Organizational Transformation: Implementing Chief Operating
Officer/Chief Management Officer Positions in Federal Agencies
(01-NOV-07, GAO-08-34).						 
                                                                 
Agencies across the federal government are embarking on large-
scale organizational transformations to address 21st century
challenges. One proposed approach to address systemic federal
governance and management challenges involves the creation of a
senior-level position--a chief operating officer (COO)/chief
management officer (CMO)--in selected federal agencies to help
elevate, integrate, and institutionalize responsibility for key
management functions and business transformation efforts. GAO
was asked to develop criteria and strategies for establishing
and implementing COO/CMO positions in federal agencies. To do
so, GAO (1) gathered information on the experiences and views of
officials at four organizations with COO/CMO-type positions and
(2) convened a forum to gather insights from individuals with
experience in business transformation.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-34						        
    ACCNO:   A77888						        
  TITLE:     Organizational Transformation: Implementing Chief
Operating Officer/Chief Management Officer Positions in Federal
Agencies							 
     DATE:   11/01/2007
  SUBJECT:   Accountability
             Continuity of operations
             Employees
             Evaluation criteria
             Executive agencies
             Federal agencies
             Federal agency reorganization
             Financial management
             Human capital
             GAO High Risk Series
             Internal controls
             Organizational change
             Program evaluation
             Reorganization
             Reporting requirements
             Strategic planning

******************************************************************
** 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-08-34



This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to [email protected]. 

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. 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. 

Report to the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the 
Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

November 2007: 

Organizational Transformation: 
Implementing Chief Operating Officer/Chief Management Officer Positions 
in Federal Agencies: 

GAO-08-34: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-34, a report to the Subcommittee on Oversight of 
Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of 
Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. 
Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Agencies across the federal government are embarking on large-scale 
organizational transformations to address twenty-first century 
challenges. One proposed approach to address systemic federal 
governance and management challenges involves the creation of a senior-
level positionï¿½a chief operating officer (COO)/chief management officer 
(CMO)ï¿½in selected federal agencies to help elevate, integrate, and 
institutionalize responsibility for key management functions and 
business transformation efforts. GAO was asked to develop criteria and 
strategies for establishing and implementing COO/CMO positions in 
federal agencies. To do so, GAO (1) gathered information on the 
experiences and views of officials at four organizations with COO/CMO-
type positions and (2) convened a forum to gather insights from 
individuals with experience in business transformation. 

What GAO Found: 

A number of criteria can be used to determine the appropriate type of 
COO/CMO position in a federal agency. These criteria include the 
history of organizational performance, degree of organizational change 
needed, nature and complexity of mission, organizational size and 
structure, and current leadership talent and focus. 

Depending on these five criteria, there could be several types of 
COO/CMO positions, including: (1) the existing deputy position could 
carry out the integration and business transformation roleï¿½this type of 
COO/CMO might be appropriate in a relatively stable or small 
organization; (2) a senior-level executive who reports to the deputy, 
such as a principal under secretary for management, could be designated 
to integrate key management functions and lead business transformation 
efforts in the agencyï¿½this type of COO/CMO might be appropriate for a 
larger organization; and (3) a second deputy position could be created 
to bring strong focus to the integration and business transformation of 
the agencyï¿½this might be the most appropriate type of COO/CMO for a 
large and complex organization undergoing a significant transformation 
to reform long-standing management problems. 

Because each agency has its own set of characteristics, challenges and 
opportunities, the implementation of any approach should be determined 
within the context of the agencyï¿½s specific facts and circumstances. 
Once the type of COO/CMO is selected, six key strategies can be useful 
in implementing such positions in federal agencies. 

Key Strategies for Implementing COO/CMO Positions: 

Define the specific roles and responsibilities of the COO/CMO position: 
Once clearly defined, these specific roles and responsibilities should 
be communicated throughout the organization. 

Ensure that the COO/CMO has a high level of authority and clearly 
delineated reporting relationships: The organizational level and span 
of control of the COO/CMO position is crucial in affecting the 
incumbentï¿½s authority and status within the organization. 

Foster good executive-level working relationships for maximum 
effectiveness: Effective working relationships can help greatly to 
ensure that the people, processes, and technology are well-aligned in 
support of the agencyï¿½s mission. 

Establish integration and transformation structures and processes in 
addition to the COO/CMO position: These structures and processes could 
include business transformation offices, senior executive committees, 
functional councils, and crosscutting teams that are actively involved 
in strategic planning, budgeting, performance monitoring, information 
sharing, and decision making. 

Promote individual accountability and performance through specific job 
qualifications and effective performance management: A specific set of 
job qualification standards could aid in ensuring that the incumbent 
has the necessary knowledge and experience. A clearly defined, 
realistic performance agreement would also assist in clarifying 
expectations and reinforcing accountability. 

Provide for continuity of leadership in the COO/CMO position: The 
administration and Congress could also consider options of other 
possible mechanisms to help agencies in maintaining leadership 
continuity for the COO/CMO position, such as term and career 
appointments, in selected agencies. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), working 
with the Presidentï¿½s Management Council composed of senior agency 
officials, use the identified criteria when assessing the type of 
COO/CMO positions appropriate for federal agencies and the strategies 
for implementing these positions. Also, Congress should consider these 
criteria and strategies as it develops and reviews legislative 
proposals to create these positions. A senior OMB official said that 
OMB had no comments on a draft of this report. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-34]. For more information, contact 
Bernice Steinhardt at (202) 512-6806 or [email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Specific Criteria Can Help in Assessing the Type of COO/CMO Position 
Needed in a Federal Agency: 

Key Strategies Can Assist Agencies in Implementing COO/CMO Positions: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Forum Participants for "Implementing Chief Operating 
Officer/Chief Management Officer Positions," April 2007: 

Appendix III: Key Responsibilities of Statutory Chief Officer Positions 
in the Federal Government: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Table: 

Table 1: Term Appointments at Selected U.S. Agencies: 

Figure: 

Figure 1: Reporting Relationships for the COO/CMO Positions in Four 
Case-Study Organizations: 

Abbreviations: 

CAO: chief acquisition officer: 

CFO: chief financial officer: 

CHCO: chief human capital officer: 

CIO: chief information officer: 

CMO: chief management officer: 

COO: chief operating officer: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

FAA: Federal Aviation Administration: 

IRS: Internal Revenue Service: 

MIT: Massachusetts Institute of Technology: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

OPM: Office of Personnel Management: 

PBO: performance-based organization: 

PMA: President's Management Agenda: 

SES: Senior Executive Service: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548: 

November 1, 2007: 

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: 

As agencies across the federal government embark on large-scale 
organizational change needed to address twenty-first century 
challenges, there is a compelling need for leadership to provide the 
continuing, focused attention essential to completing these multiyear 
transformations. At the same time, many agencies are suffering from a 
range of long- standing management problems that are undermining their 
abilities to efficiently, economically, and effectively accomplish 
their missions and achieve results. One proposed approach to address 
these systemic federal governance and management challenges involves 
the creation of a senior-level position--a chief operating officer 
(COO)/chief management officer (CMO)--in selected federal departments 
and agencies to help elevate, integrate, and institutionalize 
responsibility for key management functions and focus concerted 
attention on long-term business transformation efforts. We have long 
advocated the need for a COO/CMO at the Department of Defense (DOD) and 
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).[Footnote 1] As you know, 
legislation has been introduced to create a CMO position at 
DOD,[Footnote 2] and recently the Undersecretary for Management 
position at DHS became the CMO in an effort to advance management 
integration and business transformation in those departments.[Footnote 
3] 

Although these senior-level positions can operate under a variety of 
job titles, the principal goal of establishing and implementing a COO/ 
CMO position is to provide the sustained management attention essential 
for addressing key stewardship responsibilities in an integrated manner 
while helping to facilitate the business transformation process within 
an agency. These long-term responsibilities are professional and 
nonpartisan in nature, and cover a range of "good government" 
responsibilities that are fundamental to effectively executing any 
administration's program and policy agenda. Responsibilities under the 
purview of a COO/CMO could include strategic planning, financial 
management, communications and information resources management, human 
capital strategy, acquisition management, and change management. The 
top leadership attention of a COO/CMO could help to bolster an agency's 
efforts to overcome the natural resistance to change, marshal the 
resources needed to implement change, and build and maintain an 
organizationwide commitment to new ways of doing business. 

As agreed with your offices, this report identifies (1) criteria that 
can be used to determine the type of COO/CMO or similar position that 
ought to be established in federal agencies and (2) strategies for 
implementing COO/CMO positions to elevate, integrate, and 
institutionalize key management functions and business transformation 
efforts in federal agencies. To develop these criteria and strategies, 
we (1) gathered information on the experiences and views of officials 
at four organizations with COO/CMO-type positions and (2) convened a 
forum to gather insights from individuals with experience and expertise 
in business transformation, federal and private sector management, and 
change management. The four organizations included in our review are 
three federal agencies and one nonprofit organization: the Department 
of the Treasury (Treasury), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the 
Department of Justice (Justice), and the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology (MIT).[Footnote 4] We selected the four organizations 
because each has a senior-level official who is responsible for 
integrating key management functions, including, at a minimum, human 
capital, financial management, information technology, and acquisition 
management. At the headquarters of these four organizations, we 
interviewed senior officials and we collected and reviewed documents 
related to the COO/CMO position. These COO/CMO positions--Assistant 
Secretary for Management at Treasury, Deputy Commissioner for 
Operations Support at IRS, Assistant Attorney General for 
Administration at Justice, and Executive Vice President at MIT 
[Footnote 5]--have primary responsibility for many of the mission- 
support functions of their respective organizations but generally do 
not have direct responsibility for the mission programs and policies of 
their organizations. Our organization selection process was not 
designed to identify examples that could be considered representative 
of all COO/CMO-type positions. Furthermore, we did not assess the 
effectiveness of each COO/CMO serving in these respective 
organizations, nor did we determine whether any specific COO/CMO 
position directly resulted in a higher level of organizational 
performance. Rather, our focus was to identify the experiences and 
views of officials in carrying out the COO/CMO position. 

The Comptroller General also hosted a forum on April 24, 2007, to bring 
together former and current government executives and officials from 
private business and nonprofit organizations to discuss when and how a 
COO/CMO or similar position might effectively provide the continuing, 
focused attention essential for integrating key management functions 
and undertaking multiyear organizational transformations. This forum 
was designed for the participants to discuss these issues openly and 
without individual attribution. Forum participants were selected for 
their expertise but also to represent a variety of perspectives. The 
conclusions drawn in this report do not necessarily represent the views 
of any individual participant or the organizations that these 
participants represent. In addition, we reviewed our prior work related 
to the COO/CMO concept and business transformation and management 
integration issues at DOD and DHS. We also interviewed officials from 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to discuss the establishment 
and implementation of COO/CMO positions in federal departments and 
agencies. 

We conducted our review from August 2006 through July 2007 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. See 
appendix I for a detailed discussion of our objectives, scope, and 
methodology, including additional information on our selection process 
for organizations to include in the case-study review. Appendix II 
provides a list of the participants at the April 2007 Comptroller 
General's forum. In addition, a list of related GAO products is 
included at the end of this report. 

Results in Brief: 

Because each agency has its own set of characteristics, challenges, and 
opportunities, the type of COO/CMO to be established in a federal 
agency should be determined within the context of the specific facts 
and circumstances surrounding that agency. Nevertheless, a number of 
criteria can be used to determine the type of COO/CMO position for an 
agency. These criteria are the agency's: 

* history of organizational performance, such as the existence of long- 
standing management weaknesses and the failure rates of major projects 
or initiatives; 

* degree of organizational change needed, such as the status of ongoing 
major transformational efforts and the challenge of reorganizing and 
integrating disparate organizational units or cultures; 

* nature and complexity of mission, such as the range, risk, and scope 
of the agency's mission; 

* organizational size and structure, such as the number of employees, 
geographic dispersion of field offices, number of management layers, 
types of reporting relationships, and degree of centralization of 
decision making; and; 

* current leadership talent and focus, such as the extent of knowledge 
and the level of focus of the agency's managers on management functions 
and change initiatives, and the number of political appointees in key 
positions. 

These five criteria are important for determining the appropriate type 
of COO/CMO position, which in turn can inform many other elements of 
the position, including roles and responsibilities, job qualifications, 
reporting relationships, and decision-making structures and processes. 
Based on these criteria, there could be several types of COO/CMO 
positions, including the following: 

* The existing deputy position could carry out the integration and 
business transformation role. This type of COO/CMO might be appropriate 
in a relatively stable or small organization. 

* A senior-level executive who reports to the deputy, such as a 
principal under secretary for management, could be designated to 
integrate key management functions and lead business transformation 
efforts in the agency. This type of COO/CMO might be appropriate for a 
larger organization. 

* A second deputy position could be created to bring strong focus to 
the integration and business transformation of the agency, while the 
other deputy position would be responsible for leading the operational 
policy and mission-related functions of the agency. For a large and 
complex organization undergoing a significant transformation to reform 
long-standing management problems, this might be the most appropriate 
type of COO/CMO. 

Once the type of COO/CMO is determined, six key strategies can be 
useful in implementing COO/CMO positions in federal agencies: 

Define the specific roles and responsibilities of the COO/CMO position. 
For carrying out the role of management integration, it should be clear 
which of the agency's key management functions are under the direct 
purview of the COO/CMO. Depending on the agency, the COO/CMO might have 
responsibility for human capital, financial management, information 
resources management, and acquisition management as well as other 
management functions in the agency, such as strategic planning, program 
evaluation, facilities and installations, or safety and security, as 
was the case with the four organizations we reviewed. As the COO/CMO is 
a leader of business transformation in the organization, it should 
likewise be clear which major change efforts are the direct 
responsibility of the COO/CMO. At IRS, for example, both the COO/CMO 
and the senior executive of the mission side of the agency were heavily 
involved in managing change efforts, but the COO/CMO had primary 
responsibility for spearheading business transformation initiatives 
that cut across mission-support programs and policies. The importance 
of clearly defining the role of the COO/CMO was also a key thread that 
emerged throughout the forum discussion. 

Ensure that the COO/CMO has a high level of authority and clearly 
delineated reporting relationships. The COO/CMO concept is consistent 
with the governance principle that there needs to be a single point 
within agencies with the perspective and responsibility to ensure the 
successful implementation of functional management and business 
transformation. The organizational level and span of control of the 
COO/CMO position is crucial in ensuring the incumbent's authority and 
status within the organization. At both IRS and MIT, the COO/CMO 
reports to the head of the organization (i.e., second-level reporting 
position), and at Justice and Treasury, the COO/CMO reports through the 
deputy secretary (i.e., third-level reporting position).[Footnote 6] 
While our interviews and the forum discussion uncovered differing views 
about the appropriate level and reporting relationships for a COO/CMO 
position, it was broadly recognized that any COO/CMO should have a high 
level of authority needed to ensure the successful implementation of 
functional management and business transformation efforts in the 
agency. In this regard, depending on the agency, implementing a COO/CMO 
position might change existing reporting relationships in that the 
heads of the agency's key management functions--for example, chief 
financial officer (CFO), chief information officer (CIO), chief human 
capital officer (CHCO), and chief acquisition officer (CAO)--could 
report directly to the COO/CMO. 

Foster good executive-level working relationships for maximum 
effectiveness. Effective working relationships of the COO/CMO with the 
agency head and his or her peers are essential to the success of the 
COO/CMO position. For example, officials at IRS stressed the importance 
of the working relationship between the agency's two deputy 
commissioners--one serving as the COO/CMO--in carrying out their 
respective roles and responsibilities in leading the mission and 
mission-support offices of the agency. According to IRS officials we 
interviewed, open communication and carefully planned coordination 
between the mission and mission-support sides of the agency help 
significantly in ensuring that the people, processes, and technology 
are well-aligned in support of the agency's mission. Officials at MIT 
echoed the crucial importance of the working relationship between the 
Executive Vice President, who serves in a COO/CMO-type position and 
leads the mission-support offices of the university, and the Provost, 
who oversees the academic offices. MIT officials pointed out, for 
instance, that both university executives work closely together on 
formulating an organizational budget to help ensure the most effective 
use of resources. 

Establish integration and transformation structures and processes in 
addition to the COO/CMO position. While the position of COO/CMO can be 
a critical means to transform and integrate business and management 
functions, other structures and processes need to be in place to 
support the COO/CMO in business transformation and management 
integration efforts across the organization. These governance 
structures and processes could include business transformation offices, 
senior executive committees, functional councils for areas such as 
human capital and information technology, and short-term or temporary 
cross-functional teams, all of which would be actively involved in 
planning, budgeting, monitoring, information sharing, and decision 
making. The COO/CMO should be a key player in actively leading or 
supporting these integration structures and processes to bring focus 
and direction and help enforce decisions. For example, with its 
organizational realignment in 2003, IRS established a strategy and 
resources committee, chaired by the COO/CMO and composed of agency 
executives, to govern IRS strategy and ensure that resource allocations 
are appropriate for meeting mission needs. Treasury's CFO Council, 
which is chaired by the department's COO/CMO and is composed of the 
chief financial management officers of the department's bureaus and 
major offices, carries out its role through various working groups 
focused on recurring processes, such as the preparation of the 
department's financial statements. 

Promote individual accountability and performance through specific job 
qualifications and effective performance management. A specific set of 
job qualifications for the COO/CMO position would aid in ensuring that 
the incumbent has the necessary knowledge and experience in the areas 
within the job's portfolio. Our interviews at the four organizations 
revealed that essential qualifications for a COO/CMO position include 
having broad management experience and a proven track record of making 
decisions in complex settings as well as having direct experience in, 
or solid knowledge of, the respective department or agency, but there 
were varying views as to whether qualifications should be statutory. To 
further clarify expectations and reinforce accountability, a clearly 
defined performance agreement with measurable organizational and 
individual goals would be warranted as well. Two of the four COO/CMO 
positions we reviewed had performance agreements. As underscored in our 
interviews and the forum discussion, any performance agreement for the 
COO/CMO should contain clear expectations as well as appropriate 
incentives and rewards for outstanding performance and consequences for 
those who do not perform. 

Provide for continuity of leadership in the COO/CMO position. Because 
organizational results and transformational efforts can take years to 
achieve, agencies need to take steps to ensure leadership continuity in 
the COO/CMO position. Foremost, an agency needs to have an executive 
succession and transition planning strategy that ensures a sustained 
commitment and continuity of leadership as individual leaders arrive or 
depart or serve in acting capacities. The administration and Congress 
could also consider other possible mechanisms to help agencies in 
maintaining leadership continuity for the position. For example, the 
benefits of a 5-to 7-year term appointment for the position, such as 
instilling a long-term focus, need to be weighed along with the 
potential challenges of a term appointment, such as a lack of rapport 
between members of a new senior leadership team with any change in 
administration. Moreover, as emphasized in our interviews and the forum 
discussion, the appointment of career civil servants to the COO/CMO 
position could be considered when assessing the position's roles, 
responsibilities, and reporting relationships. High turnover among 
politically appointed leaders in federal agencies can make it difficult 
to follow through with organizational transformation because of the 
length of time often needed to provide meaningful and sustainable 
results. 

Recent legislative proposals have called for certain features of the 
COO/CMO position that we have endorsed, including a direct reporting 
relationship to the departmental secretary, responsibility for 
integrating key management functions and overseeing business 
transformation, the requirement for a performance agreement, and the 
designation of a term appointment. While no federal department has a 
position with all these features, each cabinet-level department and 
selected agencies have designated a senior official responsible for 
overall organizational management--usually the deputy is considered to 
be the COO--to participate in the President's Management Council, 
chaired by OMB. Given the council's charter to ensure that management 
reforms are implemented across the executive branch, we recommend that 
the Director of OMB work with the council to assess the type of COO/CMO 
positions that should be in each of their agencies, using the criteria 
identified in this report, and to use the key strategies for 
implementing these positions based on their assessments. In addition, 
Congress should consider these criteria and strategies as it continues 
to develop and review legislative proposals to create COO/CMO 
positions, recognizing that the implementation of any approach should 
be determined within the context of the specific facts and 
circumstances that relate to each agency. 

We provided a draft of this report to OMB for its review and comment. 
The Associate Director for OMB Administration and Government 
Performance told us that OMB had no comments on the draft report. We 
also provided a draft of this report to Justice, Treasury, IRS, and MIT 
and to the forum participants for their review and technical comments. 
Treasury, IRS, and several forum participants provided us with 
technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

Background: 

The concept of establishing a position to integrate management 
functions within federal departments can be traced back to the first 
Hoover Commission,[Footnote 7] which was charged by Congress with 
reviewing and recommending ways to improve the organization and 
operation of federal agencies. The commission, which lasted from 1947 
to 1949, proposed numerous recommendations to strengthen departmental 
management leadership, including the creation through statute of the 
position of assistant secretary for administration in each executive 
department. This senior-level official was to be selected from the 
career civil service and would direct crosscutting administrative 
activities, such as budget, finance, human resources, procurement, 
management analysis, and support services. The commission's 
recommendation was subsequently adopted and these assistant secretaries 
for administration, positions filled by career appointees, were 
established in many of the executive departments throughout the 1950s 
and 1960s. 

The more recent concept of the COO/CMO position largely came out of the 
creation of performance-based organizations (PBO) in the federal 
government in the late 1990s and early 2000. During that time, the 
administration and Congress renewed their focus on the need to 
restructure federal agencies and hold them accountable for achieving 
program results. To this end, three PBOs were established,[Footnote 8] 
which were modeled after the United Kingdom's executive 
agencies.[Footnote 9] A PBO is a discrete departmental unit that is 
intended to transform the delivery of public services by having the 
organization commit to achieving specific measurable goals with targets 
for improvement in exchange for being allowed to operate without the 
constraints of certain rules and regulations to achieve these targets. 
The clearly defined performance goals are to be coupled with direct 
ties between the achievement of the goals and the pay and tenure of the 
head of the PBO, often referred to as the COO. The COO is appointed for 
a set term of typically 3 to 5 years, subject to an annual performance 
agreement, and is eligible for bonuses for improved organizational 
performance. 

With the backdrop of these PBOs and an ongoing focus on transforming 
organizational cultures in the federal government, the Comptroller 
General convened a roundtable of government leaders and management 
experts on September 9, 2002, to discuss the COO concept and how it 
might apply within selected federal departments and agencies.[Footnote 
10] The intent of the roundtable was to generate ideas and to engage in 
an open dialog on the possible application of the COO concept to 
selected federal departments and agencies. The participants at the 
roundtable offered a wide range of suggestions for consideration as the 
executive branch and Congress were seeking to address the federal 
government's long-standing management problems and the need to move to 
a more responsive, results-oriented, and accountable federal 
government. Nonetheless, there was general agreement on the importance 
of the following actions for organizational transformation and 
management reform: 

* Elevate attention on management issues and transformational change. 
Top leadership attention is essential to overcome organizations' 
natural resistance to change, marshal the resources needed to implement 
change, and build and maintain the organizationwide commitment to new 
ways of doing business. 

* Integrate various key management and transformation efforts. There 
needs to be a single point within agencies with the perspective and 
responsibility--as well as authority--to ensure the successful 
implementation of functional management and, if appropriate, 
transformational change efforts. 

* Institutionalize accountability for addressing management issues and 
leading transformational change. The management weaknesses in some 
agencies are deeply entrenched and long-standing, and it can take at 
least 5 to 7 years of sustained attention and continuity to fully 
implement transformations and change management initiatives. 

Still, it was generally agreed at this roundtable discussion that the 
implementation of any approach should be determined within the context 
of the specific facts and circumstances that relate to each individual 
agency. 

In the time since the 2002 roundtable, the COO concept has evolved into 
the COO/CMO concept with a focus on business transformation, and has 
received even greater attention within the federal government. 
Legislative proposals have been introduced in Congress to establish CMO 
positions at DOD and DHS to help address transformation efforts at the 
two departments, both of which are responsible for various areas 
identified on our biennial update of high-risk programs.[Footnote 11] 
These legislative proposals differ somewhat in content but would 
essentially create a senior-level position to serve as a principal 
adviser to the secretary on matters related to the management of the 
department, including management integration and business 
transformation. Some of these legislative proposals also include 
specific provisions that spell out qualifications for the position, 
require a performance contract, and provide for a term appointment of 5 
or 7 years. In August 2007, the proposal to create a CMO in DHS at an 
Executive Level II, but without a term appointment, was enacted into 
law. In 2000, Congress created a Deputy Secretary for Management and 
Resources position at the Department of State; however, the 
administration opposed the creation of a second deputy position, and 
the position has never been filled. Therefore, at the present time, no 
federal department has a COO/CMO-type position with all these 
characteristics. However, the heads of federal departments and selected 
agencies designate a COO, who is usually the deputy or another official 
with agencywide authority, to sit on the President's Management 
Council. The council was created by President Clinton in 1993 in order 
to advise and assist the President and Vice President in ensuring that 
management reforms are implemented throughout the executive 
branch.[Footnote 12] The Deputy Director for Management of OMB chairs 
the council, and the council is responsible for: 

* improving overall executive branch management, including 
implementation of the President's Management Agenda (PMA);[Footnote 13] 

* coordinating management-related efforts to improve government 
throughout the executive branch and, as necessary, resolving specific 
interagency management issues; 

* ensuring the adoption of new management practices in agencies 
throughout the executive branch; and; 

* identifying examples of, and providing mechanisms for, interagency 
exchange of information about best management practices. 

Specific Criteria Can Help in Assessing the Type of COO/CMO Position 
Needed in a Federal Agency: 

Ascertaining which criteria might be relevant for a particular agency 
would assist in determining the type of COO/CMO position that might 
best be established in the agency. The following is a summary of five 
criteria that can be used to determine the appropriate type of COO/CMO 
position in a federal agency. This summary includes various statements 
and examples provided by the officials we interviewed and the forum 
participants, along with relevant references to our previous work. 

History of Organizational Performance: 

Agencies that have long-standing management weaknesses and high-risk 
operations or functions could be good candidates for establishing a 
COO/CMO-type position.[Footnote 14] Agencies with programs and 
functions that we designate as high risk, like DOD, would be especially 
appropriate candidates for such positions.[Footnote 15] Our interviews 
with officials at the four case-study organizations reinforced that an 
agency's overall performance should be considered when assessing the 
type of COO/CMO that might be needed. For example, an official in one 
of the agencies commented that a COO/CMO position might be needed if an 
agency has a high degree of material and financial weaknesses. Another 
agency official said that an additional factor to consider is whether 
the organization has had many large projects fail, a likely indicator 
that the agency has not placed sufficient attention on integration. In 
a discussion of the importance of establishing measures to assess 
organizational performance, a department official commented that the 
integration of management functions is often not measured within 
federal agencies and that in order for full integration to occur, it 
must be stimulated and given a timeline. 

Degree of Organizational Change Needed: 

We have previously suggested that agencies engaged in major 
transformation efforts and those agencies experiencing particularly 
significant challenges in integrating disparate organizational 
cultures, such as DHS, could be also good candidates for having COO/ 
CMO-type positions in place.[Footnote 16] Our interviews with officials 
at the case-study organizations confirmed that the degree of 
organizational change needed should be a criterion to consider when 
assessing the need for a COO/CMO. For example, an agency official we 
interviewed commented that an agency undergoing significant 
transformation might benefit from a COO/CMO position in place in order 
to focus principally on correcting weaknesses and exploring new 
approaches for meeting mission needs. Another agency official pointed 
out that the organizational culture of the agency should be considered, 
and he noted that a strong esprit de corps in an agency could affect 
the decision of whether a COO/CMO position is advisable. As we have 
previously reported, overcoming inertia and cultural resistance to 
change can be a significant challenge within agencies.[Footnote 17] 

Nature and Complexity of Mission: 

The nature and complexity of mission, including the range, risk, and 
scope of an agency's mission, is another factor that should be 
considered in the assessment for a COO/CMO position. For example, a 
department official we interviewed said that the complexity of an 
agency's mission should be considered when assessing the need for a 
COO/CMO, regardless of the size of the agency. Another agency official 
commented that an organization with a single mission focus might not 
need a COO/CMO position. A forum participant noted that implementing 
change at an organization such as DHS can be challenging because the 
department does not have one single mission (i.e., emergency and 
nonemergency operations). In suggesting that a wide range of 
organizational missions should be a factor when considering the type of 
COO/CMO, a departmental official we interviewed pointed out that 
Treasury manufactures currency, collects taxes, manages the national 
debt, and provides the Director of National Intelligence with 
information on terrorist financing activities. 

Organizational Size and Structure: 

Officials frequently cited the size of an organization as an important 
factor to consider when reviewing the type of COO/CMO position. For 
example, a case-study official suggested that a COO/CMO position would 
not be necessary in an organization with only 50 people whereas an 
organization with 2,000 employees could need such a position to oversee 
and integrate the management functions. He said that as organizations 
become larger, they are more likely to need coordinating structures to 
help with integration and coordination because communication can easily 
break down. Another official added that a COO/CMO position might work 
best for a large decentralized organization, where it is more difficult 
to enforce policy and where there is no entity to oversee and integrate 
the various functions. Some forum participants concluded that for 
smaller agencies, the deputy could carry out the COO/CMO role. Another 
case-study official remarked that a COO/CMO-type position might be 
relevant for a smaller organization if there were a high degree of risk 
and grave consequences for poor communication and coordination, such as 
with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. However, 
another department official suggested that the size of the organization 
might not be highly relevant when considering the establishment of a 
COO/CMO position because every agency needs to have a consolidation 
point in the flow of information to minimize disjointed communication 
and a lack of coordination. 

Organizational structure was also suggested by officials as a factor to 
consider in determining the type of COO/CMO position. For example, a 
department official suggested that a COO/CMO position should be 
established in agencies with a wide geographic dispersion of personnel 
and facilities. Another agency official commented that an additional 
factor to consider is the degree to which the organization's activities 
are duplicative or stovepiped. Still another official offered that the 
number of management layers in the organization and the existing span 
of control for managers should be a factor in assessing the type of 
COO/CMO. The types of reporting relationships and the number of dotted 
lines of authority on the organizational chart might also give 
indications about the need for a COO/CMO position, as cited by another 
agency official we interviewed. 

Current Leadership Talent and Focus: 

Another important factor to consider is the extent of knowledge and 
experience and the level of focus and attention of existing senior 
leadership. For example, an agency official we interviewed remarked 
that if there has not been sufficient attention and focus on management 
issues to accomplish the mission of the organization, then establishing 
a COO/CMO position would add value. Some forum participants noted that 
management execution and integration require a long-term focus, and 
that under the existing system, agency senior leaders may not likely 
stay in their positions for the long term. According to another 
official we interviewed, an additional factor to consider is the extent 
to which the agency has a large number of noncareer positions (e.g., 
political appointees) carrying out management roles. 

Criteria Help to Determine Types of COO/CMOs Needed: 

A key thread of discussion at the Comptroller General's April 2007 
forum was the possible need for different types of COO/CMO positions 
based on whether the position is predominately a transformational role 
in instituting new processes and organizational culture change or an 
operational role in a "steady state" organization. Depending on these 
five criteria, there could be several types of COO/CMO positions, 
including the types shown below. 

* The existing deputy position could carry out the integration and 
business transformation role. This type of COO/CMO might be appropriate 
in a relatively stable or small organization. 

* A senior-level executive who reports to the deputy, such as a 
principal under secretary for management, could be designated to 
integrate key management functions and lead business transformation 
efforts in the agency. This type of COO/CMO might be appropriate for a 
larger organization. 

* A second deputy position could be created to bring strong focus to 
the integration and business transformation of the agency, while the 
other deputy position would be responsible for leading the operational 
policy and mission-related functions of the agency. For a large and 
complex organization undergoing a significant transformation to reform 
long-standing management problems, this might be the most appropriate 
type of COO/CMO. 

A number of forum participants and officials we interviewed, including 
OMB's Deputy Director for Management, said that the deputy position 
should generally carry out the role of integrating key management 
functions and transformational efforts in agencies rather than 
establishing a separate COO/CMO position. At the same time, given the 
competing demands on deputy secretaries in executive branch departments 
across the federal government to help execute the President's policy 
and program agendas, a number of agency officials argued that it is not 
practical to expect that the deputy secretaries will be able to 
consistently undertake this vital integrating responsibility. Moreover, 
while many deputy secretaries may be appointed based in part on their 
managerial experience, it has not always been the case, and not 
surprisingly, the management skills, expertise, and interests of the 
deputy secretaries have always varied and will continue to vary. Then 
again, some officials we interviewed maintained that a COO/CMO position 
would be appropriate for any federal department or agency because there 
is always a need to integrate management functions and ensure 
collaboration in new initiatives. 

Key Strategies Can Assist Agencies in Implementing COO/CMO Positions: 

We identified six key strategies that agencies should consider when 
implementing COO/CMO positions. In these six strategies, we recognize 
and forum participants underscored that the best approach to use in any 
given agency should be determined within the context of the specific 
facts and circumstances surrounding that agency and its own challenges 
and opportunities. The following is a more detailed discussion of these 
strategies along with a range of related insights, views, and examples 
that we identified. 

Define the Specific Roles and Responsibilities of the COO/CMO Position: 

In previous reports, we have proposed that the COO/CMO position would 
serve as a single organizational focus for key management functions, 
such as human capital, financial management, information resources 
management, and acquisition management, as well as for selected 
organizational transformation initiatives. By their very nature, the 
problems and challenges facing agencies are crosscutting and hence 
require coordinated and integrated solutions. Thus, the COO/CMO 
essentially serves as a bridge between the agency head, functional 
chiefs, and mission-focused executives. The COO/CMO provides leadership 
and vision, bringing greater integration and increased attention to the 
agency's management functions in order to enable agency employees to 
accomplish their missions more efficiently and effectively. The COO/CMO 
would offer the benefit of increased opportunities to coordinate and 
identify crosscutting issues that are fundamental to effectively 
executing any administration's program agenda yet do not generally 
entail program policy-setting authority. The COO/CMO would also bolster 
the agency's efforts to overcome the natural resistance to change, 
challenging conventional approaches and developing new methods and 
systems for implementing business transformation in a comprehensive, 
ongoing, and integrated manner. 

We have previously suggested that in crafting an approach for any 
specific agency, Congress could make clear in statute the broad 
responsibilities for the senior official tasked with management 
integration and business transformation.[Footnote 18] Congress has 
taken this approach with other similar senior-level positions that can 
serve as illustrative models. For example, in 2003 Congress created the 
position of Deputy Architect of the Capitol/COO, responsible for the 
overall direction, operation, and management of that organization. 
Under the statute, besides developing and implementing a long-term 
strategic plan, the Deputy Architect/COO is to propose organizational 
changes and staffing needed to carry out the organization's mission and 
strategic and annual performance goals.[Footnote 19] In addition, 
Congress has articulated positional responsibilities in important 
governmentwide management legislation. For example, the Chief Financial 
Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act), which requires 24 federal agencies to 
have CFOs, clearly lays out the CFOs' responsibilities, including 
developing and maintaining integrated accounting and financial 
management systems; directing, managing, and providing policy guidance 
and oversight of all financial management personnel, activities, and 
operations; and approving and managing financial management systems 
design and enhancement projects. By establishing such responsibilities 
in statute, Congress created clear expectations for the positions and 
underscored its desire for employing a professional and nonpartisan 
approach in connection with these positions. (App. III provides a 
summary of the key responsibilities for statutory chief officer 
positions in the federal government.) 

Each of the four organizations in our study--Treasury, IRS, Justice, 
and MIT--has a senior-level official responsible for integrating the 
key management functions of human capital, financial management, 
information resources management, and acquisition management. Examples 
of other functional responsibilities of the case-study COO/CMOs include 
strategic planning, program evaluation, facilities and installations, 
and safety and security. The COO/CMOs of the four case-study 
organizations are also directly responsible for leading many of the 
business transformation efforts in their respective organizations. At 
IRS, for example, both the COO/CMO and the senior executive of the 
mission side of the agency are heavily involved in managing change 
efforts, but the COO/CMO has primary responsibility for spearheading 
business transformation initiatives that cut across mission-support 
programs and policies. 

The case-study officials we interviewed and the participants of the 
April 2007 forum generally agreed that a senior-level official should 
be responsible for carrying out the COO/CMO role of integrating key 
management functions in the organization. For example, an official from 
one of the federal agencies noted that without someone in the agency 
devoted to management functions, the focus of the agency's senior 
leaders will remain on the policy side of the agency. One of the COO/ 
CMOs of the four organizations commented that there is a benefit in 
having the mission-support activities in an organization grouped 
together under one senior leader so as to support the common interests 
of these mission-support activities. Another COO/CMO told us that his 
role was to "make life easier" for the mission side of the 
organization. Another official echoed these sentiments in that the COO/ 
CMO needs to be viewed by the mission side of the organization as 
adding value as opposed to simply promulgating rules. Several case- 
study officials and forum participants also stressed that the COO/CMO 
must have an authoritative role in the overseeing the agency's budget 
in order to be effective in the position. 

The roles and responsibilities of the COO/CMO related to business 
transformation were also widely discussed in our case-study interviews 
and at the forum. For example, a forum participant said that the senior 
official leading transformation within an agency needs to be in an 
operational role rather than a policy role. Another forum participant 
stressed that although the COO/CMO is a management and transformational 
position, the roles and responsibilities of the position can differ 
depending on the extent to which the agency is undergoing 
transformation. Accordingly, when significant transformation is the 
goal, the role of the COO/CMO should be focused on breakthrough 
improvements to achieve this goal. The COO/CMO at one case-study agency 
said that when organizations carry out these transformation efforts, 
managers throughout the organization will often try to accelerate 
decision making and the execution of change, which can be quite 
detrimental. He noted that in order to prevent these types of problems, 
a federal agency needs the COO/CMO with a role and associated 
responsibilities that allow for directing the speed of change 
implementation while also controlling the level of detail and personal 
involvement in the change. The COO/CMO at another agency remarked that 
in order for an agency to be successful in carrying out any 
transformation process, experienced agency managers need to be involved 
at the beginning of the process and thus the roles and responsibilities 
of the COO/CMO should complement those of other managers in the agency. 

Several agency officials and forum participants told us that it is also 
important to avoid being overly restrictive in specifying the roles and 
responsibilities for the COO/CMO position. For example, a forum 
participant said that Congress should not legislate details of how to 
carry out the responsibilities of a COO/CMO position because 
legislation is geared to the present whereas the agency and the 
environment in which it operates can change over time. Another forum 
participant echoed that any legislation to establish a COO/CMO position 
should not contain detailed roles and responsibilities because it could 
hinder effectiveness in the position. Another forum participant added 
that the roles and responsibilities should be broadly defined, allowing 
flexibility from agency to agency. Another forum participant suggested 
that the agency head could specify the responsibilities of a COO/CMO in 
formal terms, such as in a "tasking memo." Nonetheless, a number of 
agency officials we interviewed stressed the importance of 
communicating to employees throughout the agency the specifics of the 
COO/CMO's actual role in the organization. We have previously noted the 
importance of ensuring that all agency employees are fully aware of the 
duties and key areas of responsibilities for executives in charge of 
major activities or functions in the agency.[Footnote 20] 

Ensure That the COO/CMO Has a High Level of Authority and Clearly 
Delineated Reporting Relationships: 

The COO/CMO concept is consistent with the governance principle that 
there needs to be a single point within agencies with the perspective 
and responsibility to ensure the successful implementation of 
functional management and business transformation efforts. The 
organizational level and span of control of the COO/CMO position is 
crucial in ensuring the incumbent's authority and status within the 
organization. We have previously argued that the COO/CMO position 
should be part of an agency's top leadership, for example, a deputy 
secretary for management.[Footnote 21] At the same time, however, the 
placement of the COO/CMO position needs to take into account existing 
positions and responsibilities to avoid additional layers of management 
that are unnecessary. Regardless of how the position is structured in 
an agency, it is critical that the individuals appointed to these 
positions be vested with sufficient authority to be able to integrate 
management functions and achieve results. 

For the four organizations included in our review, the COO/CMOs either 
reported to the organization head (i.e., second-level reporting 
position) or reported to an individual who reports to the organization 
head (i.e., third-level reporting position). Specifically, the IRS COO/ 
CMO reports to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the MIT COO/CMO 
reports to the President of the university, and the COO/CMOs at 
Treasury and Justice report to the respective deputy positions in those 
departments. (See fig. 1 for simplified organizational charts showing 
the reporting relationships of the four COO/CMO positions.) The COO/ 
CMOs for the four organizations told us that they had the necessary and 
appropriate level of authority at their respective levels within their 
organizations. 

Figure 1: Reporting Relationships for the COO/CMO Positions in Four 
Case-Study Organizations: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a series of flow charts of reporting relationships, with 
the following data depicted: 

Second-level reporting positions: 
Internal Revenue Service:
Commissioner: receives reports from Deputy Commissioner for Services 
and Enforcement; 
Commissioner: receives reports from Deputy Commissioner for Operations 
Support. 

Second-level reporting positions: 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: 
President: receives reports from Provost; 
President: receives reports from Chancellor; 
President: receives reports from Executive Vice-President. 

Third-level reporting positions: 
Department of the Treasury: 
Secretary: receives reports from Deputy Secretary; 
Deputy Secretary: receives reports from: 
* Under Secretary (three positions); 
* Heads of mission bureaus; 
* Assistant Secretary for Management. 

Third-level reporting positions: 
Department of Justice: 
Attorney General: receives reports from Deputy Attorney General; 
Deputy Attorney: General receives reports from: 
* Solicitor General; 
* Associate Attorney General; 
* Heads of mission bureaus; 
* Assistant Attorney General for Administration. 

Source: GAO presentation of IRS, MIT, Treasury, and Justice 
information. 

[End of figure] 

The case-study officials and the forum participants broadly recognized 
that a COO/CMO should have a high enough level of authority to ensure 
the successful implementation of functional management and 
transformational change efforts in the agency. However, the officials 
and participants had mixed views as to the most appropriate 
organizational level for a COO/CMO position. Some interviewees and 
forum participants told us that the COO/CMO position should report to 
the head of the agency (i.e., second-level reporting relationship). A 
department official said, for example, that having a COO/CMO position 
on par with the deputy secretary would demonstrate that management 
issues are viewed as important in the agency. Another agency official 
commented that a COO/CMO reporting to the agency head would more likely 
be involved in key decision making within the organization. Still other 
interviewees and forum participants said that the COO/CMO should report 
to an individual who reports to the organization head (i.e., third- 
level reporting relationship). For example, a department official told 
us that the COO/CMO should be at the under secretary level in any 
department, yet stressed that the organizational level itself would not 
guarantee success in the COO/CMO position. A forum participant said 
that a COO/CMO position should be placed at a high level within the 
organization, but cautioned that a COO/CMO position with a deputy 
secretary as peer would create confusion within the organization if 
responsibility and accountability are not clearly defined. 

Some of the agency officials and forum participants said that the COO/ 
CMO's level on an organizational chart is not as critical as the level 
of authority and executive-level attention that is given to the COO/CMO 
position. For example, a department official told us that regardless of 
where the COO/CMO position is placed on the organizational chart, the 
COO/CMO must have a close relationship with and be a trusted advisor to 
the agency leadership. Another official added that the effectiveness of 
a COO/CMO does not always depend on where he or she is on the 
organizational chart, but mostly on the personality and abilities of 
the individual. A forum participant commented that the reporting 
relationship of the COO/CMO should depend primarily on the agency's 
agenda and mission. He said, for instance, that if the agency is 
focused on multiple issues and there are transformational initiatives 
under way, dual deputies are needed (i.e., similar to the IRS and MIT 
models of governance). 

Additionally, some officials we interviewed commented on COO/CMO 
positions in connection with the relationship between departments and 
their component agencies. For example, an official at one of the case- 
study agencies suggested that the reporting level of the COO/CMO 
position could differ depending on whether the position is in a 
department or a bureau. Namely, the COO/CMO in a department might 
report to the deputy while the COO/CMO at the bureau level could report 
directly to the bureau head. This official noted that at the bureau 
level, senior management is typically more geared toward operations 
rather than policy. Another official suggested the possibility of 
having a COO/CMO position at each of the various bureaus of a 
department, which would then form a team of individuals led by the 
department's COO/CMO to integrate management functions and business 
transformation throughout the department. 

Implementing a COO/CMO Position Could Affect Reporting Relationships of 
Functional Chiefs: 

An important issue to consider when implementing the COO/CMO position 
is the reporting relationships of the statutory management functional 
chiefs, namely the CFO, CIO, CHCO, and CAO. Some of these positions are 
required by statute to report directly to their agency heads; in other 
cases, no direction is provided in statute. However, these functional 
management chiefs could report to a COO/CMO who was given the 
responsibility for integrating the organization's management functions. 
For many large federal departments and agencies, such an arrangement 
would likely require amending existing legislation, for example, the 
CFO Act. This arrangement would need careful analysis to ensure that 
any legislative changes result in augmented attention to management 
issues yet do not inadvertently lead to a reduction in the authority of 
key management officials or the prominence afforded a particular 
management function. 

Although federal law generally requires that CFOs and CIOs report 
directly to their agency heads, this reporting relationship does not 
always happen in practice. For example, in July 2004, we reported on 
the status of CIO roles, responsibilities, and challenges (among other 
things) at 27 major agencies.[Footnote 22] Nineteen of the CIOs in our 
review stated that they reported directly to the agency head in 
carrying out their responsibilities. In the other 8 agencies, the CIOs 
stated that they reported instead to another senior official, such as a 
deputy secretary, under secretary, or assistant secretary. In addition, 
8 of the 19 CIOs who said they had a direct reporting relationship with 
the agency head noted that they also reported to another senior 
executive, usually the deputy secretary or under secretary for 
management, on an operational basis. Only about a third of those who 
did not report to their agency heads expressed a concern with their 
reporting relationships. For the July 2004 report, we also held two 
panels of former agency senior executives responsible for information 
technology who had various views on whether it was important that the 
CIO report to the agency head. For example, one former executive stated 
that such a reporting relationship was extremely important, another 
emphasized that organizational placement was not important if the CIO 
had credibility, and others suggested that the CIO could be effective 
while reporting to a COO. 

Unlike for CFOs and CIOs, the reporting relationships of CHCOs and CAOs 
are not prescribed in federal statute and are at the discretion of the 
agency head. In May 2004, we provided information on the existing 
reporting relationships of the CHCOs as part of our review of federal 
agencies' implementation of the Chief Human Capital Officers Act of 
2002.[Footnote 23] At that time, we noted that more than half (15 of 
24) of the CHCOs reported directly to the agency head, with the 
remainder reporting to another agency official. Some CHCOs who reported 
directly to the agency head told us that this reporting relationship 
gives them an important "seat at the table" where key decisions are 
made. However, some CHCOs who did not report to their agency head said 
having all or most of the agency chief management positions as direct 
reports to the agency heads may impede efficient management 
coordination within the agency. Most of the political appointees (9 of 
12) reported directly to the agency head, while half of the career 
executives (6 of 12) reported to another agency official. 

Many of the officials we interviewed from the case-study organizations 
told us that the management functional chiefs should report directly to 
a COO/CMO, otherwise the COO/CMO would not have the level of authority 
needed to ensure the successful implementation of functional management 
and transformational change efforts in the agency. An agency official 
pointed out, for example, that one of the purposes of integrating 
functions within an agency is to avoid having everyone report directly 
to the agency head. Some interviewees raised concerns about where a 
COO/CMO position might be created in the agency and the resulting 
changes in the level of authority and reporting relationships related 
to the functional management chiefs. For example, an official at one of 
the case-study agencies said that if a COO/CMO position were 
established in an agency and this change in effect resulted in moving 
the functional management chiefs down a level on the organizational 
chart, some functional chiefs might view this change as a demotion 
because they would no longer have a direct line to the deputy. Another 
official maintained that the COO/CMO position should report to the 
agency head in part because the agency could have morale or recruitment 
problems within the functional chief positions if the COO/CMO were at a 
third level on the organization chart and the functional chiefs 
reported to him or her. 

Foster Good Executive-Level Working Relationships for Maximum 
Effectiveness: 

Effective working relationships of the COO/CMO with the agency head and 
his or her peers are essential to the success of the COO/CMO position. 
In various reports over the years, we have stressed the importance of 
good working relationships to achieving program goals and agency 
missions.[Footnote 24] As with other senior-level officials in 
agencies, individuals serving in COO/CMO positions can establish 
effective working relationships through various methods, such as 
forming alliances with other senior managers to help build commitment 
and getting managers from the mission side of the enterprise involved 
and accountable for key management projects. We have also previously 
noted that active participation in executive processes and committees 
facilitates the ability to build effective executive-level working 
relationships.[Footnote 25] Because of high turnover among politically 
appointed leaders, it is particularly important for appointees and 
senior career executives to develop good working relationships from the 
beginning. 

At the four case-study organizations, working relationships among the 
COO/CMOs and other senior leaders were crucial to effectively carrying 
out the respective integration and transformation roles. For example, 
in May 2003, the then-Commissioner of Internal Revenue realigned IRS's 
management structure with the primary change being the creation of an 
operations support organization to be led by a deputy commissioner 
serving in a COO/CMO-type role. This new position, the Deputy 
Commissioner for Operations Support, would be responsible for the 
modernization program and drive productivity across the organization. 
The other deputy--the Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement-
-would be able to focus on the mission side of the agency, including 
prioritization of multiple enforcement initiatives and reducing cycle 
time for enforcement actions. Officials at IRS stressed the importance 
of the working relationship between the agency's two deputy 
commissioners--one serving as the COO/CMO--in carrying out their 
respective roles and responsibilities in leading the mission and 
mission-support offices of the agency. According to IRS officials we 
interviewed, open communication and carefully planned coordination 
between the mission and mission-support sides of the agency help 
significantly in ensuring that the people, processes, and technology 
are well-aligned in support of the agency's mission. 

Officials at MIT echoed the crucial importance of the working 
relationship between the Executive Vice President, who serves in a COO/ 
CMO-type position and leads the mission-support offices of the 
university, and the Provost, who oversees the academic offices. MIT 
officials pointed out, for instance, that both university executives 
work closely together on formulating an organizational budget to help 
ensure the most effective use of resources. An MIT official reiterated 
the comments of colleagues in stating that the relationship between the 
COO/CMO and Provost of the university is paramount to ensuring the 
effective integration of the academic and administrative sides of the 
university. The official added that over the years there have been 
differences in the working styles of the individuals in the Executive 
Vice President and Provost positions, but these relationships were 
still effective. Many forum participants confirmed the view that good 
executive-level working relationships are crucial for carrying out the 
COO/CMO position. 

Establish Integration and Transformation Structures and Processes in 
Addition to the COO/CMO Position: 

While the position of COO/CMO can be a critical means for integrating 
and transforming business and management functions, other structures 
and processes need to be in place to support the COO/CMO in management 
integration and business transformation efforts across the 
organization. These structures and processes can include governance 
boards, business transformation offices, senior executive committees, 
functional councils for areas such as human capital and information 
technology, and short-term or temporary cross-functional teams, such as 
a project task force--all of which would be actively involved in 
planning, budgeting, monitoring, information sharing, or decision 
making. To bring focus and direction and help enforce decisions in the 
agency, the COO/CMO should be a key player in actively leading or 
supporting these integration structures and processes. 

We have previously reported that dedicating an implementation team to 
manage a transformation process is a key practice of successful mergers 
and organizational transformations.[Footnote 26] Because the 
transformation process is a massive undertaking, the implementation 
team must have a "cadre of champions" to ensure that changes are 
thoroughly implemented and sustained over time. Establishing networks, 
including a senior executive council, functional teams, or crosscutting 
teams, can help the implementation team conduct the day-to-day 
activities of the merger or transformation and help ensure that efforts 
are coordinated and integrated. To be most effective, establishing 
clearly defined roles and responsibilities within this network assigns 
accountability for parts of the implementation process, helps in 
reaching agreement on work priorities, and builds a code of conduct 
that will help all teams to work effectively. Our work on business 
transformation initiatives at DOD and DHS and at DHS's U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services shows that these agencies have used various 
governance and leadership processes and structures to help modernize, 
transform, and integrate the business side of their 
organizations.[Footnote 27] For example, each organization established 
a business transformation office or agency to provide a dedicated team 
to implement its transformation, although DHS subsequently eliminated 
its office. 

At the four organizations included in our case-study reviews, the COO/ 
CMO position is a key player in integrating and coordinating mission- 
related programs and mission-support functions at the senior levels of 
the organization. Still, in addition to the important integration and 
transformation role of the COO/CMO, other structures and processes need 
to be in place. These approaches include structures and processes for 
coordinating mission and mission-support functions at the senior levels 
of the organization, as shown below. 

* With its organizational realignment in 2003, IRS established a 
Strategy and Resources Committee to govern IRS strategy and ensure that 
resource allocations are appropriate for meeting mission needs. As the 
COO/CMO of IRS, the Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support chaired 
this committee, which included seven other senior IRS officials, 
including the Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement, the 
CFO, and the CIO. Responsibilities of the committee, which met every 
other month, included overseeing the agency's strategic planning 
process and improvement initiatives, reviewing budget initiatives for 
alignment with the agency's strategic plan, and reviewing the agency's 
progress against critical performance measures. More recently, 
according to IRS officials, as the organization structure and the COO/ 
CMO position matured and the need for more frequent exchanges of 
information grew, the strategy and resources committee has evolved into 
a monthly senior executive team meeting that deals with strategy and 
resource issues as well as other topics related to resource allocation 
and business planning. 

* At Treasury, the bureau head meetings and the Executive Planning 
Board are two mechanisms that the COO/CMO uses to integrate and 
coordinate management functions across the department. The heads of the 
Treasury bureaus meet regularly as a group to serve as an authorizing 
body for carrying out the department's mission responsibilities. 
According to Treasury officials, the COO/CMO has used these monthly 
meetings as a mechanism for discussing management issues with the 
various bureaus and trying to create a shared approach to improving 
integration of the department's management functions. Furthermore, 
Treasury's Executive Planning Board leads the department's annual 
budget and strategic planning process. As chair of the Executive 
Planning Board, the COO/CMO at Treasury provides executive oversight of 
the planning process, helping to identify trends and leverage 
opportunities for coordination and integration across the department. 

* As the COO/CMO at Justice, the Assistant Attorney General for 
Administration has a standing role at a monthly meeting of Justice 
component heads to advise them on matters related to management issues 
in the department, such as the status of the department's budget and 
new management requirements, as well as to hear component heads' 
concerns and ideas for addressing management issues. The Justice COO/ 
CMO also chairs a monthly meeting of the departmental components' 
executive officers (or their equivalents), who are generally career 
staff responsible for each component's management functions (budget, 
finance, procurement, facilities, information management, and human 
resources). According to Justice officials, this monthly meeting serves 
as a forum for addressing governmentwide and departmentwide management 
policy and operational matters, and these meetings help to ensure that 
management issues are appropriately addressed at the component level 
within the department. 

* MIT has also relied heavily on committees to integrate management 
functions across the university. As the COO/CMO of MIT, the Executive 
Vice President participates in a weekly "foursome meeting" with the 
university President, Provost, and Vice President for Institute Affairs 
to discuss strategic issues for the organization. The COO/CMO is also a 
member of the university's Academic Council, a group of about 20 senior-
level university officials involved in the overall administration of 
the university who meet weekly to confer on matters of organizational 
policy and to advise the university President. According to an MIT 
official, if decisions on issues cannot be reached at lower committee 
levels within the university, such issues can be brought before the 
Academic Council for resolution. 

Another common mechanism for integrating and coordinating management 
functions across the organization is the use of standing committees and 
subcommittees that deal with specific issues and topics related to 
various functions, such as a "human capital council" and its 
subcommittees. The COO/CMO is usually directly involved or provides 
important institutional support for these governance structures and 
their related processes, as shown below. 

* With its organizational realignment in 2003, IRS established a Human 
Capital Board composed of representatives from across the agency's 
major units to obtain input and plan and monitor human capital 
initiatives and programs. The Human Capital Board, one of IRS's 
governance boards, is headed by IRS's Human Capital Officer and 
includes the Chief of Staff and the head of equal employment 
opportunity. The board governs IRS-wide human capital policy and plans 
workforce strategy and initiatives. 

* MIT established a human resources council, called HR Partners, 
composed of various staff from across the university with human 
resources responsibilities. MIT's council organizes formal training 
events for the human resources staff using the expertise and resources 
of the university's business school as well as informal events, such as 
"lunch and learn" sessions to share information related to human 
capital management. 

* Treasury's CFO Council, which meets monthly, comprises the chief 
financial management officers of the department's bureaus and major 
offices. The COO/CMO at Treasury serves as the department's CFO and 
chairs the department's CFO Council with the deputy CFO. Treasury's CFO 
Council carries out its role through various working groups, which 
convene for recurring events, such as the preparation of the 
department's financial statements and annual reporting on internal 
control issues. 

* Justice's CIO Council, composed of department and component CIOs, 
deals with all matters of departmentwide significance related to 
information technology policy and implementation. The Justice COO/CMO 
is responsible for supervising the overall direction of the CIO Council 
in formulating department policies, standards, and procedures for 
information systems and reviewing and approving contracts for 
information processing led by the department. 

Promote Individual Accountability and Performance through Specific Job 
Qualifications and Effective Performance Management: 

A specific set of job qualifications for the COO/CMO position would aid 
in ensuring that the incumbent has the necessary knowledge and 
experience in the areas within the job's portfolio. Our interviews at 
the four organizations and our prior work revealed that essential 
qualifications for a COO/CMO position include having broad management 
experience and a proven track record of making decisions in complex 
settings as well as having direct experience in, or solid knowledge of, 
the respective organization. To further clarify expectations and 
reinforce accountability, a clearly defined performance agreement with 
measurable organizational and individual goals would be warranted as 
well. As underscored in our interviews and the forum discussion, any 
performance agreement for the COO/CMO should contain realistic 
expectations as well as appropriate incentives and rewards for 
outstanding performance and consequences for those who do not perform. 

Job Qualifications Can Better Ensure Requisite Management Skills and 
Abilities: 

We have previously proposed that a specific set of job qualifications 
for the COO/CMO position could aid in ensuring that the officeholder 
has the necessary knowledge and experience in the areas within the 
job's portfolio.[Footnote 28] We have suggested that the individual 
serving in a COO/CMO position be selected based on (1) demonstrated 
leadership skills in managing large and complex organizations and (2) 
experience achieving results in strategic planning, financial 
management, communications and information resources management, human 
capital strategy, acquisition management, and change management. We 
have also previously suggested that Congress consider formalizing the 
broad qualifications for any COO/CMO positions established in federal 
departments and agencies. By articulating qualification requirements 
directly in statute, Congress would be taking an important step toward 
further ensuring that high-quality individuals would be selected. 

As a point of comparison, Congress has set out qualifications for other 
management positions established in various federal agencies. For 
example, under statute, the Deputy Architect of the Capitol/COO is to 
have strong leadership skills and demonstrated ability in management in 
such areas as strategic planning, performance management, worker 
safety, customer satisfaction, and service quality. The COO of Federal 
Student Aid is to have demonstrated management ability and expertise in 
information technology, including experience with financial 
systems.[Footnote 29] The COO of the Air Traffic Organization is to 
have a demonstrated ability in management and knowledge of or 
experience in aviation. Additionally, the Commissioner for Patents and 
the Commissioner for Trademarks are to have demonstrated management 
ability and professional background and experience in patent law and 
trademark law, respectively.[Footnote 30] Congress has also established 
overall job qualifications for two of the management functional chief 
positions in the federal government--the CFOs and the CIOs. The CFOs 
are to "possess demonstrated ability in general management of, and 
knowledge of and extensive practical experience in, financial 
management practices in large governmental or business entities." The 
CIOs are to be selected with special attention to relevant experience 
and professional qualifications related to records management, 
information dissemination, security, and technology management, among 
other areas. 

As with other Senior Executive Service (SES) appointments, the 
qualifications for the two federal career COO/CMO positions (Justice 
and IRS) required general management skills and characteristics 
reflected in the five executive core qualifications adopted by the 
Office of Personnel Management (OPM), namely leading change, leading 
people, results driven, business acumen, and building 
coalitions.[Footnote 31] In addition, SES positions can have technical 
and professional qualifications that are specific to each position. For 
example, according to the most recent job vacancy announcement for the 
Assistant Attorney General for Administration position at Justice, the 
COO/CMO is to have, among other things, experience in the management of 
a large and complex organization with diverse personnel as well as the 
demonstrated ability to direct the planning, implementation, 
integration, and evaluation of budget and management of major 
administration programs in a cabinet-level department. According to the 
position specification for the Executive Vice President at MIT, the 
qualifications of the COO/CMO position included senior financial and 
operational leadership experience in a large, complex organization with 
a reputation for world-class financial and administrative management; 
successful experience in leading change in a large, complex 
organization; and an understanding of the culture of an academic 
institution. 

The case-study officials and forum participants identified a range of 
recommended qualifications for a COO/CMO-type position in federal 
departments and agencies. For example, officials at each of the four 
organizations told us that communication and collaboration skills are 
critical for the COO/CMO role and that an essential qualification for a 
COO/CMO position is having broad management experience in making 
decisions in complex settings. Some of the officials we interviewed 
said that having both private and public sector experience would be 
valuable. An agency official said that public and private sector 
experience are both useful in serving in a COO/CMO position in that 
career federal employees tend to strive for long-lasting improvements, 
while individuals from the private sector often have a fresh 
perspective on addressing challenges within the agency. Another 
department official cautioned that if both private and public sector 
experience were required qualifications for a COO/CMO position, the 
agency would likely be disqualifying some individuals who could 
effectively carry out the position. In addition, some officials noted 
that having prior federal experience is beneficial because of the 
myriad of federal regulations governing human capital, financial 
management, information resources management, acquisition management, 
and other management functions. In addition, some interviewees told us 
that it was not necessary to have extensive experience with each key 
management function but having broad knowledge of at least one of them 
would be helpful for a COO/CMO. Several forum participants stated that 
the COO/CMO should have experience in managing large organizations and 
in successfully leading large-scale change efforts. 

The case-study officials and forum participants also identified a 
number of pros and cons for formalizing the qualifications of a COO/CMO 
position in federal statute. Some advantages to placing qualifications 
in statute included better ensuring that the agency brought on someone 
who had the knowledge, skills, and experience to effectively carry out 
the position and helping to ensure transparency in the hiring process. 
For example, a forum participant, referring to the job qualifications 
for the CFO positions as spelled out in the CFO Act, said that over 
time the individuals selected for CFO positions increasingly matched 
the statutory job qualifications. Disadvantages of formalized 
qualifications included unnecessarily screening out talented persons 
who could effectively carry out the position and overlooking that the 
job could change over time depending on the needs of the agency and the 
focus and talent of other senior agency managers. For example, a 
department official said that formalizing specific qualifications in 
statute does not provide enough flexibility in hiring the right person 
for the job, and another official added that the head of the agency 
should determine the qualifications needed for the COO/CMO position 
based on the strengths and weaknesses of current senior leaders and the 
overall needs of the agency. Nonetheless, many interviewees told us 
that if placed in statute, any qualifications for the COO/CMO position 
should be general enough to provide flexibility in selecting an 
individual who best matches the current needs of the organization. 

Performance Agreements Can Help to Hold COO/CMOs Accountable: 

Another potentially important accountability mechanism to support the 
COO/CMO role is to use clearly defined, results-oriented performance 
agreements accompanied by appropriate incentives, rewards, and other 
consequences.[Footnote 32] We have reported on a number of benefits of 
performance agreements.[Footnote 33] Specifically, performance 
agreements can: 

* strengthen alignment of results-oriented goals with daily operations, 

* foster collaboration across organizational boundaries, 

* enhance opportunities to discuss and routinely use performance 
information to make program improvements, 

* provide a results-oriented basis for individual accountability, and: 

* maintain continuity of program goals during leadership transitions. 

While performance agreements can be implemented administratively, 
Congress has also required performance agreements in statute as well as 
provided for performance assessments with consequences. For example, 
Congress has required the COO at the Department of Education's Office 
of Federal Student Aid and the Secretary of Education to enter into an 
annual performance agreement with measurable organizational and 
individual goals that the COO is accountable for achieving. Further, 
the COO's progress in meeting these goals is to form the basis of a 
possible performance bonus of up to 50 percent of base pay, as well as 
any decisions by the Secretary to remove or reappoint him or her. 
Similarly, Congress made it clear in statute that the Deputy Architect 
of the Capitol/COO may be removed from office by the Architect of the 
Capitol for failure to meet performance goals. Top civil servants in 
other countries--such as New Zealand, Canada, and the United Kingdom-- 
also have performance agreements. 

Of the four organizations included in our study, two of the COO/CMOs-- 
both career civil servants--had performance agreements, and two did 
not. The two performance agreements included a listing of overall 
objectives and commitments for each position along with general 
benchmarks and standards to be used in assessing the COO/CMO's 
performance. For example, one of the commitments listed in the IRS COO/ 
CMO's performance agreement for fiscal year 2006 was to "drive 
processes to increase IRS security preparedness," which would be 
measured, in part, by an improved score for security under the PMA. The 
IRS COO/CMO's performance agreement also called for building strong 
alliances and gaining cooperation to achieve mutually satisfying 
solutions as well as acting to continuously improve products and 
services in the effort to meet overall performance commitments. At 
Justice, the COO/CMO's performance work plan, with the elements and 
objectives that compose it, serves as a performance agreement for the 
Assistant Attorney General for Administration. The objectives listed in 
the Justice COO/CMO's performance work plan for fiscal year 2007 also 
included direct references to managing and implementing the 
department's approved plan to improve organizational performance, as 
outlined in the PMA. 

Many of the case-study officials and forum participants told us that 
performance agreements can help to ensure accountability for the COO/ 
CMO position in setting out clear requirements and specific objectives. 
For example, an agency official commented that performance agreements 
have been effective in setting the stage for improved performance in 
his agency. A department official added that the performance agreement 
should have broad objectives and specific accomplishments that are well-
documented in order to hold the COO/CMO accountable. Still other 
officials stressed that the COO/CMO's performance objectives should be 
directly linked to an agency's strategic plan. The officials we 
interviewed generally agreed that any performance agreement should have 
a removal clause in the event that the COO/CMO does not perform 
well.[Footnote 34] Officials also generally agreed that any performance 
agreement should have incentives, such as a bonus, for meeting or 
exceeding expectations as spelled out in the agreement. 

Provide for Continuity of Leadership in the COO/CMO Position: 

Given that organizational results and transformational efforts can take 
years to achieve, agencies need to take steps to ensure leadership 
continuity in the COO/CMO position. Foremost, an agency needs to have 
an executive succession and transition planning strategy that ensures a 
sustained commitment and continuity of leadership as individual leaders 
arrive or depart or serve in acting capacities. For example, in 
creating a CMO position for DHS, Congress has required the DHS CMO to 
develop a transition and succession plan to guide the transition of 
management functions with a new administration. The administration and 
Congress could also consider options of other possible mechanisms to 
help agencies in maintaining leadership continuity for the position. 
For example, the benefits of a term appointment for the position, such 
as instilling a long-term focus, need to be weighed along with the 
potential challenges of a term appointment, such as a lack of rapport 
between members of a new senior leadership team with any change in 
administration. Moreover, as emphasized in our interviews and the forum 
discussion, career appointments for the COO/CMO have advantages that 
should be fully assessed when considering the position's roles, 
responsibilities, and reporting relationships. 

Use of Term Appointments for COO/CMO Positions Would Help to Provide 
Continuity: 

The establishment of a term appointment is one mechanism that should be 
considered for providing continuity to the COO/CMO position. We have 
previously endorsed setting a term appointment for the COO/CMO position 
because it would help provide the continuing focused attention 
essential to successfully completing multiyear transformations. Large- 
scale change initiatives and organizational transformations typically 
require long-term, concerted effort, often taking years to complete and 
extending beyond the tenure of many political leaders. Providing a COO/ 
CMO with a term appointment of about 5 to 7 years would be one way to 
institutionalize accountability over the extended periods needed to 
help ensure that long-term management and transformation initiatives 
provide meaningful and sustainable results. 

Statutory term appointments currently exist for various senior-level 
positions in a number of agencies, bureaus, commissions, and boards in 
the federal government. As described in table 1, the lengths of such 
terms can range from 3 to 15 years. The methods of appointment for 
these term positions vary as well, including appointment by (1) the 
President with the advice and consent of the Senate, (2) the secretary 
of a cabinet-level department, or (3) an agency head with the approval 
of an oversight committee. Government agencies in the United Kingdom, 
New Zealand, and Ireland also have COO-type positions in place with 
term appointments of 5 to 7 years. 

Table 1: Term Appointments at Selected U.S. Agencies: 

Agency: Air Traffic Organization,[A] Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA); 
Position title and length of term: Chief Operating Officer; 5 years; 
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the 
FAA Administrator, with the approval of the Air Traffic Services 
Committee. There is no statutory provision on reappointment of the 
officeholder; 
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms: The 
COO is to serve at the pleasure of the Administrator, and the 
Administrator is to make every effort to ensure stability and 
continuity in the leadership of the air traffic control system. 
Appointments to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of term 
shall be only for the remainder of that term. 

Agency: Architect of the Capitol; 
Position title and length of term: Architect of the Capitol; 10 years; 
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the 
President, following recommendations from a special congressional 
commission, and confirmed by the Senate. May be appointed to more than 
one 10-year term; 
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms: 
There are no statutory conditions on the authority of the President to 
remove the officeholder. No statutory provision. 

Agency: Federal Bureau of Investigation; 
Position title and length of term: Director; 10 years; 
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the 
President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The officeholder 
may not be reappointed; 
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms: 
There are no statutory conditions on the authority of the President to 
remove the officeholder; No statutory provision. 

Agency: Federal Reserve Board; 
Position title and length of term: Chairman; 4 years[B]; 
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the 
President with the advice and consent of the Senate. There is no 
statutory limitation on a Chairman serving more than one 4-year 
term.[C]; 
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms: 
President may remove members for cause. An individual appointed to fill 
a vacancy among the seven members of the board shall hold office only 
for the unexpired term of his or her predecessor. 

Agency: Federal Student Aid, Department of Education; 
Position title and length of term: Chief Operating Officer; 3 to 5 
years; 
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the 
Secretary of Education. May be reappointed by the Secretary to 
subsequent terms of 3 to 5 years as long as the incumbent's performance 
is satisfactory per required annual performance agreement; 
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms: The 
COO may be removed by the President or by the Secretary for misconduct 
or failure to meet performance goals set forth in the performance 
agreement. The President or the Secretary must communicate the reasons 
for any such removal to the appropriate committees of Congress. No 
statutory provision. 

Agency: Government Accountability Office; 
Position title and length of term: Comptroller General; 15 years; 
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the 
President, following recommendations from a special congressional 
commission, and confirmed by the Senate. The officeholder is limited to 
a single 15-year term; 
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms: The 
Comptroller General may be removed by impeachment or by adoption of a 
joint resolution of Congress. Removal by joint resolution can occur 
only after notice and an opportunity for a hearing and only for certain 
specified reasons: permanent disability, inefficiency, neglect of duty, 
malfeasance, felony, or conduct involving moral turpitude. No statutory 
provision. 

Agency: Internal Revenue Service; 
Position title and length of term: Commissioner; 5 years; 
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the 
President with the advice and consent of the Senate; May be appointed 
to more than one 5-year term; 
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms: 
There are no statutory conditions on the authority of the President to 
remove the officeholder. Appointments to fill a vacancy occurring 
before the expiration of term shall be only for the remainder of that 
term. 

Agency: Office of Personnel Management; 
Position title and length of term: Director; 4 years[D]; 
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the 
President with the advice and consent of the Senate. There is no 
statutory provision on reappointment of the officeholder; 
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms: 
There are no statutory conditions on the authority of the President to 
remove the officeholder. No statutory provision. 

Agency: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; 
Position title and length of term: Comptroller of the Currency; 5 
years; 
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the 
President with the advice and consent of the Senate. There is no 
statutory provision on reappointment of the officeholder; 
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms: May 
be removed by the President for reasons to be communicated by him or 
her to the Senate. No statutory provision. 

Agency: Office of Thrift Supervision; 
Position title and length of term: Director; 5 years[E]; 
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the 
President with the advice and consent of the Senate. There is no 
statutory provision on reappointment of the officeholder; 
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms: 
There are no statutory conditions on the authority of the President to 
remove the officeholder. Appointments to fill a vacancy occurring 
before the expiration of a term shall be appointed only for the 
remainder of that term. 

Agency: Social Security Administration; 
Position title and length of term: Commissioner; 6 years[F]; 
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the 
President with the advice and consent of the Senate. There is no 
statutory provision on reappointment of the officeholder; 
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms: The 
officeholder may be removed only pursuant to a finding by the President 
of neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. Appointments to fill a 
vacancy occurring before the expiration of a term shall be appointed 
only for the remainder of that term. 

Agency: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; 
Position title and length of term: Commissioner for Patents; 5 years; 
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the 
Secretary of Commerce. May be reappointed to subsequent terms by the 
Secretary as long as the incumbent's performance is satisfactory per 
required annual performance agreement; 
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms: The 
Secretary may remove the Commissioner for misconduct or unsatisfactory 
performance under the required performance agreement. The Secretary 
must provide notification of any such removal to both Houses of 
Congress. No statutory provision. 

Agency: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; 
Position title and length of term: Commissioner for Trademarks; 5 
years; 
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the 
Secretary of Commerce. May be reappointed to subsequent terms by the 
Secretary as long as the incumbent's performance is satisfactory per 
required annual performance agreement; 
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms: The 
Secretary may remove the Commissioner for misconduct or unsatisfactory 
performance under the required performance agreement. The Secretary 
must provide notification of any such removal to both Houses of 
Congress. No statutory provision. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] Executive Order No. 13180 (Dec. 7, 2000) established the Air 
Traffic Organization within FAA and gave responsibility to head the Air 
Traffic Organization to the Chief Operating Officer for the Air Traffic 
Control System of FAA, a position created pursuant to Pub. L. No. 106- 
181 (Apr. 5, 2000). 

[B] Members of the Federal Reserve Board, including the Chairman, serve 
terms of 14 years from the expiration of the terms of their 
predecessors. The Chairman's term is 4 years. 

[C] A Chairman may not be reappointed after serving a full 14-year term 
as a member. 

[D] The 4-year term does not have to coincide with the President's term 
in office. 

[E] An individual may continue to serve after the expiration of his or 
her term until a successor is appointed. 

[F] An individual may continue to serve after the expiration of his or 
her term until a successor enters office. 

[End of table] 

Term appointments for senior positions in federal agencies have been 
established in a number of cases primarily to promote and enhance 
continuity and independence. For example, during congressional 
deliberations on the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which 
established OPM, conferees agreed that the OPM Director should have a 4-
year term but declined the requirement that the term coincide with the 
President's so as to afford the Director with a measure of independence 
in performing his or her duties. During congressional deliberations in 
1994 to establish the Social Security Administration as an independent 
agency, creating a 6-year term for the agency's Commissioner was viewed 
as one key feature to insulate the position from short-term political 
pressures and provide increased stability in the management of the 
agency. In testimony leading up to the 1998 restructuring of IRS, the 
explanations for establishing a 5-year term for the Commissioner of 
Internal Revenue chiefly centered on the goal of providing continuity 
in the position. 

At the four case-study organizations, none of the COO/CMOs were 
appointed or selected for their positions under a term appointment at 
the time of our review. As the COO/CMO at Treasury, the Assistant 
Secretary for Management was a noncareer position serving at the will 
of the President. As the COO/CMOs at Justice and IRS, respectively, the 
Assistant Attorney General for Administration and the Deputy 
Commissioner for Operations Support were both career SES positions 
without designated terms.[Footnote 35] As the COO/CMO at MIT, the 
Executive Vice President served MIT's President and the university's 
board of trustees and held the position without any predetermined 
length of service. 

The case-study officials and forum participants agreed with the need to 
ensure leadership continuity in the COO/CMO position, but there were 
mixed views as to whether a term appointment would be a strong 
mechanism for ensuring continuity in a COO/CMO position. Advantages of 
a term appointment included fostering accountability for the incumbent 
and the long-term consequences of his or her decisions, signaling to 
others in the agency that the incumbent will likely be in the position 
for the long term, and protecting the incumbent from undue political 
influence. Some case-study officials said that term appointments could 
potentially be a vehicle for promoting and enhancing continuity of 
leadership in the agency, assuming that the length of the term was 
sufficient to help ensure that long-term management and transformation 
initiatives are successfully completed. A forum participant said that 
changes in leadership at an agency would not pose a problem as long as 
the goals and milestones were clear and the definition of success was 
the same regardless of the leadership. 

Limitations of a term appointment included the need to develop new 
working relationships with a different leadership team when an 
administration changes as well as the fact that incumbents can readily 
leave the position prior to the end of any designated term. A number of 
forum participants expressed a strong concern that the agency head 
should have the ability to select the agency's leadership team, 
especially given that personal relationships and rapport are so 
important. For example, a participant said that an individual who is 
"inherited" in the COO/CMO position by another Secretary can be easily 
marginalized. Some forum participants had concerns that longer terms, 
such as 7 years, would deter individuals from applying for COO/CMO 
positions. During the forum, however, the Comptroller General pointed 
out that many individuals would accept a COO/CMO position out of a 
desire to serve, regardless of term. 

Career Appointments Could Be Option for Continuity in COO/CMO 
Positions: 

Another option for promoting the continuity of leadership in the COO/ 
CMO position is the use of career appointments. As we have previously 
reported, high turnover among politically appointed leaders in federal 
agencies can make it difficult to follow through with organizational 
transformation because the length of time often needed to provide 
meaningful and sustainable results can easily outlast the tenures of 
top political appointees. In previous testimony, we have suggested that 
the individual serving in a COO/CMO position be selected without regard 
to political affiliation.[Footnote 36] 

At the time of our review, the individuals in the COO/CMO positions at 
the three federal case-study agencies served under varying types of 
appointments, including both career and noncareer. As the COO/CMO at 
Treasury, the Assistant Secretary for Management was a presidentially 
appointed, Senate-confirmed position. As the COO/CMO at Justice, the 
Assistant Attorney General for Administration was a career SES 
position, but appointment to the position is subject to the approval of 
the President but not subject to Senate confirmation. As the COO/CMO at 
IRS, the Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support was also a career 
SES position.[Footnote 37] 

The case-study officials and forum participants offered a range of 
insights, views, and examples from their experiences regarding the 
issue of promoting continuity in the COO/CMO position by using career 
appointments. Several officials we interviewed at the case-study 
organizations told us that career appointments for COO/CMO-type 
positions in federal departments and agencies would provide a number of 
benefits over political appointments. These interviewees said that 
career SES personnel are more likely to help ensure continuity in the 
position, are generally more familiar with federal management issues, 
and can be easily reassigned to another position if they are not 
effective in the COO/CMO role. A department official also told us that 
another advantage in serving as a career COO/CMO is the degree of 
independence that can be brought to important decisions under 
consideration at an agency. Some forum participants agreed that career 
senior executives were the best option for filling COO/CMO positions 
because career executives could offer continuity and experience as 
administrations come and go. A participant remarked that because 
political appointees currently fill many of the executive-level 
administrative management positions that in the past were filled by 
career executives, a loss of continuity and experience has resulted. 

Some agency officials and forum participants raised concerns about 
filling COO/CMO positions with career civil servants. The challenges 
cited include the view that there might not be enough qualified career 
applicants for these positions and restrictions on the administration's 
ability to select individuals for these positions. For example, one 
forum participant said that the President and Secretary should have 
latitude in determining who fills the COO/CMO position because the 
relationship is crucial. There was also discussion on whether the 
senior management official in an agency should be a presidential 
appointment requiring Senate confirmation, while Senate confirmation 
would not be required of those officials who lead specific management 
functions (for example, financial management, information technology, 
or human capital) and who report to that senior management official. 
Forum participants differed in their views on the appropriate 
appointment type for the COO/CMO. During the forum, the Comptroller 
General suggested that some COO/CMO positions could be presidential 
appointments with Senate confirmation and others could be appointments 
without Senate confirmation.[Footnote 38] 

Conclusions: 

Given the long-standing management challenges faced by many government 
agencies, as well as the organizational transformation now taking place 
across government in response to a post-9/11 environment and other 
changes, new leadership models are needed to help elevate, integrate, 
and institutionalize business transformation and management reform 
efforts. A COO/CMO, given adequate authority, responsibility, and 
accountability, could provide the leadership necessary to sustain 
organizational change over a long term. 

While they may share a number of common circumstances, each department 
and agency in the federal government nevertheless faces its own unique 
set of characteristics and challenges in attempting to improve and 
transform its business operations. Yet as we learned from our case 
study and forum discussion, a number of common criteria can be used to 
determine the type of COO/CMO that would be appropriate in a federal 
agency. Once such a determination is made, a number of common 
strategies can be adopted to put such a position into place and to help 
ensure that it will work effectively. The strategies underscore the 
importance of clearly identified roles and responsibilities, good 
working relationships, inclusive decision-making structures and 
processes, and solid accountability mechanisms. 

As Congress considers COO/CMO positions at selected federal agencies, 
the criteria and strategies we identified should help to highlight key 
issues that need to be considered, both in design of the positions and 
in implementation. While Congress is currently focused on two of the 
most challenging agencies--DOD and DHS--the problems they face are, to 
varying degrees, shared by the rest of the federal government. Each 
agency, therefore, could consider the type of COO/CMO that would be 
appropriate for its organization and adopt the strategies we outline to 
implement such a position. Because it is composed of the senior 
management officials in each department and agency, the President's 
Management Council, working closely with OMB, could play a valuable 
role in leading such as assessment and helping to ensure that due 
consideration is given to how each agency can improve its leadership 
structure for management. Moreover, given the council's charter to 
oversee government management reforms, it can help institutionalize a 
leadership position that will be essential to overseeing current and 
future reform efforts. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To address business transformation and management challenges facing 
federal agencies, we recommend that the Director of OMB work with the 
President's Management Council to (1) use the criteria that we have 
developed for determining the type of COO/CMO positions that ought to 
be established in the federal agencies that are members of the council 
and (2) once the types of COO/CMOs have been determined, use the key 
strategies we have identified in implementing these positions. 

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

Congress should consider the criteria and strategies for establishing 
and implementing COO/CMO positions as it develops and reviews 
legislative proposals aimed at addressing business transformation and 
management challenges facing federal agencies. In doing so, the 
implementation of any approach should be determined within the context 
of the specific facts and circumstances that relate to each individual 
agency. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the 
Director of OMB. The Associate Director for OMB Administration and 
Government Performance told us that OMB had no comments on the draft 
report. We also provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of the 
Treasury, the Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Acting 
Attorney General, the Executive Vice President of MIT, and the 
participants of the April 2007 forum for their review and technical 
comments. Treasury, IRS, and several forum participants provided us 
with technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents 
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 45 days 
from its date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the 
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs, the Chairman and Ranking Member of 
the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and other 
interested congressional parties. We will also send copies to the 
Director of OMB, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Commissioner of 
Internal Revenue, the Attorney General, and the President of MIT. In 
addition, we will make copies available to others upon request. The 
report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report, please 
contact me on (202) 512-6806 or [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 IV. 

Signed by: 

Bernice Steinhardt: 
Director, Strategic Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

The objectives for this study were to identify: 

* criteria that can be used to determine the type of chief operating 
officer (COO)/chief management officer (CMO) or similar position that 
ought to be established in federal agencies and: 

* strategies for implementing COO/CMO positions to elevate, integrate, 
and institutionalize key management functions and business 
transformation efforts in federal agencies. 

To identify these criteria and strategies, we (1) gathered information 
on the experiences and views of officials at four organizations with 
COO/CMO-type positions and (2) convened a Comptroller General's forum 
to gather insights from individuals with experience and expertise in 
business transformation, federal and private sector management, and 
change management. 

To select the organizations to include in our study, we collected and 
reviewed literature on general management integration approaches and 
organizational structures of public and private sector organizations, 
and we reviewed our prior work on the COO/CMO concept as well as 
organizational transformation issues at the Department of Defense (DOD) 
and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We also collected and 
analyzed organizational charts of the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act 
federal agencies as well as those federal agencies required to report 
under the President's Management Agenda. We also consulted with various 
nonprofit organizations with experience in federal and state/local 
government. We sought to identify organizations that had senior-level 
officials with responsibility for integrating key management functions, 
including, at a minimum, human capital, financial management, 
information technology, and acquisition management, and who generally 
did not have direct responsibility for the mission programs and 
policies of their organizations. We considered a range of diverse 
missions and also took into account that the COO/CMOs of the 
organizations were appointed to their positions under varying methods. 
Our organization selection process was not designed to identify 
examples that could be considered representative of all COO/CMO-type 
positions. 

The four organizations included in our review are three federal 
agencies and one nonprofit organization: the Department of the Treasury 
(Treasury), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Department of 
Justice (Justice), and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 
At the headquarters of these four organizations, we interviewed senior 
officials and we collected and reviewed documents related to the COO/ 
CMO position. We conducted semistructured interviews with the 
individuals serving in the COO/CMO positions (Acting Assistant 
Secretary for Management at Treasury, Deputy Commissioner for 
Operations Support at IRS, Assistant Attorney General for 
Administration at Justice, and Executive Vice President at MIT) as well 
as those managers who reported directly to the COO/CMOs. These 
interviews focused on how the COO/CMO position functioned in their 
respective organizations as well as the officials' views and insights 
on issues such as roles and responsibilities, reporting relationships, 
accountability mechanisms, and decision-making structures and 
processes. In carrying out our work at these four organizations, we did 
not assess the effectiveness of each COO/CMO serving in these 
respective organizations nor did we determine whether any specific COO/ 
CMO position directly resulted in a higher level of organizational 
performance. Rather, we attempted to highlight the experiences and 
views of officials in carrying out the COO/CMO position. 

The Comptroller General also hosted a forum on April 24, 2007, to bring 
together former and current government executives and officials from 
private business and nonprofit organizations to discuss when and how a 
COO/CMO or similar position might effectively provide the continuing, 
focused attention essential for integrating key management functions 
and undertaking multiyear organizational transformation initiatives. 
This forum was designed for the participants to discuss these issues 
openly and without individual attribution. Participants were selected 
for their expertise but also to represent a variety of perspectives. 
Prior to the forum, we provided each of the participants with a 
briefing paper that included background information on the four case- 
study organizations, some preliminary results of our initial work on 
these case-study reviews, as well as key statements from our prior work 
related to the COO/CMO concept. The highlights summarized in this 
report do not necessarily represent the views of any individual 
participant or the organizations that these participants represent. 

We also interviewed officials from the Office of Management and Budget 
to discuss the establishment and implementation of COO/CMO positions in 
federal departments and agencies. 

We conducted our review from August 2006 through July 2007 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Forum Participants for "Implementing Chief Operating 
Officer/Chief Management Officer Positions," April 2007: 

Moderator: David M. Walker; Comptroller General of the United States, 
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 

Participants: 
William L. Bransford; General Counsel, Senior Executives Association. 

Jonathan Breul; Executive Director, IBM Center for The Business of 
Government. 

James A. Champy; Chairman of Consulting, Perot Systems Corporation 
(Massachusetts Institute of Technology Board Member). 

Gene L. Dodaro; Chief Operating Officer, U.S. Government Accountability 
Office. 

Jennifer L. Dorn; President and Chief Executive Officer, National 
Academy of Public Administration. 

Gordon England; Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Defense. 

Mark W. Everson; Commissioner, U.S. Internal Revenue Service. 

Robert F. Hale; Executive Director, American Society of Military 
Comptrollers (Former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force - Financial 
Management and Comptroller). 

John J. Hamre; President and Chief Executive Officer, Center for 
Strategic and International Studies (Former Deputy Secretary of 
Defense). 

Sallyanne Harper; Chief Administrative Officer/Chief Financial Officer, 
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 

Bruce R. James; President and Chief Executive Officer, Nevada New-Tech, 
Inc. (Former Chief Executive Officer, U.S. Government Printing Office). 

Clay Johnson III; Deputy Director of Management, U.S. Office of 
Management and Budget. 

Nancy Killefer; Managing Partner, McKinsey & Company. 

John A. Koskinen; President, U.S. Soccer Foundation (Former Deputy 
Mayor, Government of the District of Columbia). 

Samuel T. Mok; Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of Labor. 

Sean O'Keefe; Chancellor, Louisiana State University and A & M College 
(Former Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration). 

Linda M. Springer; Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

Max Stier; President and Chief Executive Officer, Partnership for 
Public Service. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Key Responsibilities of Statutory Chief Officer Positions 
in the Federal Government: 

Position: Chief financial officer; 
Enacting law(s): Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-
576); 
Key responsibilities of position: 
* Develop and maintain an integrated agency accounting and financial 
management system, including financial reporting and internal controls, 
which complies with applicable accounting principles and standards and 
provides for; 
- complete, reliable, consistent, and timely information; 
- the development and reporting of cost information; 
- the integration of accounting and budgeting information; and; 
- the systematic measurement of performance; 
* Direct, manage, and provide policy guidance and oversight of agency 
financial management personnel, activities, and operations, including 
the; 
- development of agency financial management budgets and; 
- recruitment, selection, and training of personnel to carry out agency 
financial management functions; 
* Approve and manage financial management systems design and 
enhancements projects and the implementation of agency asset management 
systems. 

Position: Chief information officer; 
Enacting law(s): Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-13); 
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-106), as renamed pursuant to 
Pub. L. No. 104-208 (Sept. 30, 1996); 
Key responsibilities of position: 
* Carry out information resources management responsibilities of the 
agency, including information collection and control of paperwork, 
information dissemination, statistical policy and coordination, records 
management, privacy and information security, and information 
technology; 
* Provide advice and other assistance to the head of the agency and 
other senior management personnel to ensure that technology is acquired 
and information is managed consistent with the applicable law and 
priorities established by the head of the agency; 
* Develop, maintain, and facilitate the implementation of a sound, 
secure, and integrated information technology architecture for the 
agency; 
* Promote the effective and efficient design and operation of all 
information resources management processes for the agency; 
* Monitor and evaluate the performance of the agency's information 
technology programs, and advise the head of the agency whether to 
continue, modify, or terminate a program; 
* Annually, as part of the strategic planning and performance 
evaluation process: 
- assess the requirements established for information resources 
management knowledge and skills of agency personnel; 
- assess the extent to which the positions and personnel at both the 
executive and management levels meet those requirements; 
- develop strategies and specific plans for hiring, training, and 
professional development to rectify any deficiency in meeting those 
requirements; and; 
- report to the head of the agency on the progress made in improving 
information resources management capability. 

Position: Chief human capital officer; 
Enacting law(s): Chief Human Capital Officers Act of 2002; (Pub. L. No. 
107-296, Title XIII); 
Key responsibilities of position: 
* Set the workforce development strategy of the agency; 
* Assess workforce characteristics and future needs based on the 
agency's mission and strategic plan; 
* Align the agency's human resource policies and programs with the 
agency's mission, strategic goals, and performance outcome; 
* Develop and advocate a culture of continuous learning to attract and 
retain employees with superior abilities; 
* Identify best practices and benchmarking studies; 
* Apply methods for measuring intellectual capital and identify links 
of that capital to organizational performance and growth. 

Position: Chief acquisition officer; 
Enacting law(s): Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003; (Pub. L. No. 
108-136, Title XIV); 
Key responsibilities of position: 
* Advise and assist the head of the agency and other agency officials 
to ensure that the agency's mission is achieved through the management 
of the agency's acquisition activities; 
* Monitor and evaluate the performance of the agency's acquisition 
activities and programs, and advise the agency head on the appropriate 
business strategy to achieve the mission of the agency; 
* Increase the use of full and open competition in the acquisition of 
property and services by establishing policies, procedures, and 
practices that ensure that the agency receives a sufficient number of 
sealed bids or competitive proposals from responsible sources at the 
lowest cost or best value; 
* Increase appropriate use of performance- based contracting and 
performance specifications; 
* Make acquisition decisions consistent with all applicable laws and 
establish clear lines of authority, accountability, and responsibility 
for acquisitions; 
* Manage the direction of acquisition policy and implement the agency- 
specific acquisition policies, regulations, and standards; 
* Develop and maintain an acquisition career management program to 
ensure an adequate professional workforce; 
* As part of the strategic planning and performance evaluation process: 
- assess the knowledge and skill requirements established for agency 
personnel and their adequacy for facilitating the achievement of the 
performance goals for acquisition management; 
- develop strategies and specific plans for hiring, training, and 
professional development to rectify any deficiencies in meeting such 
requirements; and; 
- report to the agency head on the progress made in improving 
acquisition management capability. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Bernice Steinhardt, (202) 512-6806 or [email protected]: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Sarah Veale, Assistant 
Director; Charlesetta Bailey; Martene Bryan; K. Scott Derrick; and 
Karin Fangman made major contributions to this report. Others who made 
important contributions include Carolyn Samuels and Jay Smale. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Defense Business Transformation: Achieving Success Requires a Chief 
Management Officer to Provide Focus and Sustained Leadership. GAO-07- 
1072. Washington, D.C.: September 5, 2007. 

Assesses the progress DOD has made in setting up a management framework 
for overall business transformation efforts and the challenges DOD 
faces in maintaining and ensuring success of those efforts, including 
the need for a CMO. 

Homeland Security: Management and Programmatic Challenges Facing the 
Department of Homeland Security. GAO-07-452T. Washington, D.C.: 
February 7, 2007. 

Discusses the numerous management challenges at DHS, including the 
transformation of the department. Suggests various solutions to enhance 
overall transformation efforts. 

High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-07-310. Washington, D.C.: January 
2007. 

Reports on government programs and operations that are considered high 
risk. Suggests solutions and continued oversight and action by 
Congress. 

Defense Business Transformation: A Comprehensive Plan, Integrated 
Efforts, and Sustained Leadership Are Needed to Assure Success. GAO-07- 
229T. Washington, D.C.: November 16, 2006. 

Discusses DOD's efforts to develop an enterprisewide business 
transformation plan and compliance with legislation that addresses 
business systems modernization. Suggests a COO/CMO position as a 
solution to improve business transformation. 

Department of Defense: Sustained Leadership Is Critical to Effective 
Financial and Business Management Transformation. GAO-06-1006T. 
Washington, D.C.: August 3, 2006. 

Discusses DOD financial and business management challenges. Suggests 
actions needed to enhance business and financial transformation 
efforts. 

21st Century Challenges: Transforming Government to Meet Current and 
Emerging Challenges. GAO-05-830T. Washington, D.C.: July 13, 2005. 

Discusses long-term fiscal challenges and other significant trends and 
challenges facing the federal government. Suggests ways federal 
agencies can transform into high-performing organizations. 

Department of Homeland Security: A Comprehensive and Sustained Approach 
Needed to Achieve Management Integration. GAO-05-139. Washington, D.C.: 
March 16, 2005. 

Examines DHS's management integration efforts. Recommends actions to be 
taken by the Secretary of Homeland Security and Congress. 

Chief Operating Officer Concept and its Potential Use as a Strategy to 
Improve Management at the Department of Homeland Security. GAO-04-876R. 
Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2004. 

Discusses the management and organizational transformation challenges 
at DHS. Describes how a COO can be a tool to address DHS's challenges. 

Comptroller General's Forum: High-Performing Organizations: Metrics, 
Means, and Mechanisms for Achieving High Performance in the 21st 
Century Public Management Environment. GAO-04-343SP. Washington, D.C.: 
February 13, 2004. 

Summarizes the findings of a GAO forum held in November 2003 on high- 
performing organizations. Discusses the key characteristics and 
capabilities of high-performing organizations. 

Results-Oriented Government: Shaping the Government to Meet 21st 
Century Challenges. GAO-03-1168T. Washington, D.C.: September 17, 2003. 

Describes significant performance and management problems facing the 
federal government and the importance of periodic reexamination and 
reevaluation of agencies' activities. Suggests a range of options that 
Congress could use to eliminate redundancy and improve operations. 

Highlights of a GAO Roundtable: The Chief Operating Officer Concept: A 
Potential Strategy to Address Federal Governance Challenges. GAO-03- 
192SP. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2002. 

Summarizes the findings of a GAO roundtable held in September 2002 on 
the COO concept and how it might be used in selected federal agencies 
as one strategy to address certain systemic governance and management 
challenges. 

Managing for Results: Using Strategic Human Capital Management to Drive 
Transformational Change. GAO-02-940T. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2002. 

Discusses the importance of human capital. Suggests actions that the 
federal government needs to take in order to reform human capital. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] See GAO, Defense Business Transformation: Achieving Success 
Requires a Chief Management Officer to Provide Focus and Sustained 
Leadership, GAO-07-1072 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 5, 2007) and 
Department of Homeland Security: A Comprehensive and Sustained Approach 
Needed to Achieve Management Integration, GAO-05-139 (Washington, D.C.: 
Mar. 16, 2005). 

[2] For example, see S. 179 and H.R. 1585. 

[3] See Section 2405 of Pub. L. No. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266, 548-550, 
August 3, 2007. 

[4] IRS is a bureau of Treasury. In this report, we will often refer to 
the three federal organizations as agencies. 

[5] In this report, we will often refer to these positions as COO/CMOs 
rather than using their formal position titles. 

[6] In this report, we use "second level" and "third level" in 
reference to reporting relationships. "Level II" and "Level III" are 
used to refer to the level of compensation under the federal 
government's Executive Schedule, which does not necessarily correspond 
to the reporting level in the agency. 

[7] The commission, formally titled the Commission on Organization of 
the Executive Branch of the Government, was established by Congress in 
1947. See 80th Cong. ch. 207, 61 Stat. 246 (July 7, 1947). Its 
membership was bipartisan, including members of the administration and 
both Houses of Congress. Half of its members were from outside the 
federal government. 

[8] The three PBOs are Federal Student Aid in the Department of 
Education, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in the Department of 
Commerce, and the Air Traffic Organization in the Federal Aviation 
Administration. 

[9] For additional information, see GAO, Performance-Based 
Organizations: Lessons from the British Next Steps Initiative, GAO/T-
GGD-97-151 (Washington, D.C.: July 8, 1997). 

[10] GAO, Highlights of a GAO Roundtable: The Chief Operating Officer 
Concept: A Potential Strategy to Address Federal Governance Challenges, 
GAO-03-192SP (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2002). 

[11] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-07-310 (Washington, D.C.: 
January 2007). 

[12] The President's Management Council was reconstituted by President 
Bush in 2001. The council has focused its efforts on the management 
agendas of each administration. 

[13] The PMA was launched in August 2001 as a strategy for improving 
the management and performance of the federal government and includes 
five governmentwide initiatives: strategic management of human capital, 
competitive sourcing, improved financial performance, expanded 
electronic government, and budget and performance integration. OMB 
developed criteria to measure success and a PMA scorecard to track 
agency progress for each of the five initiatives. 

[14] GAO, Managing for Results: Using Strategic Human Capital 
Management to Drive Transformational Change, GAO-02-940T (Washington, 
D.C.: July 15, 2002). 

[15] GAO-07-1072. 

[16] GAO-02-940T. 

[17] For example, see GAO, Defense Management: Additional Actions 
Needed to Enhance DOD's Risk-Based Approach for Making Resource 
Decisions, GAO-06-13 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2005). 

[18] GAO, The Chief Operating Officer Concept and its Potential Use as 
a Strategy to Improve Management at the Department of Homeland 
Security, GAO-04-876R (Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2004). 

[19] Section 1203 of Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2003, 
Division H, Pub. L. No. 108-7 (Feb. 20, 2003), codified at 2 U.S.C. ï¿½ 
1805. 

[20] GAO, Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-1008G 
(Washington, D.C.: August 2001). 

[21] GAO, GAO's High-Risk Program, GAO-06-497T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 
15, 2006). 

[22] GAO, Federal Chief Information Officers: Responsibilities, 
Reporting Relationships, Tenure, and Challenges, GAO-04-823 
(Washington, D.C.: July 21, 2004). 

[23] GAO, Human Capital: Observations on Agencies' Implementation of 
the Chief Human Capital Officers Act, GAO-04-800T (Washington, D.C.: 
May 18, 2004). 

[24] For example, see GAO, Comptroller General's Forum: High-Performing 
Organizations: Metrics, Means, and Mechanisms for Achieving High 
Performance in the 21st Century Public Management Environment, GAO-04-
343SP (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 13, 2004). 

[25] GAO, Executive Guide: Maximizing the Success of Chief Information 
Officers: Learning From Leading Organizations, GAO-01-376G (Washington, 
D.C.: February 2001). 

[26] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist 
Mergers and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, 
D.C.: July 2, 2003). 

[27] See GAO, USCIS Transformation: Improvements to Performance, Human 
Capital, and Information Technology Management Needed as Modernization 
Proceeds, GAO-07-1013R (Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2007); GAO-07-1072; 
and GAO-05-139. 

[28] GAO-04-876R. 

[29] Pub. L. No. 105-244 (Oct. 7, 1998), codified at 20 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1018. 

[30] Pub. L. No. 106-113 (Nov. 29, 1999), codified at 35 U.S.C. ï¿½ 3. 

[31] At the time of our review, the COO/CMO position at IRS (Deputy 
Commissioner for Operations Support) was filled by a career member of 
the SES who subsequently retired. According to Treasury, in September 
2007, the position was filled by a "critical pay" appointment employee 
already in the IRS. The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and 
Reform Act of 1998 (Pub. L. No. 105-206) allowed IRS to appoint up to 
40 individuals (at any one time) to designated "critical pay" positions 
at a compensation level up to the Vice President's, currently $215,700. 
Under the act, these "critical pay" positions must require an extremely 
high level of expertise and be critical to the accomplishment of IRS's 
mission. 

[32] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Shaping the Government to Meet 
21st Century Challenges, GAO-03-1168T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17, 
2003). 

[33] GAO, Managing for Results: Emerging Benefits From Selected 
Agencies' Use of Performance Agreements, GAO-01-115 (Washington, D.C.: 
Oct. 30, 2000). 

[34] In this regard, it should be recognized that in drafting any 
statutory requirement to include consequences for poor performance for 
a presidentially appointed COO/CMO, such a requirement may interfere 
with the President's constitutional power to appoint, and subsequently 
remove, such an official. 

[35] As noted earlier, according to Treasury, in September 2007, the 
IRS COO/CMO position was filled by a "critical pay" appointment 
employee already in the IRS. Under its "critical pay" authority, IRS 
can appoint individuals to designated positions for terms of up to 4 
years. 

[36] GAO-02-940T. 

[37] As noted earlier, according to Treasury, in September 2007, the 
IRS COO/CMO position was filled as a "critical pay" appointment, which 
is generally not subject to the title 5 requirements governing 
appointments to the SES. 

[38] See GAO, Potential Oversight Issues, GAO-07-235R (Washington, 
D.C.: Nov. 17, 2006). We recommended that Congress review the 
presidential (political) appointment process and examine whether 
political appointees can be categorized by the differences in their 
roles and responsibilities, such as policy, operational and management, 
and adjudicatory positions. 

[End of section] 

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 [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

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

*** End of document. ***