Management and Perceptions of DOD
Investigative Service Transfers 9
OPM's Workforce and Succession Plans Align with Selected Leading
Practices, but the Agency Lacks a Well-Documented Process of Evaluation of
Some of These Efforts 20
Conclusions 36
Recommendation for Executive Action 37
Agency Comments 37
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 39
Appendix II Selected Survey Questions and Data on the Federal Human
Capital Survey 41
Appendix III OPM Succession Planning Position Profile--Annotated with
Instructions 45
Appendix IV Comments from the Office of Personnel Management 46
Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 47

Figures

Figure 1: OPM's FHCS Ranking out of 36 Agencies 4
Figure 2: OPM's Organizational Structure 7
Figure 3: OPM Responses to Selected Leadership Questions in 2004 and 2006
10
Figure 4: OPM and Rest of Government Responses to Managers Communicating
the Goals and Priorities of the Organization in 2004 and 2006 11
Figure 5: OPM Responses to Selected Performance Culture and Accountability
Questions for 2004 and 2006 13
Figure 6: OPM and Rest of Government Responses to Selected Performance
Culture and Accountability Questions in 2006 14
Figure 7: OPM Responses to Selected Talent Management Questions for 2004
and 2006 15
Figure 8: OPM and Rest of Government Responses to Selected Talent
Management Questions in 2006 16
Figure 9: Sequence of Selected 2004 and 2006 FHCS Actions Taken by OPM 17
Figure 10: OPM's Workforce Planning for Mission Critical Occupations 23
Figure 11: OPM's Succession Management Planning 24
Figure 12: OPM's Workforce Planning for Leadership Incumbents 27

Abbreviations

CHCMS Center for Human Capital Management Services
CHCO Chief Human Capital Officer
CIO Chief Information Officer
DOD Department of Defense
DSS Defense Security Services
EEO equal employment opportunity
EHRI Enterprise Human Resources Initiative
ERB executive resources board
FHCS Federal Human Capital Survey
FISD Federal Investigative Services Division
GS General Schedule
HCAAF Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework
HCLMSA Human Capital Leadership and Merit System Accountability
HC Plan A Plan for the Strategic Management of OPM's Human Capital
HR human resources HRLOB Human Resources Line of Business
HRM human resources management
HRPS Human Resources Products and Services
IDP individual development plan
MCAT Management Competency Assessment Tool
MCO mission critical occupation
MSD Management Services Division
OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer
OPM Office of Personnel Management
PMA President's Management Agenda
SES Senior Executive Service
SHRP Strategic Human Resources Policy
TAG training advisory group

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548

October 31, 2007

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman
Chairman
The Honorable Susan M. Collins
Ranking Member
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka
Chairman
The Honorable George V. Voinovich
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the
Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has a vital role to play in
ensuring agencies are making strategic human capital management a
priority. In addition, OPM has an important operational responsibility to
work with federal departments and agencies to ensure that human capital
reforms, such as performance management systems, are providing employees
with fair and transparent results and meaningful opportunities to enhance
communication and improve individual and organizational performance. These
strategic and operational human capital management challenges also exist
within OPM, and as OPM's role in the federal government continues to
evolve, its workforce must be structured to tackle these challenges.

We have previously reported that OPM has made commendable efforts toward
transforming itself to being a more effective leader of governmentwide
human capital reform, but that it can build upon that progress by
addressing challenges that remain.1 For example, OPM's own workforce,
through the Federal Human Capital Survey (FHCS), has expressed concerns
about the agency's ability to recruit and develop employees with the
skills necessary to achieve its mission objectives. Further, the executive
branch agencies have pointed to problems in receiving timely and accurate
human capital guidance and advice from OPM. In addition, OPM has undergone
significant changes in the last few years including the expansion of its
agency functions in the area of personnel security investigations. In
early 2005, the agency's workforce grew by approximately 40 percent when
more than 1,500 security clearance employees transferred from Defense
Security Services (DSS), a Department of Defense (DOD) agency, to the OPM
investigative services division.

1GAO, Office of Personnel Management: OPM Is Taking Steps to Strengthen
Its Internal Capacity for Leading Human Capital Reform, [37]GAO-06-861T
(Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2006).

Given the importance of OPM's key role and these challenges, you asked us
to assess the extent to which OPM has the capacity to lead and implement
governmentwide human capital reform. In addition to the June 2006
testimony on OPM's internal capacity for leading human capital reform,2 we
issued a report in January 2007 that specifically identified lessons that
could be learned from OPM's efforts to lead and implement the senior
executive performance-based pay system and other human capital initiatives
that can be applied to ongoing and future human capital reform efforts.3
For this report, the third in the series, we determined the extent to
which OPM (1) has addressed key internal human capital management issues
identified by examining employee responses to the 2004 and 2006 FHCS, and
(2) has strategies in place to ensure it has the mission critical talent
it needs to meet current and future strategic goals.

To address our first objective, we analyzed OPM's 2004 and 2006 FHCS
results related to key issues of leadership, performance culture and
accountability, and talent management to determine whether OPM has made
progress in addressing areas of concern from the 2004 survey. We also
analyzed OPM's 2006 survey results to identify any new challenges to OPM's
strategic human capital management. To address our second objective, we
reviewed OPM's strategic and human capital planning documents and analyzed
the extent to which OPM adheres to selected strategic workforce planning
practices and principles relevant to OPM's capacity to fulfill its
strategic goals. For example, we reviewed OPM's analyses identifying
critical skills and competencies and related gaps and determined the
extent to which they aligned with OPM's strategic and operational plan. We
focused primarily on examining Senior Executive Service (SES) positions
and positions from the two OPM divisions with the most responsibility for
working with federal departments and agencies to assist them with their
human capital efforts: the Strategic Human Resources Policy (SHRP) and the
Human Capital Leadership and Merit System Accountability (HCLMSA)
divisions. We also had discussions with and obtained other pertinent
documentation from officials at OPM at their headquarters in Washington,
D.C. In addition, we reviewed academic literature and prior GAO reports
about succession and workforce planning.

2 [38]GAO-06-861T .

3GAO, Office of Personnel Management: Key Lessons Learned to Date for
Strengthening Capacity to Lead and Implement Human Capital Reforms,
[39]GAO-07-90 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 19, 2007).

We conducted our review in Washington, D.C., from December 2006 through
August 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Detailed information on our scope and methodology appears in
appendix I.

Results in Brief

OPM's 2006 FHCS results, including the DOD investigative service
transfers, showed strong improvement in OPM employees' perceptions of
leadership, mixed results in the performance culture and accountability
area, and a continuing concern in the area of talent management. For
example, there was an 8 percentage point increase from 2004 to 2006 in
response to "my organization's leaders maintain high standards of honesty
and integrity," while in the area of talent management, OPM declined 5
percentage points from 2004 to 2006 in response to employees reporting
satisfaction with the training they received. As illustrated in figure 1,
however, without the responses from the DOD investigative service
transfers, OPM's 2006 FHCS ranking would have been substantially higher
than its 2004 ranking.

Figure 1: OPM's FHCS Ranking out of 36 Agencies

The less positive4 responses of the DOD investigative service transfers on
key questions point to areas where OPM will need to continue to focus its
attention. For example, without DOD transfers, the OPM 2006 response to "I
have a high level of respect for my organization's senior leaders" would
have been 14 percentage points higher than 2004 results for the same
question. OPM conducted a series of employee focus groups to understand
factors contributing to its low scores on the 2004 FHCS and to gather
employee ideas for addressing top priority improvement areas. The agency
then developed action plans and took various steps in response to the
employee focus groups, such as conducting Web casts from the Director and
generating e-mail communications on internal organizational changes.
Across the agency, in response to the 2006 survey results, OPM reviewed
and updated the first set of action plans by incorporating changes as
needed to address areas of new and continuing concern to OPM employees.

OPM's workforce and succession plans are consistent with selected leading
practices and principles relevant to its capacity to fulfill its strategic
goals. The agency lacks, however, a well-documented process for agencywide
evaluation of some of its workforce planning implementation efforts,
particularly training and development. OPM's leadership is involved in the
organization's succession and workforce planning through its executive
resources board (ERB), which serves as the advisory and review body for
all major leadership management policies and programs. In addition, OPM
has assessed gaps in numbers and competencies and created gap closure
plans for its mission critical and leadership workforce, with competency
assessments showing overall improvement with few remaining deficiencies.
By operating at the division level without a well-documented agencywide
evaluation process, however, OPM's top leadership may be missing
opportunities to identify, and address, weaknesses in its workforce
planning and succession efforts. For example, it was not evident that OPM
can identify whether it is optimizing its investment in training and
development by making the appropriate level of investment and prioritizing
funding across divisions so that it addresses the most important needs
first. In addition, in a relatively short time, there will be a
Presidential transition, and well-documented processes can help to ensure
a seamless transition that can build on the current momentum.

4A positive response is calculated by combining the top two response
categories, e.g., strongly agree and agree, and a negative response is
calculated by combining the bottom two response categories, e.g., strongly
disagree and disagree.

This report contains a recommendation to the Director of OPM to institute
a documented process for its top leadership to monitor workforce and
succession efforts carried out at the division level, to help ensure an
agencywide perspective on workforce and succession funding,
implementation, and evaluation.

In its written comments on a draft of this report, the Director of OPM
agreed with our recommendation, adding that the insights and
recommendation provided in the report will be useful in shaping both
ongoing and planned human capital management initiatives within OPM.

Background

OPM manages the federal government's human capital and is responsible for
helping agencies shape their human capital management systems and holding
them accountable for effective human capital management practices. Title 5
of the U.S. Code, which provides for the effective management of the civil
service, describes OPM's mission and responsibilities. OPM is also
responsible for administering retirement, health benefits, and other
insurance services to government employees, annuitants, and beneficiaries.

During the past several years, OPM has undergone significant changes. The
entire agency was restructured in fiscal year 2003, which included steps
such as eliminating redundant operations and organizational layers. As
mentioned previously, in early 2005, OPM's workforce expanded by
approximately 40 percent when more than 1,500 security clearance employees
transferred from DSS. Several months later, OPM experienced a change in
top leadership, with the appointment of a new agency director in May 2005.
In addition to making organizational changes, OPM has recast a number of
its mission objectives. As we previously reported, OPM is continuing to
transform itself from less of a rulemaker, enforcer, and independent agent
to more of a consultant, toolmaker, and strategic partner in leading and
supporting executive branch agencies' human capital management systems.5
OPM has also played a role in the design and implementation of new human
capital systems at the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense and
has exerted greater human capital leadership through its Human Capital
Scorecard of the President's Management Agenda (PMA).

OPM is responsible for helping other federal departments and agencies with
strategic human capital management, while serving as a model for managing
its own workforce. SHRP and HCLMSA are the two OPM divisions with the most
responsibility for working with federal departments and agencies to assist
them with making their human capital efforts more effective. SHRP designs,
develops, and implements human capital policies and programs. SHRP's
objective is to make sure federal agencies understand human capital policy
and correctly apply it. For example, SHRP counsels agencies on how to
apply policy to their performance appraisal, employee development,
labor-management relations, information technology, and workforce planning
programs. HCLMSA serves as the strategic leader of the governmentwide
effort to transform human capital management so that agencies are held
accountable for managing their workforces effectively, efficiently, and in
accordance with merit principles. This division provides advice and
assistance in all areas of staffing and human capital management, such as
workforce restructuring and assistance in recruiting. While SHRP focuses
on developing human capital policy, HCLMSA's responsibilities deal
primarily with the implementation of that policy. The Management Services
Division (MSD), headed by the senior executive who also serves as the
agency's Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO), is responsible for providing
human capital management services to the agency. MSD houses the Center for
Human Capital Management Services (CHCMS), which is responsible for
coordinating much of OPM's internal strategic human capital planning,
including workforce and leadership succession management efforts. This
group is also responsible for supporting the agency in recruitment,
hiring, and other day-to-day human capital management activities. Figure 2
shows OPM's organizational structure.

5 [40]GAO-06-861T .

Figure 2: OPM's Organizational Structure

One of OPM's efforts has been to conduct the FHCS biennially to measure
employees' perceptions on whether conditions characterizing successful
organizations are present in their agencies. OPM uses the FHCS in the
Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework (HCAAF) as one
source of information for evaluating agency success in creating a better
working environment for their employees.6 OPM analyzes the FHCS results
for itself and each agency with the four indices of the HCAAF: Leadership
and Knowledge Management, Results-Oriented Performance Culture, Talent
Management, and Job Satisfaction. A performance agreement at OPM showed
the agency had a goal of being in the top half of agencies surveyed for
2006 and being in the top 5 of government rankings for 2008. The FHCS data
are also used to rank agencies and subcomponents on a "Best Places to
Work" index score, which measures employee satisfaction. The Partnership
for Public Service and the Institute for Study of Public Policy
Implementation produce the best places to work rankings.7 More than
220,000 federal employees responded to the most recent survey in 2006,
with a governmentwide response rate of 57 percent. The survey
participation rate within OPM was 80 percent.

In 2006 testimony, we reported that OPM's 2004 survey results could be
summarized as reflecting employees' concerns about perceptions of
leadership; talent management; customer focus, communication, and
collaboration; and performance culture and accountability.8 We identified
these four key areas as critical for human capital development in order
for OPM to continue to transform itself into a more effective leader of
governmentwide human capital reform. The areas differ slightly from the
four HCAAF indices and represent a somewhat different grouping of survey
items than the indices. For example, we included three questions that were
asked relating to talent management: (1) the skill level in my work unit
has improved over the past year; (2) I have sufficient resources to get my
job done; and (3) supervisors/team leaders provide employees with
constructive suggestions to improve their job performance. For this
report, we did not include customer focus, communication, and
collaboration because the number of survey items we included in that area
decreased to one question from 2004 to 2006, making the data no longer
significant.

6The HCAAF is a framework that OPM has developed to help agencies develop
and implement effective human capital management systems and improve their
human capital management practices. The HCAAF fuses strategic human
capital management to merit system principles and other civil service
laws, rules, and regulations.

7The Partnership for Public Service and the Institute for Study of Public
Policy Implementation created a statistical model to transform raw FHCS
data into specific measures of workplace satisfaction.

8 [41]GAO-06-861T .

OPM 2006 Survey Results Show Improvement in Employees' Perceptions of
Leadership: Challenges Exist in Talent Management and Perceptions of DOD
Investigative Service Transfers

Compared to its 2004 results, OPM's 2006 FHCS results indicate strong
improvement in employee perceptions on key questions relating to
leadership, mixed results in performance culture and accountability, and
continuing challenges in talent management. Additionally, OPM's 2006
survey results show that the investigative service transfers from DOD, who
joined the agency in 2005, were less positive than the rest of OPM's 2006
responses and negatively affected OPM's overall results. As a response to
a decrease in positive 2004 FHCS responses within OPM, the agency used
survey results and focus groups to develop action plans to address areas
of employee concerns. In response to the 2006 survey results, OPM reviewed
and updated the first set of action plans by incorporating changes as
needed to address areas of concern to OPM employees.

OPM's 2006 FHCS Leadership Responses Show Strong Improvement

Top leadership in agencies across the federal government must provide the
committed attention needed to address human capital and related
organizational transformation issues. In 2006, OPM experienced a positive
increase in employee perceptions of questions relating to leadership
compared to 2004 FHCS responses. Four questions out of the top 10
questions having the largest increase in positive responses from 2004 to
2006 were related to leadership. For example, there was an 8 percentage
point increase for both "satisfaction with information received from
management" and "my organization's leaders maintain high standards of
honesty and integrity," as displayed in figure 3.9

9The differences calculated before rounding may not match figure 3
differences.

Figure 3: OPM Responses to Selected Leadership Questions in 2004 and 2006

The positive response increase for leadership questions from 2004 to 2006
represents a major improvement for the agency and a decreasing gap between
OPM and the rest of government. OPM was significantly higher than the rest
of government on three of eight leadership questions. For example, on the
question "Managers communicate the goals and priorities of the
organization," OPM was 11 percentage points higher than the rest of
government and 15 percentage points higher than OPM's 2004 results, as
shown in figure 4.10 Additionally, on the HCAAF index for Leadership and
Knowledge Management, OPM's ranking improved from 28th in 2004 to 19th in
2006, out of 36 ranked agencies.

10The differences calculated before rounding may not match figure 4
differences.

Figure 4: OPM and Rest of Government Responses to Managers Communicating
the Goals and Priorities of the Organization in 2004 and 2006

For questions relating to leadership, however, OPM's 2006 results continue
to show a larger gap between SES and General Schedule (GS)-level employees
than the difference found in the rest of government results. We reported
previously that OPM's 2004 FHCS results and the follow-up focus group
discussions implied that information did not cascade effectively from the
top leadership throughout the organization, and we identified a gap in
perception between OPM's SES and GS-level employees, particularly relating
to questions on leadership.11 In 2006, this gap persists between SES and
GS-level employees. For example, in both 2004 and 2006 OPM's SES responses
were substantially more positive than non-SES responses for the statement
"I have a high level of respect for my organization's senior leaders."
While OPM has taken steps to address the lack of overall and
cross-divisional communication and issues related to employee views of
senior management, this gap between SES and GS-level response remains a
challenge.

Finally, the significant leadership changes that occurred at OPM since the
2004 FHCS survey may have affected the perspectives of employees regarding
leadership questions. A new director began a term at the agency in May
2005 and, according to OPM, about half of the senior leadership started
after OPM administered the 2004 survey. Additionally, actions taken
beginning in May 2006 in response to the 2004 survey results, such as Web
casts and e-mail communications from the Director regarding internal
changes, were intended to lead to positive 2006 FHCS responses to
leadership questions.

11 [42]GAO-06-861T .

2006 FHCS Performance Culture and Accountability Responses Show Mixed Results

Effective performance management systems can drive organizational
transformation by encouraging individuals to focus on their roles and
responsibilities to help achieve organizational outcomes. We reported in
2006 that OPM's executive performance management system aligns the
performance expectations of OPM's top leaders with the goals of the
organization.12 In addition, we reported that OPM could build upon its
positive results for some of its performance-related questions to address
performance culture concerns, one of the three areas examined in the focus
groups. Similar to the 2004 results, OPM's 2006 results relating to
performance culture and accountability showed some mixed areas of strength
that could be maximized and areas of weakness to be addressed.

Of the 12 questions we identified as relating to performance culture and
accountability, OPM's results for three questions in 2006 demonstrated
substantial improvement compared to 2004 results and two questions dropped
significantly from 2004 to 2006. Figure 5 shows the questions that
substantially improved. OPM's highest positive increase from 2004 to 2006
was a 17 percentage point increase in response to "managers review and
evaluate the organization's progress toward meeting its goals and
objectives." OPM also saw a more positive response to "I am held
accountable for achieving results." Questions that dropped significantly
involved employees feeling encouraged to come up with new and better ways
of doing things and performance appraisals being a fair reflection of
performance.

12 [43]GAO-06-861T .

Figure 5: OPM Responses to Selected Performance Culture and Accountability
Questions for 2004 and 2006

On the performance accountability questions that saw a large positive
increase at OPM from 2004 to 2006, OPM was significantly higher than the
rest of government. In addition, OPM's ranking on the HCAAF index for
Performance Culture increased from 29th in 2004 to 25th in 2006. OPM,
however, remains among the bottom half of the 36th ranked agencies in this
area. Of the performance culture and accountability questions, OPM
responded significantly lower than the rest of government on five
questions. Two of these questions dealt with creativity and innovation in
the workplace, as displayed in figure 6. These mixed results indicate that
while OPM has seen and can build upon the positive increases on some
performance culture and accountability questions, room for improvement
still exists in this area at the agency.

Figure 6: OPM and Rest of Government Responses to Selected Performance
Culture and Accountability Questions in 2006

2006 FHCS Talent Management Responses Show Challenges Persist

OPM's 2006 FHCS responses indicate that talent management concerns
continue among employees at the agency. Of the nine questions we
identified as relating to talent management, OPM showed a decline on seven
questions from 2004 to 2006. The largest decline from 2004 to 2006 was a 5
percentage point drop from 48 to 43 percent of OPM employees reporting
satisfaction with the training received for their present job. Figure 7
shows the decline in two talent-management related questions. Training was
a specific area of concern for OPM's SES, who reported an 8 percentage
point decrease in satisfaction with their training and a 13 percentage
point decrease in support for "the skills in my work unit have improved in
the past year." We have previously highlighted talent management as an
area of concern and noted that OPM's ability to lead and oversee human
capital management could be affected by its internal capacity and ability
to maintain an effective leadership team, as well as an effective
workforce.13

13 [44]GAO-06-861T .

Figure 7: OPM Responses to Selected Talent Management Questions for 2004
and 2006

In addition, in the 2006 survey, OPM was significantly lower than the rest
of government on five of the nine questions we identified as relating to
talent management. For example, OPM was 11 percentage points lower than
the rest of government for "the workforce has the job-relevant knowledge
and skills necessary to accomplish organizational goals." Additionally,
only 39 percent of OPM employees said that their training needs were
assessed, compared to 51 percent of the rest of government, as displayed
in figure 8. Further, OPM's ranking decreased from 28th to 31st out of 36
agencies on the HCAAF index for Talent Management in 2006.

Figure 8: OPM and Rest of Government Responses to Selected Talent
Management Questions in 2006

DOD Investigative Service Transfers' Survey Results Show Need for Special
Attention to Those Employees

Without DOD transfers, results for just under half of the 2006 survey
questions relating to leadership, performance culture and accountability,
and talent management would have been higher by 5 percentage points or
more. In fact, all but 1of the 29 questions relating to leadership,
performance culture and accountability, and talent management that we
identified would have been more positive without DOD transfers. Moreover,
OPM reported those employees who participated in both the 2004 and 2006
surveys rated the agency higher on almost every item on the survey in
2006. OPM's FHCS agency ranking would have increased dramatically from
26th to 11th place without the DOD transfers. OPM would have seen the
greatest increase in those questions relating to leadership, with six of
the eight questions we identified as relating to leadership having a 14 to
16 percentage point increase from 2004 to 2006. For example, without DOD
transfers, OPM 2006 response to "I have a high level of respect for my
organization's senior leaders" would have been 14 percentage points higher
than 2004 results. The question that would not have been more positive
addressed talent management, suggesting that talent management is a
salient issue for OPM, regardless of the transfers. In addition, DOD
transfers gave more neutral responses on several questions, particularly
those relating to performance culture and accountability and equal
employment issues, indicating a lack of perspective rather than a negative
response. Given that the DOD transfers had more neutral responses to these
questions, this suggests that OPM may have an opportunity to help shape
the perspectives of its new transfers on these issues. Selected survey
questions and data from the 2004 and 2006 surveys appear in appendix II.

OPM Addressed Human Capital Issues through 2004 and 2006 FHCS Action Plans

Figure 9 shows a sequence of selected actions OPM took regarding the 2004
and 2006 FHCS and the accompanying internal OPM action plans.

Figure 9: Sequence of Selected 2004 and 2006 FHCS Actions Taken by OPM

To address a decrease in positive responses to the 2004 FHCS, OPM hired a
contractor to conduct a series of OPM employee focus groups. The purpose
of the groups was to understand the factors contributing to the 2004
responses and report employee ideas for addressing top priority
improvement areas. Employees were randomly selected to participate in 33
focus groups with participants from all major divisions, headquarters and
the field, employees and supervisors, and major installations. The results
of the 2004 FHCS and the responses of the focus groups showed that OPM
employees were most concerned with leadership and leadership's ability to
deal with staff about policies and performance. Employees preferred OPM to
have more open communication to address inadequate planning and excessive
supervision. Employees identified additional problem areas for OPM
including lack of management support, inadequate training for supervisors
and managers on performance culture and accountability, and lack of senior
executive interest in and respect for employees.

OPM required each division to develop specific action plans to address the
critical issues raised by employees in both the survey results and the
focus groups. In December 2005 and January 2006, the CHCMS met with each
associate director and their management team to present their individual
results and discuss the next steps in the process. OPM also held a
half-day planning meeting with a cross-section of OPM divisions and office
representatives to develop an OPM-wide action plan. As an example of
activities based on the 2004 survey action plans, OPM has attempted to
improve communication throughout the agency by initiating visits to its
field locations, creating an e-mail mail box where employees can make
suggestions on more efficient and effective ways of doing business, and
holding employee meetings. Additionally, to address employee concerns
about communication with senior leaders, OPM established brown bag lunches
with the Director and a process in all divisions to solicit employee input
on various initiatives and set aside "open door" time for employees to
speak with their managers.

After release of the results of the 2006 FHCS, OPM reviewed and updated
the first set of action plans responding to the 2004 survey by
incorporating changes as needed to address new and continuing areas of
concern to OPM employees. OPM's analysis of the data included (1)
comparisons between responses in 2004 and 2006 agencywide and
governmentwide, (2) comparisons of results by organizational components,
(3) a review of responses between headquarters and field locations, and
(4) a review of the responses comparing supervisory and nonsupervisory
employees. OPM believed responses to eight questions on the 2006 FHCS
improved based on their previous actions for issue areas dealing with
leadership. OPM identified that the areas reflecting the lowest positive
response rates centered in large part around performance culture areas;
for example, promotions based on merit, employee empowerment, and awards.
OPM also found that the responses from the field employees were lower than
the responses from headquarters employees, where some questions had
significant differences ranging from 10 to 20 percentage points lower.

In response to the survey results, OPM updated five actions from the
action plans responding to the 2004 survey and developed five new actions
for the action plans responding to the 2006 survey. In terms of
leadership, OPM carried over two actions from the first set of action
plans because of the positive response from employees: using OPM's
Intranet for up-to-date information sharing throughout the organization
and using the Director's formal and informal communication methods, such
as brown bag meetings, field site visits, and Web casts. One area of
concern for employees of OPM was employee empowerment. To address this
issue, OPM indicated that it would continue to work on delegating
authorities to the lowest appropriate level and involving employees in
decisions to increase internal approval and coordination to streamline
organizational processes. In addition, in OPM's recently developed action
plans, 5 out of 10 actions will address talent management. For example,
OPM will be implementing the core curriculum for supervisory training that
was developed because of the first set of action plans. OPM officials said
the supervisory training program was funded in May 2007 and implementation
started in July 2007. Additionally, OPM developed four new actions to deal
with training and development: (1) administering performance management
training for all employees, (2) developing individual development plans
(IDP), (3) creating electronic access to training opportunities, and (4)
implementing an internal rotation professional development program.

Each division and office analyzed their organization-specific results to
reflect the 2006 responses of their employees in order to update their
previous action plans. SHRP, for example, had each of its center leaders
meet with employees to discuss the survey results and held a divisional
town hall meeting to talk about the results and answer any questions the
employees had. HCLMSA used a new interactive communication tool to involve
employees and management in resolving issues and capitalizing on strengths
identified by the 2006 FHCS results. HCLMSA focused on 38 questions where
the positive results were less than 65 percent; from these questions, 3 to
5 questions were consensually determined as key discussion areas and
included in the division's current action plans. OPM also plans to develop
communications plans to ensure field locations receive the same
information as headquarters on a timely basis.14

The investigative services division, which includes the DOD transfer
employees, also developed action plans in response to the 2006 FHCS. For
example, in response to employees' concerns with their personal work
experience, through early September 2007, 428 Federal Investigative
Service Division (FISD) employees had participated in detail assignments
within FISD, assignments outside of FISD but within OPM, and assignments
to other agencies to gain additional program knowledge. OPM will conduct
an agencywide employee survey in October 2007, and OPM officials said they
believe these survey results will show significant improvement for FISD.

14The largest field population is in the investigative services division.

After OPM assessed the survey results and the Director approved the action
plans, the agency notified its employees about how it will address the
responses and will post information on OPM's Intranet with continual
progress updates. Additionally, CHCMS officials said they will monitor the
action plans quarterly and report findings to the Director in an effort to
build a positive and productive work climate where all employees and
managers feel valued and appreciated.

OPM's Workforce and Succession Plans Align with Selected Leading Practices, but
the Agency Lacks a Well-Documented Process of Evaluation of Some of These
Efforts

OPM's workforce and succession plans are consistent with selected
strategic workforce planning practices and principles relevant to OPM's
capacity to fulfill its strategic goals. OPM's top leadership is engaged
in workforce and succession planning efforts, and OPM has assessed
competency gaps and created gap closure plans for its mission critical and
leadership workforce. The agency, however, operates some of these
division-level efforts without a well-documented process for evaluation
agencywide. For example, it was not evident how OPM is able to identify
the appropriate level of investment in training and development and to
prioritize funding so that it addresses the most important training needs
first.

OPM's Top Leaders are Involved in Workforce and Succession Planning

We have previously reported that efforts to address important
organizational issues, such as strategic workforce planning, are most
likely to succeed if agencies' top program and human capital leaders set
the overall direction, pace, tone, and goals from the beginning of the
effort.15 We have also noted that effective succession planning and
management programs have the support and commitment of their
organizations' top leadership, and that the demonstrated commitment of top
leaders is perhaps the single most important element of successful
management. In particular, reinforcing leadership support by assigning
responsibility for succession efforts, and holding executives accountable
for succession planning in performance plans, are effective strategies for
ensuring the active participation of leadership.

15GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce
Planning, [45]GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003).

One of OPM's vehicles for involving top leadership in its workforce and
succession planning efforts is its ERB. Chaired by OPM's Chief of Staff,
the ERB serves as the advisory and review body for all major leadership
management policies and programs related to the SES specifically, and
management and leadership in general. Among other responsibilities, the
ERB is charged with executive/leadership succession planning and workforce
planning; executive/leadership staffing management; and executive,
managerial, and leadership development management. ERB membership consists
of all of OPM's associate directors, including the associate director who
also serves as the agency's CHCO, along with the chief financial officer,
the general counsel, and the deputy associate director for CHCMS. The ERB
meets weekly and provides CHCMS, OPM's internal human resources management
group, with direction on key workforce and succession planning decisions,
among other things.

According to a CHCMS official, the ERB helps to set the direction for the
agency's succession planning and workforce planning efforts. At least
annually, the ERB meets with CHCMS staff and division management to review
all of the succession planning position profile sheets, templates that the
agency uses to try to capture the leadership skills needed for it to meet
its strategic and operational goals and objectives both currently and in
the future. The ERB looks at the description of potential successors
identified and, according to the CHCMS official, will sometimes override
the supervisor's position profile assessments based on their "big-picture"
knowledge of agencywide human capital resources. The ERB also works with
CHCMS to identify opportunities for economies of scale in addressing
training and development needs that cut across divisions. For example,
CHCMS and the ERB jointly proposed the establishment of a new supervisory
training curriculum for all OPM managers and supervisors. This curriculum
intends to address several agencywide training and development needs, such
as strengthening performance management skills, closing leadership
competency gaps, and addressing issues that emerged in the 2004 FHCS
results. As a result, the Director of OPM approved funding for this
agencywide initiative, which OPM is now implementing as part of the action
plans to address the 2006 FHCS results.

In addition to leveraging the ERB to engage its leadership with workforce
and succession planning, OPM also made explicit its CHCO's accountability
for succession planning. In the CHCO's 2006 Performance Agreement, OPM
charged the CHCO with the responsibility of having agencywide, written
succession plans in place by October 2006. OPM also held other members of
OPM's executive management team accountable via their 2006 performance
agreements for general workforce and succession planning efforts. In his
2007 executive performance agreement, the CHCO is accountable for
implementing leadership and succession-related training and development
initiatives. For example, the CHCO is responsible for implementing the
supervisory training for all managers described above. This training
curriculum includes courses intended to address leadership competencies,
which include performance management and interpersonal skills training.

OPM Has Aligned Its Workforce and Succession Plans with Its Strategic Goals

According to OPM's HCAAF standards, an agency should align its human
capital management strategies, including workforce planning, with its
mission, goals, and organizational objectives and integrate them into its
strategic plans, performance plans, and budgets. We have similarly
reported that it is critically important to align an organization's human
capital program with its current and emerging mission and programmatic
goals.16 In its most recently published A Plan for the Strategic
Management of OPM's Human Capital (HC Plan), OPM links its human capital
planning to its current 5-year, agencywide Strategic and Operational
Plan.17 The HC Plan explicitly notes the relationship between OPM's
agencywide mission and its workforce, recognizing that OPM's overall
success in achieving its mission objectives is dependent on a strategic
focus on its own talent and human capital needs.

OPM charges each of its divisions with linking their workforce analysis
and competency needs to their business initiatives. For example, the SHRP
division has designated the design of a modern compensation system as a
key business initiative. Accordingly, SHRP identifies (1) activities
related to the initiative (working with internal and external
stakeholders, drafting and implementing legislation, etc.); (2) the
occupations that constitute its mission critical workforce (HR policy
specialist, actuary, etc); (3) the number of mission critical staff
needed; and (4) the general and technical competencies that are important
for its mission critical workforce (oral communication, creative thinking,
problem solving, etc.). Each of OPM's divisions contribute a similar
written section to the agencywide HC Plan to represent how OPM links the
identification of its mission critical occupations and key competencies to
its business initiatives. The diagram in figure 10 depicts the steps in
OPM's workforce planning process.

16 [46]GAO-04-39 .

17OPM's current A Plan for the Strategic Management of OPM's Human Capital
covers the fiscal years 2006-2007; the Strategic and Operational Plan
covers 2006-2010; and its most recently published Corporate Leadership
Succession Management Plan is dated August 2006.

Figure 10: OPM's Workforce Planning for Mission Critical Occupations

OPM's Corporate Leadership Succession Management Plan describes that the
key goal of its succession plan is to ensure the availability of diverse
individuals with the necessary competencies to fill key leadership
positions so the agency can meet its short- and long-term goals,
regardless of turnover. The succession plan also notes that the agency
needs leaders with a mix of specific skills in order to meet the goals and
objectives laid out in its 5-year Strategic and Operational Plan. Similar
in its approach to workforce planning, OPM charges its divisions with the
responsibility for carrying out the individual-level, position-based
elements of its succession planning process.

The diagram in figure 11 depicts the steps in OPM's succession management
planning process that focus on analyzing the succession risk and
developing an internal leadership pipeline for each individual leadership
position.

Figure 11: OPM's Succession Management Planning

OPM requires the direct supervisor of each executive, manager, and
supervisor to complete a succession planning position profile template for
these employees. (See appendix III for a copy of the succession planning
position profile template.) The succession planning position profile
sheets include the supervisor's judgment of risk factors such as the
likelihood that the incumbent will leave; an identification of key general
and technical competencies needed for the position; a determination of the
"readiness" of internal candidates, those that are ready immediately,
within 1 to 2 years, or within 3 to 5 years; and other items. OPM uses
these quantitative and qualitative assessments to develop succession
management objectives, performance goals, and action plans to help ensure
that OPM has a robust candidate pool to replace leadership incumbents as
needed. Our review of 93 of approximately 330 succession planning position
profile documents showed that nearly all of the sampled documents had been
updated within the past year.18 Our review also confirmed that all of
these included an estimation of the prospective successor pool for at
least 5 years out, with two citing the need to begin developing the
candidate pipeline at least 10 years in advance. An official in CHCMS
explained OPM intends that the profile sheets will serve as a built-in
mechanism requiring management to think about leadership positions and how
they may need to change. For example, some of the SHRP profile sheets
illustrate sensitivity to the changing environment in relation to future
recruitment efforts: "internally and short term, outlook is quite
positive; however, as agency human resource program responsibilities
continue to restructure, streamline and consolidate into more generalist
and consultative roles, the potential candidate pool of detail oriented
technically proficient staffing experts will decline."

While some aspects of the succession planning position profile sheets
demonstrate a forward-looking approach to development and recruitment
efforts, the extent to which OPM is identifying key competencies for
leadership positions based on anticipated long-term changes in mission and
objectives is not evident. In reviewing OPM's instructions for completing
the position profile sheets, we found no guidance stating that supervisors
are to identify key competencies for these leadership positions according
to current and anticipated future requirements.

18An OPM official said the 93 profile sheets represent the career SES
positions from all divisions, except the Office of the Director, and the
supervisors and managers from HCLMSA and SHRP.

OPM Has Assessed Gaps in Numbers and Competencies and Created Gap Closure Plans
for Its Mission Critical and Leadership Workforce

We have previously reported that an agency needs to define the critical
skills and competencies that it will require in the future to meet its
strategic program goals and then develop strategies to address gaps and
human capital conditions in critical skills and competencies.19 With
regard to leadership positions, it is important to emphasize developmental
or "stretch" assignments for high-potential employees in addition to
formal training, in order to strengthen skills and competencies and
broaden experience. Consistent with these workforce and succession
planning principles, OPM has undertaken a number of workforce assessments
and has developed gap closure plans, which include a mix of training and
developmental assignments, to address current and projected deficiencies
in mission critical and leadership positions.

  Competency Assessments Conducted

According to its current HC Plan, as of June 2006, 62 percent of OPM's
5,194 employees were in mission critical occupations.20 OPM has several
division-level and centralized strategies to assess the competencies of
its mission critical occupations. OPM conducted agencywide skills
assessments in 2001 and 2003 and more recent assessments in targeted
mission critical occupations such as information technology and human
resources management (HRM).

In 2006, HCLMSA focused competency assessment and gap closure efforts on
the mission critical occupation of accountability auditor. During the same
year, CHCMS conducted a competency assessment of its HRM specialists,
using a competency model developed by the CHCO Council in cooperation with
OPM.21 In the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2006, SHRP, HCLMSA, and the
Human Resources Products and Services (HRPS) divisions assessed their
human resources specialists. OPM reassessed these specialists using the
CHCO Council HRM competency model in May 2007. All of these assessments
looked for gaps in both competency levels and numbers of mission critical
incumbents.

19 [47]GAO-04-39 .

20According to OPM's HC Plan, mission critical occupations directly and
substantially impact mission attainment (as defined in OPM's strategic and
operational goals) and: (1) are difficult to fill, and/or require
specialized knowledge/skills; (2) have a recognized need for a knowledge
transfer management plan and/or succession plan; and (3) merit targeted
resources for recruitment, retention, and knowledge management.

21The work of HRM specialists ranges across policy development,
consultation, and agency outreach, and operational recruitment and
staffing activities.

To determine the competency levels for both its current and prospective
leadership, OPM looks at both individual leadership positions and general
leadership skills. As described in figure 11, in looking ahead to its
future leadership, OPM uses qualitative data to assess potential gaps in
its leadership pipeline, using the succession planning position profiles.
As part of this individual, position-based planning process, the direct
supervisor of every subordinate executive, manager, and supervisor
describes the key competencies needed for a particular position and the
number of potential internal successors for the leadership position, and
produces an estimate of when these candidates will be ready to assume the
leadership responsibilities in question. The supervisor describes the
training and development opportunities needed to address any gaps and to
prepare the pool of prospective candidates to assume the leadership
position. From these individual analyses, OPM derives a measure it refers
to as a "bench-strength index," which counts the number of internal
candidates that are ready to replace a single incumbent, when it becomes
necessary.

In addition to assessing its in-house leadership pipeline and external
prospects for each individual leadership position, OPM looks at the
competency levels of its current leadership corps. Figure 12 depicts the
steps in OPM's workforce planning process that focus on assessing the
competencies of the agency's current leadership incumbents and developing
and implementing plans to close gaps as needed.

Figure 12: OPM's Workforce Planning for Leadership Incumbents

The agency most recently conducted a formal competency assessment of its
376 incumbent leaders in fiscal year 2006, using an online survey
completed by the supervisors of all subordinate executives, managers, and
supervisors. OPM uses these data to make a determination of the extent to
which its current leadership cadre meets the desired proficiency levels
for competencies required in their positions. In early 2007, OPM launched
the Management Competency Assessment Tool (MCAT), a governmentwide,
Web-based instrument for assessing the skill levels of managers,
supervisors, team leaders, and others in key leadership and performance
management competencies. OPM has been using the MCAT internally for its
agencywide leadership competency assessments. The agency used this tool to
conduct a reassessment of skills gaps among these 376 leadership positions
in July 2007.

  Competency Assessments Show Overall Improvement with Some Gaps Remaining

Based on the results of agencywide skills assessments conducted in 2001
and 2003, OPM reports that it has made at least some improvement to
employee proficiency levels in 96 percent of its mission critical
competencies, and has eliminated gaps in 64 percent of these competencies.
OPM's current HC Plan includes an initiative to conduct an agencywide
skills reassessment to continue to monitor its gap closure progress.

Regarding its organizational leadership cadre, OPM recently reported
positive results. The only priority competency gap common across
supervisory, managerial, and executive leadership positions was in the
area of interpersonal skills, which are critical to the agency's increased
focus on performance management, consultancy, and other strategic
initiatives. OPM has also calculated turnover risk and overall succession
risk for leadership positions based on information captured in the
succession planning position profile sheets. These indicate that while 30
percent of the current leadership is at high risk for turnover, only 3
percent are high risk for overall succession purposes, since the
expectation is that OPM can identify suitable candidates from within or
outside the agency. In terms of its leadership candidate pipeline, the
succession planning position profile sheets indicated that as of August
2006, all but 11 of the 376 leadership positions met OPM's bench-strength
goal of having a minimum 2:1 ratio of ready-now candidates for each
incumbent. More recently, an OPM official confirmed that the agency had
reduced this number even further, with only 8 positions considered by the
agency to be at high-risk for succession management purposes due to weak
bench strength.

On the division level, OPM's most recent competency assessment and gap
analysis completed in 2006 for employees in the GS-201 HR specialist
mission critical occupation in SHRP and HRPS identified few gaps among
employees in this occupational group. Only the competency area of
knowledge of agency business emerged as a high-priority gap, based on
factors such as the gap's impact on OPM's ability to accomplish mission
objectives, size of the gap, and level of difficulty in closing the gap
through development of internal employees or recruitment from external
sources. Specifically, OPM set a target to increase by more than double
the number of HR specialist staff at the advanced proficiency level, from
39 to 87. OPM's strategy to accomplish this goal was to provide training
and developmental opportunities to increase the expertise of current
staff, while building a pipeline of HR specialists at the awareness and
basic levels of proficiency from a pool of external hires. In May 2007,
OPM readministered the competency assessment of the SHRP and HRPS GS-201
employees, using the CHCO Council HRM Competency Model, to determine the
extent to which gap closure efforts over the past year resulted in higher
competency proficiency levels. The results of OPM's assessment indicated
that it had surpassed its goals by moving the HR specialists to, or
beyond, the targeted proficiency levels.

  SHRP's Mission Critical Workforce

In addition to its emphasis on the HRM Competency Model as it relates to
GS-201 series employees, SHRP has reported on all of the elements of its
mission critical workforce, which include actuaries, statisticians, and
psychologists, along with HR specialists. In the HC Plan, SHRP notes that
its mission critical employees exhibit strengths in the areas of technical
competence, oral communication, and problem solving. It describes areas of
particular challenge in the fields of creative thinking and reasoning.
Further, SHRP is looking ahead to identify a potential future competency
gap in written communication, particularly related to writing policy. SHRP
plans to address competency gaps in the areas of written communication,
creative thinking, and reasoning by incorporating these competencies into
the selection processes for new staff and by providing appropriate
developmental opportunities to current staff.

In an interview with SHRP's Associate Director about the division's
mission critical workforce, she noted that recruitment and retention for
the division would continue to present underlying challenges. She said
that SHRP would be trying to recruit employees with the same types of
skills other federal government agencies would increasingly need,
requiring those with excellent written, analytical, and technical
abilities as well as capable leaders. Some positions in SHRP are
particularly difficult to fill with the caliber of talent the division
needs. For example, the Associate Director explained that it was hard to
recruit mid-level actuaries and statisticians from outside OPM because
often these individuals, while possessing adequate technical skills, do
not know and understand the mission and workings of OPM. In addition,
recruiting an employee with actuarial skills and management experience is
very difficult given the salary that individuals with those skills can
command in the private sector. She did note that SHRP does a lot of
recruiting based on its mission; individuals want to come to OPM to be
part of some of the largest human capital programs in the world. In terms
of retention, the Associate Director said that the SHRP division loses a
number of employees to other federal agencies because these agencies view
the division's employees as potential assets to their human capital
offices. For example, she said the division's classification employees
along with those in employee and labor relations are highly sought after.
She noted that she makes limited use of recruitment and retention bonuses
because of funding issues, but she finds the intern hiring flexibilities
useful.

  HCLMSA's Mission Critical Workforce

OPM has also been focusing on competency assessments and gap closure
strategies for its HCLMSA division GS-201 HR specialists, who serve as
human capital officers and other HR specialists, directly supporting the
PMA human capital initiative.22 Based on external stakeholder input, as
well as through internal assessments, HCLMSA chose to set a higher
proficiency level target for its HR specialists in the areas of technical
competence and client engagement. For example, we have noted that, based
on interviews with the federal workforce community, OPM needed a greater
emphasis on providing consultative and technical expertise to its agency
customers.23 HCLMSA's leadership took this type of external feedback into
consideration when setting the goal to significantly increase the
percentage of human capital officers and HR specialists who are at least
at the advanced proficiency level in both the technical competence and
client engagement competency areas. OPM has recently reported that, based
on its readministration of the competency assessment of HCLMSA's GS-201
employees in June 2007, the division surpassed its competency goals in the
advanced/expert proficiency levels. The division fell short of its goal
for the number of HR specialists at the intermediate level of proficiency,
which OPM attributes to an overall attrition in the number of HR
specialists. Although OPM was able to replace the three human capital
officers that left during the reporting year, it could only recruit one HR
specialist to replace the four that left. As of June 2007, this
represented a net loss of three employees with an overall HCLMSA staff
reduction of 6 percent.

22Human capital officers serve as OPM liaisons to each executive branch
agency.

23 [48]GAO-06-861T .

In the HC Plan, HCLMSA also describes additional initiatives and actions
related to its mission critical workforce planning. It noted that
recruitment, training, and development efforts have reduced competency
gaps that existed in 2004 and described the establishment of a training
advisory group (TAG) in fiscal year 2005 made up of members who represent
each mission critical role in HCLMSA. In 2007 and beyond, HCLMSA, with
TAG's assistance, plans to continue to provide staff development
opportunities to ensure employees in mission critical roles possess all
the strategic competencies needed to achieve goals and accomplish the
mission.

In an interview on HCLMSA's mission critical workforce, the division's
Associate Director said the biggest recruitment challenge for HCLMSA is
finding the right people with the right skills, and the most important
aspect of retention is maintaining a positive organizational culture. He
said the HCLMSA division is organized into two almost completely separate
functions--human capital management and merit systems
accountability--which require somewhat different skills. He explained that
the human capital side of HCLMSA faces a conundrum because the division
loses employees to other agencies, which is good for the larger federal
human capital community, but difficult for the division. On the other
hand, he said that because HCLMSA's human capital focus is not as
technical as the compliance side, when he needs to recruit employees, he
is able to successfully hire individuals from the private sector. The
Associate Director said that he sees recruitment as an ongoing process,
and he believes that an important part of his job is to always be
recruiting for current or future positions. In terms of retention, he
noted that a critical component of retention is having a good
organizational culture, which often depends on better communication.

  Gap Closure Plans

OPM has a number of gap closure plans in place. For example, to
specifically address the leadership competency gap in the area of
interpersonal skills, OPM has instituted a requirement that each
supervisor, manager, and executive work with their supervisor to develop a
supervisory training plan. Each individual plan identifies mandatory and
elective training reflecting the specific needs of the individual and
addressing any gaps in the target area of interpersonal skills. To support
the goal of closing the interpersonal skills gap, OPM has developed an
agencywide supervisory training curriculum that includes a mix of
classroom and Web-based course such as "Interpersonal Skills," "Front Line
Leadership," and "Dealing with Poor Performers." In addition to agencywide
and division-level gap closure plans, the position-based succession
planning position profiles for each executive, manager, and supervisor
include an action plan to prepare the pool of potential internal
successors. Plans may include training, professional conferences,
developmental assignments, and other opportunities. OPM officials said
that any profile that indicates that a corporate leadership position is at
high risk for succession management requires an aggressive plan of action
to address how the agency will reduce the risk rating.

In addition, OPM recently implemented a pilot program for closing
potential succession gaps. In early spring of 2007, it launched a
knowledge transfer pilot in its Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO) to formalize the process for capturing institutional knowledge.
According to OPM, knowledge transfer is a way to capture critical
information necessary to perform program responsibilities and ensure that
knowledge is not lost due to personnel changes, such as retirements, new
work assignments, or temporary absences. The pilot process begins with an
advance set of questions sent to an interviewee, followed by a structured
interview on topics such as duties performed by the incumbent, the
incumbent's internal and external contacts, statutory requirements of the
work, and required training and skills needed. The goal of the interview
is to be able to provide the incumbent's current supervisor and successor
with information necessary to continue to carry out work activities. The
OCFO is also working on incorporating into the pilot a database to track
where incumbents' important electronic and paper files and records are
located. According to an OCFO official, while OPM is still evaluating the
pilot, it has been well received and it is likely that it will be expanded
in the future.

OPM Lacks a Well-Documented Process of Evaluation for Some of Its Workforce and
Succession Planning Efforts, Particularly Its Investment in Training and
Development

We have reported on the importance of evaluating the contribution that
workforce plans make to strategic results in order to measure the
effectiveness of an agency's workforce plan and to help ensure that the
strategies work as intended.24 This involves two activities: determining
(1) how well the agency implemented its workforce plan and (2) the
contribution that the implementation made toward achieving programmatic
goals. For example, a workforce plan can include measures that indicate
whether the agency executed its hiring, training, or retention strategies
as intended and achieved the goals for these strategies, and how these
initiatives changed the workforce's skills and competencies. With regard
to training and development, which are key to each of the OPM gap closure
plans we reviewed, we have reported that front-end analysis can help
ensure that agencies are not initiating these efforts in an uncoordinated
manner, but rather that they are strategically focusing their training
efforts on improving performance to achieve the agency's goals.25

24 [49]GAO-04-39 .

A CHCMS official representing OPM on its workforce and succession planning
process reported that the agency's plans are largely developed at the
division level and are periodically evaluated by the ERB and the agency
director. The official noted that these reviews are informal and are not
documented or summarized in agency-level status reports. He further
explained that OPM provides agency-level workforce analysis data, such as
trends in hiring and turnover, to division heads and other top executives
at least annually as part of the PMA reporting process. In addition, the
official noted that, while there is no formal process for periodically
distributing division-level workforce analysis reports, OPM can generate
these data on demand and agency leaders and division heads can request
this information at any time as the need arises. However, OPM had
difficulty providing us with some of its key workforce analysis
indicators, which OPM officials explained was partially due to technical
difficulties with the reporting system.

Regarding OPM's training and development efforts, in its January 2004
comments on our report on designing training and development, OPM noted
that it had increased the role of its CHCO to serve as an advisor to the
Director on overall employee training and development initiatives and
programs, as well as the establishment of the agency's training budget.26
OPM viewed this move as a strategic approach to better position the agency
to prioritize its training needs and forecast funds to support those
needs. OPM has also recognized the importance of bringing a perspective to
training and development activities, particularly with regard to
prioritizing among training needs and forecasting funds to support those
needs. More recently, OPM acknowledged the importance of tracking training
and development investments when it announced a requirement that agencies
must begin regularly submitting data on the cost and amount of training
they provide their employees.27 Specifically, OPM now requires agencies to
report, among other items, the names of employees receiving training; the
title of the classes; the start and end dates; the facility where courses
were offered, such as a government agency or university; the number of
hours; cost; travel costs; and category, such as leadership development.
An OPM official said that the HCLMSA division would monitor data and work
with agencies to ensure they are using training dollars for succession
planning and to fill critical skills gaps, as well as to improve
performance management. In September 2006, OPM also issued a guide for
collection and management of training information that emphasizes that
agencies must manage and collect training information in support of
mission objectives and strategic goals and must properly evaluate training
to ensure it provides meaningful contributions to agency results.28

25GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and
Development Efforts in the Federal Government, [50]GAO-03-893G
(Washington, D.C.: July 2003).

26GAO, Human Capital: Selected Agencies' Experiences and Lessons Learned
in Designing Training and Development Programs, [51]GAO-04-291
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2004).

When we asked for management reports or a similar means for OPM's top
management to track information on training activity, however, CHCMS was
unable to provide us with this information. OPM's budget office provided
aggregated annual training expenditures through its accounting system, but
had no accompanying information on, for example, how many employees had
received training or the type of training or professional development
completed. When we requested status reports on training and development
activity, program completion rates, or other examples of indicators of how
implementation is progressing, an OPM official explained that this was not
tracked at the agency level. An OPM official explained that while the
agency has improved its training and development tracking, he anticipates
being able to do better in the coming year. OPM had expected that its
management would be able to use the Enterprise Human Resources Initiative
(EHRI) data warehouse to generate information on training activity and
expenditures as early as a year ago. While CHCMS had begun tracking
training instances for OPM employees in its human resources data system by
December 2006, OPM was dependent on the General Services Administration to
build the interface to allow transmission of those data to the EHRI data
warehouse. The interface to allow transmission of the data to EHRI was
completed in July 2007.

2771 Fed. Reg. 28545, May 17, 2006.

28Office of Personnel Management, Guide for Collection and Management of
Training Information (Washington, D.C.: September 2006).

In addition to gathering data on measures such as participant number and
program costs, we have reported that agencies also need credible
information to evaluate how training and development programs affect
organizational capacity. Agencies should work toward demonstrating their
training and development programs' value in providing future talent by
identifying outcome-oriented measures and evaluating the extent to which
these programs enhance their organizations' capacity.29

In terms of OPM's allocation of training resources, an OPM budget official
explained that as a rule of thumb, the agency budgets no more than 2
percent of its salary and benefit levels, and that more recently, it has
held training expenditures to less than 1 percent. He further explained
that a reallocation of internal funds to OPM's retirement systems
modernization project resulted in a 5 percent decline of agencywide
spending on discretionary activities, leaving a 25 percent cut to the less
than 1 percent allocation for fiscal year 2007 training activities. In
addition to other reductions within the agency, OPM may make similar cuts
to the fiscal year 2008 training budget. Although a CHCMS official told us
that OPM is increasing its use of in-house training and development
opportunities such as job shadowing and mentoring programs, which he
believes can be more effective than outside training, we were unable to
ascertain OPM's full investment in internal training and development
programs since the budget tracking information does not include indirect
costs. As we mentioned previously, however, survey results show that OPM
employees are not satisfied with their training and addressing this
concern is a focus of OPM's 2006 FHCS action plans. An OPM budget official
noted that the agency is moving to a strategic budget process. Beginning
with the fiscal year 2009 budget, OPM is requiring that internal budget
requests, such as those for training and development and other succession
management activities, be linked explicitly to OPM's agencywide strategic
objectives.

It is also not evident how OPM is able to identify the appropriate level
of investment in training and development and to optimize funding so that
it addresses the most important needs first with its individual,
position-based succession planning. The direct supervisor of the incumbent
executive, manager, or supervisor completes the individual action plans
for the training and development of the successor candidate pool. Although
the ERB provides oversight for this process, an OPM official explained
that division-level management is responsible for making decisions
concerning if and how to invest resources across most of the training and
development needs identified in the position profile sheets.

29GAO, Human Capital: Selected Agencies Have Opportunities to Enhance
Existing Succession Planning and Management Efforts, [52]GAO-05-585
(Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2005).

Conclusions

OPM is making progress in addressing issues indicated by the employee
responses to both the 2004 and 2006 FHCS, with initiatives underway to
attempt to build a positive and productive work climate in the agency.
During the past year, OPM has taken positive actions to address specific
concerns raised by employees and managers in the surveys, such as placing
more emphasis on information sharing with employees at all levels on the
strategic goals and objectives of the agency. This should help employees
and managers enhance individual and organizational performance. It is also
important to acknowledge that OPM's 2006 FHCS results, without the DOD
investigative service transfers, would have been, in many cases,
significantly more positive than in 2004. The responses from the
investigative services division, however, are an area of concern that OPM
will need to continue to focus attention on.

OPM also has strategic workforce and succession management plans in place
that adhere to selected leading practices, and the agency has undertaken
several initiatives to address human capital problems identified and to
build on recognized strengths. As previously noted, OPM has implemented an
innovative knowledge transfer pilot and is launching an agencywide
individual development plan program, a professional development program,
and supervisory training plans that include a curriculum intended to
improve interpersonal skills, performance management, and other key
competencies needed for a successful management environment. With its new
approach to strategic budgeting for fiscal year 2009, OPM is also making
strides in linking budget and program implementation information to its
strategic goals, to aid its management in making decisions on workforce
and succession management investments. OPM's CHCMS division also expects
to monitor training implementation and expenditures more closely as it
expands its use of the EHRI system in the coming year.

Even though OPM has acknowledged the importance of an agencywide
perspective on workforce and succession planning and implementation with
the establishment of the ERB and by pointing to an increased role for its
CHCO, the agency has not documented well the coordination of some of these
division-level activities. In a relatively short time there will be a
Presidential transition, and well-documented processes can help to ensure
a seamless transition that builds on the current momentum. Without a
well-documented process in place for OPM's top leadership to review and
monitor progress made at the division level, there is also a risk that the
agencywide approach to strategic human capital management could be
diminished. For example, OPM lacks information on direct and indirect
costs of its training and development programs. Because these actions are
essential to OPM's gap closure strategy for its mission critical workforce
and succession management efforts, it is vital to the success of these
efforts that the agency invests in training and development wisely.
Without an agencywide view of how training investments relate to the
agency's overall mission and strategic objectives, OPM may have difficulty
understanding reasons for shortfalls in meeting its talent management
goals and cannot effectively make a business case for prioritizing one set
of training activities over another, which is increasingly important given
tightening budget constraints.

Recommendation for Executive Action

To help OPM continue down its path of improvement with regard to internal
capacity for strategic human capital management, we recommend that the
Director of OPM institute a documented process for OPM's top leadership to
monitor workforce and succession efforts carried out at the division
level, to help ensure an agencywide perspective on workforce and
succession funding, implementation, and evaluation. For example, OPM could
document and report on how training and development budget requests are
reviewed by agency's corporate leaders--such as the Chief Human Capital
Officer or other decision makers in a position to identify the appropriate
level of investment in training and development efforts across
divisions--so that funding is prioritized according to the greatest needs
relative to the agency's overall mission and objectives.

Agency Comments

In written comments on a draft of this report, reprinted in appendix IV,
the Director of OPM agreed with our recommendation and acknowledged that
its work must sustain and build upon its current momentum in addressing
strategic and operational human capital challenges. The Director also
noted that the insights and recommendation provided in the report will be
useful in shaping both ongoing and planned human capital management
initiatives within the agency.

We are sending copies of this report to the Director of OPM and
appropriate congressional committees. We will also provide copies to
others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at [53]http://www.gao.gov .

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-6806 or [54][email protected] . Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the
last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this
report are listed in appendix V.

J. Christopher Mihm
Managing Director, Strategic Issues

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of our review were to

           o determine the extent to which the Office of Personnel Management
           (OPM) has addressed key internal human capital management issues
           identified by examining employee responses to the 2004 and 2006
           Federal Human Capital Surveys (FHCS) and
           o determine the extent to which OPM has strategies in place to
           ensure it has the mission critical talent it needs to meet current
           and future strategic goals.

           To address these objectives, we analyzed OPM's 2004 and 2006 FHCS
           results and summaries of its 2005 focus groups related to the key
           areas of leadership, performance culture and accountability, and
           talent management to determine whether OPM has made progress in
           addressing areas of concern from the 2004 survey. We identified
           these key areas as critical for human capital development in order
           for OPM to continue to transform itself to being a more effective
           leader of governmentwide human capital reform. The areas differ
           slightly from the four Human Capital Assessment and Accountability
           Framework (HCAAF) indices and represent a somewhat different
           grouping of survey items than the indices. We also analyzed OPM's
           2006 survey results to identify any new challenges to OPM's
           strategic human capital management. In analyzing the data, we
           performed significance tests with corrections for multiple,
           simultaneous comparisons. Not all comparisons of 2004 and 2006
           results were made because some questions were dropped from the
           2004 survey and not included in the 2006 survey. We combined
           responses (for example, strongly agree and agree) to calculate the
           overall positive response of OPM employees, and we combined
           responses (for example, strongly disagree and disagree) to
           calculate the overall negative response of OPM employees. After an
           examination of documents detailing the survey methodology, we
           found the survey data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes
           of this report.

           To address our second objective, we obtained key strategic and
           human capital planning documents and analyzed the extent to which
           OPM adheres to selected strategic workforce planning practices and
           principles relevant to OPM's capacity to fulfill its strategic
           goals. We focused primarily on examining Senior Executive Service
           (SES) positions and positions from the two OPM divisions with the
           most responsibility for working with federal departments and
           agencies to assist them effectively with their human capital
           efforts: the Strategic Human Resources Policy (SHRP) and the Human
           Capital Leadership and Merit System Accountability (HCLMSA)
           divisions. We obtained and analyzed strategic, human capital,
           workforce, succession, and training and development plans along
           with executive performance contracts. We reviewed individual
           succession planning position profile sheets for all supervisors,
           managers, and executives in SHRP and HCLMSA, along with all career
           SES incumbents throughout the agency except those from the Office
           of the Inspector General.

           We also had discussions with and obtained other pertinent
           documentation from OPM officials at their headquarters in
           Washington, D.C. We conducted interviews with key officials at OPM
           to discuss workforce planning and succession planning, and we met
           with the associate directors of SHRP and HCLMSA. In addition, we
           reviewed OPM's own guidance to executive branch agencies such as
           the HCAAF, along with prior GAO work on leading practices in
           succession and workforce planning. The scope of our work did not
           include independent evaluation or verification of the
           effectiveness of the workforce and succession management planning
           used at OPM, including any performance results that OPM attributed
           to specific practices or aspects of its action plans.

           We conducted our review in Washington, D.C., from December 2006
           through August 2007 in accordance with generally accepted
           government auditing standards.
			  
Appendix II: Selected Survey Questions and Data on the Federal Human
Capital Survey

Survey Items Corresponding to Federal Human Capital Survey (FHCS) Key      
Areas                                                                      
Leadership                                                                 
Q. 9: Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by your immediate  
supervisor/team leader?                                                    
Q. 36: I have a high level of respect for my organization's senior         
leaders.                                                                   
Q. 37: In my organization, leaders generate high levels of motivation and  
commitment in the workforce.                                               
Q. 38: My organization's leaders maintain high standards of honesty and    
integrity.                                                                 
Q. 39: Managers communicate the goals and priorities of the organization.  
Q. 51: Managers promote communication among different work units (for      
example, about projects, goals, needed resources).                         
Q. 55: How satisfied are you with the information you receive from         
management on what's going on in your organization?                        
Q. 57: How satisfied are you with the policies and practices of your       
senior leaders?                                                            
Performance Culture and Accountability                                     
Q. 4: I feel encouraged to come with new and better ways of doing things.  
Q. 22: Promotions in my work unit are based on merit.                      
Q. 23: In my work unit, steps are taken to deal with a poor performer who  
cannot or will not improve.                                                
Q. 24: Employees have a feeling of personal empowerment with respect to    
work processes.                                                            
Q. 26: Creativity and innovation are rewarded.                             
Q. 28: Awards in my work unit depend on how well employees perform their   
jobs.                                                                      
Q. 29: In my work unit, differences in performance are recognized in a     
meaningful way.                                                            
Q. 30: My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my performance.    
Q. 31: Discussions with my supervisor/team leader about my performance are 
worthwhile.                                                                
Q. 32: I am held accountable for achieving results.                        
Q. 40: Managers review and evaluate the organization's progress toward     
meeting its goals and objectives.                                          
Q. 56: How satisfied are you with the recognition you receive for doing a  
good job?                                                                  
Talent Management                                                          
Q. 2: I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my             
organization.                                                              
Q. 11: The workforce has the job-relevant knowledge and skills necessary   
to accomplish organizational goals.                                        
Q. 14: My work unit is able to recruit people with the right skills.       
Q. 15: The skill level in my work unit has improved in the past year.      
Q. 16: I have sufficient resources (for example, people, materials,        
budget) to get my job done.                                                
Q. 47: Supervisors/team leaders provide employees with constructive        
suggestions to improve their job performance.                              
Q. 48: Supervisors/team leaders in my work unit support employee           
development.                                                               
Q. 50: My training needs are assessed.                                     
Q. 59: How satisfied are you with the training you receive for your        
present job?                                                               

                                                                          SES -  
                           Overall    GS1-12   GS 13-15     SES    NonSES NonSES 
                 Agency    2004 2006 2004 2006 2004 2006 2004 2006   2006   2006 
Data for Leadership Questions from the FHCS                                      
Q. 9: Overall,   OPM         68   68   66   66   71   72   89   92     68     24 
how good a job                                                                   
do you feel is                                                                   
being done by    Rest  65  66   65   66   69   70   80     69          66       3
your immediate   of                                                              
supervisor/team  Gov't                                                           
leader?                                                                          
Q. 36: I have a  OPM         43   48   45   44   38   54   84   96     47     49 
high level of                                                                    
respect for my   Rest  50  49   50   50   49   50   66     59          49      10
organization's   of                                                              
senior leaders.  Gov't                                                           
Q. 37: In my     OPM         33   38   34   33   29   46   81   88     37     51 
organization,                                                                    
leaders generate                                                                 
high levels of   Rest  37  38   38   39   38   38   58     48          38      11
motivation and   of                                                              
commitment in    Gov't                                                           
the workforce.                                                                   
Q. 38: My        OPM         40   47   38   42   41   57   91   94     47     47 
organization's                                                                   
leaders maintain Rest  49  49   48   49   53   54   67     64          49      16
high standards   of                                                              
of honesty and   Gov't                                                           
integrity.                                                                       
Q. 39: Managers  OPM         55   69   55   67   53   74   94   93     69     24 
communicate the                                                                  
goals and        Rest  60  58   60   59   61   61   74     70          58      12
priorities of    of                                                              
the              Gov't                                                           
organization.                                                                    
Q. 51: Managers  OPM         47   48   44   42   51   58   93   86     47     39 
promote                                                                          
communication                                                                    
among different                                                                  
work units (for  Rest  52  53   51   53   57   58   70     65          53      12
example, about   of                                                              
projects, goals, Gov't                                                           
needed                                                                           
resources).                                                                      
Q. 55: How       OPM         40   49   37   43   45   59   87   88     48     40 
satisfied are                                                                    
you with the                                                                     
information you                                                                  
receive from     Rest  46  47   45   46   49   50   57     60          46      14
management on    of                                                              
what's going on  Gov't                                                           
in your                                                                          
organization?                                                                    
Q. 57: How       OPM         33   39   34   35   31   46   76   89     38     50 
satisfied are                                                                    
you with the                                                                     
policies and     Rest  40  41   40   41   41   43   57     50          41       9
practices of     of                                                              
your senior      Gov't                                                           
leaders?                                                                         
Data for Performance Culture and Accountability Questions from the FHCS
Q. 4: I feel     OPM         58   51   53   43   65   66   93   92     50     41 
encouraged to                                                                    
come with new    Rest  60  60   58   60   65   66   76     69          60       9
and better ways  of                                                              
of doing things. Gov't                                                           
Q. 22:           OPM         36   38   27   29   51   54   92   92     37     57 
Promotions in my Rest  34  34   30   30   45   46   67     61          33      28
work unit are    of                                                              
based on merit.  Gov't                                                           
Q. 23: In my     OPM         27   35   25   33   28   39   80   86     35     52 
work unit, steps                                                                 
are taken to                                                                     
deal with a poor Rest  27  29   26   27   30   32   48     50          28      21
performer who    of                                                              
cannot or will   Gov't                                                           
not improve.                                                                     
Q. 24: Employees OPM         40   39   37   33   45   49   73   86     38     48 
have a feeling                                                                   
of personal      Rest  43  42   41   41   48   48   59     55          42      13
empowerment with of                                                              
respect to work  Gov't                                                           
processes.                                                                       
Q. 26:           OPM         31   31   26   22   37   47   82   91     30     61 
Creativity and   Rest  36  39   33   37   45   48   54     58          39      20
innovation are   of                                                              
rewarded.        Gov't                                                           
Q. 28: Awards in OPM         39   41   34   34   46   53   89   88     40     49 
my work unit                                                                     
depend on how    Rest  42  40   39   37   50   49   64     56          40      16
well employees   of                                                              
perform their    Gov't                                                           
jobs.                                                                            
Q. 29: In my     OPM         28   28   24   22   32   39   83   79     28     52 
work unit,                                                                       
differences in   Rest  29  30   28   29   35   34   48     46          30      17
performance are  of                                                              


recognized in a  Gov't                                                           
meaningful way.                                                                  
Q. 30: My        OPM         61   57   58   52   64   68   86   90     57     33 
performance                                                                      
appraisal is a   Rest  66  64   66   64   70   69   78     69          64       5
fair reflection  of                                                              
of my            Gov't                                                           
performance.                                                                     
Q. 31:           OPM         57   57   55   56   60   60   83   86     57     29 
Discussions with                                                                 
my                                                                               
supervisor/team  Rest  58  56   58   56   59   59   68     59          56       3
leader about my  of                                                              
performance are  Gov't                                                           
worthwhile.                                                                      
Q. 32: I am held OPM         81   87   79   86   85   89   97   95     87      8 
accountable for  Rest  80  79   79   79   82   83   90     83          79       3
achieving        of                                                              
results.         Gov't                                                           
Q. 40: Managers  OPM         52   69   52   66   50   74   97   97     68     29 
review and                                                                       
evaluate the                                                                     
organization's   Rest  57  56   57   57   59   58   72     70          56      13
progress toward  of                                                              
meeting its      Gov't                                                           
goals and                                                                        
objectives.                                                                      
Q. 56: How       OPM         43   46   40   39   48   57   81   90     45     45 
satisfied are                                                                    
you with the                                                                     
recognition you  Rest  49  49   47   48   56   56   57     50          49       1
receive for      of                                                              
doing a good     Gov't                                                           
job?                                                                             
Data for Talent Management Questions from the FHCS
Q. 2: I am given OPM         55   53   51   47   63   66   87   90     53     38 
a real                                                                           
opportunity to   Rest  63  62   61   60   69   69   78     74          62      12
improve my       of                                                              
skills in my     Gov't                                                           
organization.                                                                    
Q. 11: The       OPM         67   63   68   61   65   67   77   93     63     30 
workforce has                                                                    
the job-relevant                                                                 
knowledge and    Rest  74  74   73   73   74   74   81     84          73      11
skills necessary of                                                              
to accomplish    Gov't                                                           
organizational                                                                   
goals.                                                                           
Q. 14: My work   OPM         46   44   42   38   51   54   91   95     43     53 
unit is able to                                                                  
recruit people   Rest  44  44   42   43   47   46   57     58          43      15
with the right   of                                                              
skills.          Gov't                                                           
Q. 15: The skill OPM         50   51   51   47   48   59   93   80     51     30 
level in my work                                                                 
unit has         Rest  51  51   52   52   49   50   63     63          51      13
improved in the  of                                                              
past year.       Gov't                                                           
Q. 16: I have    OPM         51   49   53   51   49   45   66   63     49     13 
sufficient                                                                       
resources (for                                                                   
example, people, Rest  50  48   52   50   46   44   44     44          48      -3
materials,       of                                                              
budget) to get   Gov't                                                           
my job done.                                                                     
Q. 47:           OPM         57   61   53   57   62   67   89   94     60     33 
Supervisors/team                                                                 
leaders provide                                                                  
employees with   Rest  58  58   57   56   62   63   77     65          58       8
constructive     of                                                              
suggestions to   Gov't                                                           
improve their                                                                    
job performance.                                                                 
Q. 48:           OPM         62   61   57   54   70   75   91   95     60     35 
Supervisors/team                                                                 
leaders in my    Rest  65  64   63   62   72   73   85     79          64      15
work unit        of                                                              
support employee Gov't                                                           
development.                                                                     
Q. 50: My        OPM         42   39   41   34   43   47   80   67     38     28 
training needs   Rest  51  51   52   52   51   51   53     55          51       4
are assessed.    of                                                              
                 Gov't                                                           
Q. 59: How       OPM         48   43   47   39   49   51   87   78     43     36 
satisfied are                                                                    
you with the     Rest  55  54   55   53   58   57   64     63          54       9
training you     of                                                              
receive for your Gov't                                                           
present job?                                                                     

           Source: GAO analysis of OPM data.
			  
Appendix III: OPM Succession Planning Position Profile--Annotated with Instructions

Appendix IV: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments	

           GAO Contact

           J. Christopher Mihm, (202) 512-6806 or [55][email protected]
			  
			  Acknowledgments

           In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this
           report were William Doherty, Assistant Director; Ami Ballenger;
           Laura Miller Craig; Judith Kordahl; and Katherine Hudson Walker.
           In addition, Barbara Hills; Donna Miller; Beverly Ross; and John
           Smale provided key assistance.

(450559)

[56]To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on GAO-08-11 .

For more information, contact J. Christopher Mihm at (202) 512-6806 or
[email protected].

Highlights of [57]GAO-08-11 , a report to congressional requesters

October 2007

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

Opportunities Exist to Build on Recent Progress in Internal Human Capital
Capacity

Given the importance of the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) role in
managing the nation's federal workforce, GAO assessed OPM's internal
capacity for human capital management. This report--the third in the
series--extends prior work and (1) looks at the extent to which OPM has
addressed key internal human capital management issues identified by
examining employee responses to the 2004 and 2006 Federal Human Capital
Survey (FHCS) and (2) has strategies in place to ensure it has the mission
critical talent it needs to meet current and future strategic goals. To
address our objectives, GAO analyzed 2004 and 2006 FHCS results, summaries
of OPM employee focus groups, and analyzed OPM strategic and human capital
planning documents.

[58]What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Director of OPM institute a documented process to
ensure an agencywide perspective on workforce and succession efforts,
including funding, implementation, and evaluation. In commenting on the
report, the Director of OPM agreed with our recommendation, adding that
the insights and recommendation provided in the report will be useful in
shaping both ongoing and planned human capital initiatives within OPM.

OPM has taken positive actions to address specific concerns raised by
employees and managers in the 2004 and 2006 FHCS responses. OPM conducted
employee focus groups to understand factors contributing to the low 2004
survey scores and took actions, such as trying to improve communication
throughout the agency. The 2006 survey results showed improvement in the
area of leadership, with mixed results in the performance culture and
accountability area, and continued concern in the talent management area.
Without the responses from the investigative service employees who
transferred from the Department of Defense in early 2005, OPM's 2006 FHCS
results would have been, in many cases, significantly more positive than
in 2004. The perceptions of the investigative service employees, however,
will need continued attention.

OPM's FHCS Ranking out of 36 Agencies

OPM has strategies in place, such as workforce and succession management
plans, that are aligned with selected leading practices relevant to the
agency's capacity to fulfill its strategic goals. For example, OPM's top
leadership is involved in these efforts, and the agency has assessed gaps
in numbers and competencies and created gap closure plans for its mission
critical and leadership workforce.

OPM lacks, however, a well-documented agencywide evaluation process of
some of its workforce planning efforts. In particular, OPM's
implementation of division-level training plans could make it difficult
for the agency to identify and address reasons for shortfalls in meeting
its talent management goals. In a relatively short time, there will also
be a Presidential transition, and well-documented processes can help to
ensure a seamless transition that builds on the current momentum.

GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( [59]www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
[60]www.gao.gov and select "E-mail Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
DC 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000
TDD: (202) 512-2537
Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: [61]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [62][email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [63][email protected] , (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548

Public Affairs

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [64][email protected] , (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
DC 20548

References

Visible links
  37. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-861T
  38. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-861T
  39. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-90
  40. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-861T
  41. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-861T
  42. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-861T
  43. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-861T
  44. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-861T
  45. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-39
  46. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-39
  47. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-39
  48. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-861T
  49. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-39
  50. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-893G
  51. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-291
  52. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-585
  53. http://www.gao.gov/
  54. mailto:[email protected]
  55. mailto:[email protected]
  56. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-11
  57. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-11
  59. http://www.gao.gov/
  60. http://www.gao.gov/
  61. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
  62. mailto:[email protected]
  63. mailto:[email protected]
  64. mailto:[email protected]
*** End of document. ***