PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND STATUS REPORTING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP91B00390R000500560005-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 10
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 11, 2013
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: August 25, 1988
• Content Type: MEMO

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/11: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500560005-9
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/11: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500560005-9
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/11 : CIA-RDP91B00390R000500560005-9
3-'i- Y--i L.)//1-C/W.1
,.
r ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET ?
Os RFr, T STRY
---
,
DDA 88-1819 i '. ?-:-: ? , . i
Exretasooni NO.
DATE
25 August 1988 ../
,
SUBJECT: (Optional)
FROM:
R. M. Huffstutler
Deputy Director for Administration
7D-24 Headquarters
TO: (Officei cks;gnonon, room numbe. n,C
L_ DATE
RECEIVED FORWARDED
OffiCER'S
INITIALS
COMMENTS (Number eoch comment to show from 'whom
to whom. Draw a line across column alter each comment.)
D/OC
D/OF
1212 Key Bldg.
4.
D/OIT
D/OL
D/OMS
1D4061 Hqs Bldg.
7.
8.
D/OP
D/CfrE
1026 CofC Bldg.
12.
13.
14.
15.
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
FORM 61 use nteviotts
1-79 AP EDITIONS
U.S. GOVOIMIn?rd PrIntlm Office: 11111111-414-11114,41111114
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/11: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500560005-9
S Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/11: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500560005-9
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ADMINISTRA RNAL USE ONLY
DDA 88-1819
25 August 1988
Planning Officer, Management Staff/DA
R. M. Huffstutler_ --
Deputy Director for Administration
Performance Measurement and Status Reporting
I find your paper thoughtful and provocative. 'I was also interested in
the excellent comments from I would like to proceed with a
discussion of several hours duration which addresses the issue--"Are there
ways to improve DA performance measurement on contract programs?" I want you
to take the lead with an introductory briefing but I would also like to hear
structured comments from and other interested parties. Subsequent
to that, I think we should have an open discussion. Please set this up with
and invite interested parties.
cc: DA Office Directors w/report
DA/CMS w/report
R. M. Huffstutler
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for 26:13/69/11 re-IA:RDP91B00390R000500560005-9
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/11: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500560005-9
?
STAT
STAT
MEMORANDUM FOR: R. M. Huffstutler
Deputy Director for Administration
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Planning Officer, DA/Management Staff
Performance Measurement & Status Reporting
DA 88-1667
8 August 1988
I. In response to your tasking, I have conducted a preliminary survey of
the methods of monitoring, reporting, analyzing and managing project perform-
ance, within the Directorate of Administration (DA). The insights and assess-
ments presented in this report are based on my previous experience as well as
a review of contractor reporting and interviews with Contracting Officers (CO)
and Technical Representatives (COTR), within the Offices of Communications,
Information Technology and Logistics. I have coordinated the results of the
survey with the Deputy Directors of these offices as well as the Procurement
Executive and senior procurement Group Chiefs.
2. OBSERVATIONS: Following are the key general observations derived from
the survey:
a. No consistent approach to measuring, reporting or analyzing
contract/program performance currently exists within the DA. Responsible
COTRs either:
* Track technical requirements and deliverables against schedule
milestones and determine whether monthly expenditures are within the
stated projections of the initial proposal or, if present, parameters
of the established program plan;
* Track monthly expenditures in costs and manpower while allowing the
contractor to determine the level of technical functionality to be
delivered Within given time or cost constraints; or,
* Track milestone deliveries and monthly expenditures, giving limited
attention to establishing the basis upon which an acceptable level of
functionality can be demonstrated.
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/11: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500560005-9
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy. Approved for Release 2013/09/11: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500560005-9
?
SUBJECT: Performance Measurement Survey
b. Existing performance measurement methodologies treat cost,
schedule and technical baselines as three independent components and focus
on quantitative rather than qualitative measurement. As a result, it is
extremely difficult to determine the actual technical, schedule and cost
status of a program initiative and to address contractor accountability.
c. Existing performance measurement techniques do not produce the
reliable or qualitative data necessary to formulate independent Government
Cost Estimates (IGCEs) to evaluate Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) and
develop program budget projections on the basis of programmatic data
unique to the DA or Agency.
d. With rare exception, the reporting provided by contractors is
narrowly focused, incomplete and does not offer an analysis of the
technical, cost or schedule parameters involved. Further, the data
necessary to accurately assess the value of the work being performed is
seldom collected and, if so, the contractor rather than the Agency defines
the metrics used.
e. No structured reporting channel exists for a COTR to report
program progress or concerns to the appropriate management level on a
regular and timely basis. Consequently, problems generally surface too
late to effectively develop and implement an approach or enable management
to consider alternatives which could either avoid, overcome or minimize
expected budget shortfalls, technical deficiencies or schedule delays.
f. COs and COTRs generally acknowledge the deficiencies in current
performance measurement practices and recognize a need for a more informed
understanding and application of alternative methodologies. However, most
are also pessimistic with respect to establishing a clear and open means
of communication with contractors through the consistent definition of
terms and application of performance measurement techniques.
3. CONCLUSION: Existing performance measurement practices neither foster
nor force the discipline, accountability, and communications necessary to
evaluate and manage programs with the reliable, qualitative and timely
information necessary to achieve optimum technical results with minimum impact
on budget and/or schedule constraints. To ensure that we evaluate contract
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Release :-.6iAIRDP91B00390R000500560005-9
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/11: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500560005-9
SUBJECT: Performance Measurement Survey
performance effectively, make management decisions based on timely, reliable
and insightful information, and use increasingly scarce resources efficiently,
I believe that Directorate level action must be taken to turn the uncertainty
of the existing methods around by establishing a performance measurement
system involving well defined methodologies with standards for application and
more structured reporting channels. The system should:
* Accommodate both contractor and program variances;
* Address the definition, integration and management of technical,
cost and schedule baselines;
* Hold contractors accountable for their efforts by objective
measurements of performance;
* Define and establish a consistent set of technical, cost and
schedule metrics to be applied within a given environment;
* Be applied consistently throughout the Directorate, and possibly
the Agency;
* Encourage and ensure open, timely and clear communications;
* Provide informed analysis and produce reliable and useful data;
* Involve periodic management-level participation and review;
* Promote early problem identification and analysis from a cost,
technical, schedule and management standpoint; and,
* Provide responsible COTRs and managers with Directorate level
support that recognizes and acknowledges "effective" management
techniques and decision making.
Although implementation of the system outlined above may be resisted,
either because ongoing initiatives may be either too far advanced in their
activities or entrenched in their methods to enable significant programmatic
changes, I believe that the benefits to be realized by efforts made to secure
more insightful, objective, reliable and timely information will more than
offset any implementation costs incurred by the DA. When entering what is
believed to be a period of budget austerity, the question we should ask is not
whether we can afford to place more emphasis on management techniques to
measure performance but rather how can we afford not to. Clearly, the only
way to do more with the same or perhaps less is through better management of
budgeted resources during the execution year.
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/11: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500560005-9
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved forRelease2013/09/11 : CIA-RDP91B00390R000500560005-9
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
SUBJECT:- Performance Measurement Survey
4. RECOMMENDATION: The technical means and expertise needed to define
such a system are readily available and I recommend that we contract for an
independent "needs assessment" which will require approximately
and 4 - 6 months to complete, depending on scope, and will provide
the DA with well defined alternatives and specific recommendations regarding
implementation. The duration and expense of the follow-on "implementation"
effort will depend upon the-al.teruatilla-solacte0 but will not be unreasonable,
as the objective is to balance a wheel not to invent one.
STAT
STAT
STAT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/11: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500560005-9
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/11: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500560005-9
STAT
NOTE TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS
11:24 AM -- 21 July 1988
Performance Measurement
I have reviewed the draft you left and am in general disagreement with
it. I will key my response to your draft:
1. I am not aware of which OC officers were interviewed.
2.a. There is consistent reporting within OC, OIT, and OL on program perform-
ance. I have served in all three so I have direct knowledge. All receive
reports on cost, schedule, and performance. What you note as inconsistency is
the real world differences among programs, i.e., some are dollar driven, some
are schedule driven, and some are requirement driven.
2.b. PM methodologies do treat cost, schedule, and performance as independent
Measures. But the methodology is not the management, the management is the
human judgement and interpretation of the measurements. That is the program
manager's role and the quality of management will vary with the program man-
ager. Let me add that I know of no technical office in the Agency today that
lacks for people trained in program/project management. I am quite aware that
there has been and continues to be a problem among Agency procurement officers
and program mangers( and/or COTR's). Procurement officers are legally liable
and everyone understands that. However, too many procurement officers trans-
late that into a management style that insists that they make all judgements
rather than rely on the advice of the program manager. It is the general sup-
port issue of who supports whom.
2.c. I agree that there is a problem here but I disagree with the cause. The
cause is our preoccupation with contracting out literally every piece of subs-
tantive work in the Agency. We have placed ourselves in the position of total
reliance on the contracting world to tell us what is reasonable. There is lit-
tle or no internal capability to make informed judgements about the real world
level of effort required to achieve a new capability. The database is strictly
based on previous contracting experience. The algorithm has become, " If it
cost A to do B last year, then it will probably cost C to do D this year".
This has led us into the wonderful new world of consultants and SI's who are
increasingly the "shadow managers" of the Agency.
2.d. The Golden Rule is "you gets what you pays for". If you are smart enough
to know what metrics you will need at the front end of a contract, they are
specified and delivered. The problems arise when you hit an unexpected devia-
tion in mid-stream. At that point the metrics may or may not give you the
insight you would like to have. In any case, it is not the contractor who
attaches value to the work. It is the customer who must assess value.
2.e. Totally disagree. Putting PM aside, there are any number of reporting
channels in any organization that allow a PM to surface issues/problems. The
common problem is that the PM underestimates the significance of an issue and
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/11: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500560005-9
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/11: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500560005-9
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
is motivated to exercise macho-management on the local level before conceding
need for assistance. Said more kindly, the PM frequently overestimates his/her
ability to contain the issue within the defined program envelope. It's akin to
trying the fire extinguisher before calling the fire dept.
?2.f. All I would add at this point is that it is comfortable for an officer to
blame the system for shortfalls rather than admit that judgement is not always
what it should be.
3. My conclusion: PM practices are understood within the Agency, produce the
desired results when conscientiously applied, but vary in effectiveness
because of the uneven importance attached to them by Agency managers. Attempt-
ing to "standardize" the implementation of PM at a Direcorate or Agency level
suggests prescribing procedures at a level of detail that makes no sense when
considering the diversity of size,scope, and substance of Agency activities.
4. My recommendation: Don't hire yet another contractor to tell us how to man-
age the Agency- we know. Have Senior Agency management advertise their con-
cerns and policies and then hold managers accountable for effective use of PM.
Those who know me know I don't come out of the box too often. When I do
it is because of personal conviction, not parochialism. I believe the paper
as it exists creates an issue by overgeneralization.
CC:
STAT
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/11: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500560005-9
STAT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/11: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500560005-9
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/11: CIA-RDP91B00390R000500560005-9