In an increasingly multisector workforce environment, public managers can infuse results expectations into performance documents to achieve desired outcomes and ensure accountability.

by Joe Alexander and Phil Kangas

Citizen demands on federal, state, and local governments require the delivery of premium services at the best cost. These demands cannot be met by government workers alone. The complex challenges facing government today require a much larger workforce—including nonprofit groups, volunteers, and private-sector contractors—with a dynamic mix of skills and capabilities. Together, these groups form the network to deliver public-sector services.

Increasing mission obligations coupled with decreasing budgets require public-sector leaders to optimize resources and improve operations. The next administration’s challenge will be to institute broad-based policy and management guidelines that allow federal agencies to achieve these goals by leveraging all components of the service delivery network. The challenge will be to find the right balance in workforce composition and to institute cost and performance accountability controls across integrated service delivery teams. Civil servants and political leaders at all levels of government should focus on how to maximize the delivery of these services through single-agency, intergovernmental networking, and intersectoral (public-private–not for profit) coordination.

To this end, government executives and managers must

• link agency mission goals to measurable performance metrics,
• apply a reasoned business case analysis or feasibility review to optimize resources through service delivery team composition, and
• institute accountability controls across the delivery teams to optimize mission delivery.

Figure 1 illustrates this approach for optimizing mission delivery through infusing performance planning and accountability controls across the service delivery network.

These steps will improve delivery of services, establish performance goals across integrated teams, make resource decisions to reduce cost and risk, and implement tactical accountability processes. Informed decisions by executives and managers are the key to driving performance accountability and efficient delivery of limited government resources.

Rise in Size and Mission of Government

Recent analysis shows that the actual workforce delivering government services is larger than ever. Government service providers span not only federal workers, but their support contractors, not-for-profit grantees, and volunteers. This dynamic, multisector workforce combines to deliver the mission of government organizations. This trend of a diversified network of service offerors is a movement of increased importance in the delivery of the government’s services. The work of government is critical in preserving the American way of life. Public servants, both civilian and military, protect our homeland, design plans for energy independence, deliver stability internationally through the execution of our foreign policy, provide services for our nation’s poor and elderly, coordinate disaster relief, and support countless other critical services.

Delivering such services requires cross-government coordination, intragovernmental shared services arrangements, thoughtful leveraging of industry’s innovations and staffing depth, and aligned performance accountability. With the ever-rising public debt and drain on tax revenues from a slowing economy, government executives and managers will continue to face pressure to deliver services at the lowest possible cost. Challenges abound with competing mission priorities, duplication of efforts, and conflicts of interest. Government leaders need the tools and processes to maximize delivery of their mission effectively and efficiently.

Balance in Workforce Composition

Establishing service delivery teams to perform government missions is a complex endeavor. The interpretation of where to draw the line between functions performed by government staff members and those of contractors or volunteers historically has been a political one. Labor unions and pro-industry groups have faced off on either side to push this line to their advantage. Striking the right sourcing balance in workforce composition directly impacts organizational effectiveness. Government decision makers should determine how best to use their network of service offerors by conducting a careful business case review of the agency’s functional characteristics.

This business case analysis should include a review of the following factors:

• The market capacity for and interest in performing such services and the economic impacts of changing the current service provider
• The relative critical-to-mission nature of the work and associated risk implications of external service provider performance
• The organization’s stability and workforce dynamics
• Workload and technology issues
• The legal and regulatory compliance environment specific to the work.

The combination of these risk factors should determine the mix of sourcing solutions for team composition to deliver optimal performance. Applying these factors to a scenario-based feasibility assessment will help government decision makers determine the most appropriate mix of options. The options will impact efficiency drivers to control costs and improve performance. Table 1 describes these considerations.

Function-Based Business Case Review

The result of this analysis will show which sourcing options are most feasible for optimal performance. Among the sourcing solutions from which public managers can choose are in-house performance, public-public partnerships, public-private partnerships, outsourcing, or divestiture. Figure 2 illustrates the options and performance accountability drivers associated with potential sourcing alternatives.

Table 2 shows further information on each of these alternatives and the associated mechanisms for performance accountability.

Tailoring Accountability Controls

Cost and performance controls are crucial for federal government mission delivery. How the government manager designs the service delivery team composition drives accountability controls. The goal is delivering highquality services at low cost to the taxpayer regardless of service provider. Managers must first align performance metrics to mission priorities and vision accomplishment. These metrics should then form the basis for government employees’ individual performance plans, service expectations for memoranda of understanding across government teams, and performance evaluation factors for contractors. Beyond setting the performance metrics to organization mission, effective delivery requires tactical accountability checks, which include periodic management reviews, evaluations, and audits. Equally important is structured and timely performance feedback to the service providers from executives and managers.

Government Management Improvement Trends

The U.S. federal government is both the largest organizational entity and largest buyer of goods and services in the world. With this size comes a constant need for innovations for better management. Such management goals are not new: each administration in modern times—from Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal to George W. Bush’s President’s Management Agenda—has espoused responsible stewardship of public resources. The next administration should build on these efforts to imbed accountability controls in government, improve performance, and maximize limited resources.

Regardless of the residual effect of current initiatives, the larger trends in government management will dictate the management imperatives of tomorrow. In the environment of blended service delivery teams, government managers must apply accountability controls internally and externally. In the case of outside service provider delivery, contract administration activities and cost controls drive performance accountability. In-house performance and public-private partnerships require similar accountability mechanisms. Continuous improvement initiatives, business process improvement efforts, public reporting of activity results, and activity-based costing and management all support service team integration. Transparency of operations— including the reporting of both cost and performance results—is a tested accountability control to increase public trust and focus corrective actions.

Conclusion

The next administration must build a management agenda that infuses performance accountability throughout its service delivery network. Doing so will increase public trust in government stewards and instill confidence in public-sector operations. Evaluation of service offerors through a structured business case analysis will allow government leaders to make the most of their available service delivery network. Maximizing the effectiveness of this network hinges on clearly linking performance expectations to mission requirements, evaluating sourcing options using risk and reward scenarios, and establishing robust accountability controls.

Reference

Light, Paul C. Fact Sheet on the New True Size of Government. Center for Public Service, The Brookings Institution, Wagner School of Public Service, New York University, 2006.

Joe Alexander is a director in Grant Thornton’s Global Public Sector, with over thirty years’ professional experience in government and consulting, most recently supporting federal civilian and defense organizations. He is a retired Army officer, who has also worked as a civil servant in the Office of the Secretary of Defense before his career in consulting. He can be reached at Joseph.Alexander@gt.com. Phil Kangas is a senior manager in Global Public Sector with over twelve years’ professional experience in government and consulting, most recently helping the Department of Homeland Security improve performance and manage cost. He has worked as a federal, state, and local employee before his consulting work, most recently as director of constituent services for a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. He can be reached at Phil.Kangas@gt.com.