GovernmentExecutive.com

Workforce issues again dominate the concerns of Defense Department accounting and finance personnel, according to the 2008 American Society of Military Comptrollers survey.

The annual study, conducted with accounting firm Grant Thornton LLP, surveyed 575 members of the Defense financial workforce, including 61 executives from within the department and its component services. As in 2007, human capital issues "dominate the list of risks that keep executives and workforce alike awake at night."

Specifically, respondents named proper recognition and pay for individual performance, quality of work life, training, career management and succession planning, as areas of concern. The most frequently mentioned human capital risk, however, was the implementation of the department's National Security Personnel System. The rollout of NSPS, the system designed to manage more than 700,000 civilian Defense employees, has been not been smooth, and the ASMC survey showed it has mixed support. While executives overall were positive, the general workforce was far less so, but both groups acknowledged executing NSPS was a major challenge.

"NSPS has the potential to help, even when just learning to understand it," one executive respondent said. "We are still struggling in our implementation phase, but more than implementation, a culture change is needed."

The survey also addressed the Planning, Programming, Budget and Execution System, another key program. The system, a revamped version of its similarly named predecessor, was rolled out in 2002 and was designed to reinforce the links among budgets, execution and performance. If implemented, proponents say it would allow the Defense secretary to assess the allocation of resources and to determine whether departments and programs were aligned with budget estimates.

Respondents expressed almost universal agreement that PPBES was the best method to achieve performance-based budgeting, and they felt strongly that the system would be effective and should be implemented.

Despite the strong support, PPBES has not realized its expectations. Respondents told ASMC that work life under the new system was not much different than it was in the past, citing the existence of political barriers, and enormity of the Defense budget, its programs and the ongoing wars. But respondents said the major obstacle to implementation was "a pervasive culture of resistance to transparency within the Defense community," the report stated.

When asked to identify four current initiatives that should be continued and emphasized during the next five years, executives and workforce personnel identified different top priorities, with executives naming cost, budget execution and performance reporting as the most important initiative, and rank-and-file identifying the implementation of effective financial management systems as the top priority.

All respondents agreed on the other primary areas of focus: departmentwide business enterprise architecture, enterprise resource planning systems development, and program efficiency and effectiveness.

This year's report highlighted the Defense financial community concerns about the upcoming budgetary realities and restrictions. An end to conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan could lead to a sizable reduction in funding just as all agencies now feel the squeeze of massive federal deficit and debt.

In this fiscal transition, financial leaders will be expected to assess the effectiveness of their programs and target necessities and potential cuts.

"Answering those questions is not going to be easy for a Defense community that is not well structured for cost containment," the report said.

COMMENTS

• I would have to agree that NSPS is a deplorable system. After having been a General Schedule employee for 20 years, then being inducted to NSPS Spiral 1.3, it is apparent that favoritism and nepotism have not been reduced; rather, increased without the possibility or likelihood of any oversight. Also, an individual acting as the 'Paypool Manager' with no direct knowledge of my duties and responsibilities, much less what I have contributed to organizational success over the past year, can make the blind determination on what the individual final payout will be. Also, what if your supervisor is essentially lazy and doesn't provide the paypool with an accurate representation of your accomplishments? The name has changed to NSPS, but I see no change in what has gone before. It's management rewarding management and sticking it to the worker bees, regardless of how they have performed. Retirement never looked so good. Greg Swann Posted August 12, 2008 12:24 PM
• we are given poor online training to write our self assessments. We are given zero feedback on how we did. someone several states away then decides what we get. new employees, no matter how much time they have in with the gov't, get shafted in favor of "favorites" who are off doing "special" work. we have an enormous workload and there is no credit for just keeping the work flowing. people get bonuses for doing "extra" work and leave the rest of us to drown in the day to day work that keeps the gov't going. this is a very bad system and shafts employees out of step increases and cost of living increases. it gives "bonuses" (pathetic ones) which don't go into your annual leave buyout later and get taxed right up front. Debbie Posted July 15, 2008 12:52 PM
• Whoa. Basic premise Dan, has to be that the people actually sitting in and giving ratings under NSPS KNOW what a good performer is supposed to do and that they are doing it. If there is a mistaken idea that fetching brownie points, playing golf, managing parties and apply the emperor's new clothes approach to the boses is excellent performance, the system can't work. It ASSUMES that the raters are unbiased, don't succumb to pressure, know how to do the jobs of the ratees or a reasonable facsimilie and etc. Basic premise forgets human beings are human beings. If the last x years we've been busy promoting folks with breadth of experience and the ability to spin doctor vice having a clue what the laws and mission require, there's a whole carpet of the wrong folks making rating decisions about what they know not while STILL suffering from their personal not always logical or viable viewpoints. Part of my rating is the moral obligation to tell it like it is in the face of disagreement. Wonder if I can submit this as part of my compliance with that? Ralph Posted July 3, 2008 1:09 PM