Managing for Excellence - Submit a Comment

U.S. Department of the Interior | Reclamation Internet

Search Reclamation

Reclamation Home

Managing for Excellence

Submit Comment

U.S. Department
of the Interior

Back To Comments Home
Comment	Submit Date
Comments on Team 12 Document for Nov 7 Mtg 1. How will the requirement for compliance w/customer involvement vary between those projects that are reimbursable and those that aren’t? Will the program managers of non-reimbursable projects be required to adhere to the customer involvement and workload distribution guidelines? 2. Throughout the document I read about three focus areas: cost-effectiveness, transparency, and accountability. Nowhere do I see explicit mention of quality as a focus or priority. Perhaps Team 12 intends quality to be a subset of cost-effectiveness. If so, quality as a critical goal for our projects could be discussed on page 15, under the section on Cost-Effectiveness of Engineering, etc. 3. Under the Section entitled Collaboration Within the Business Model the paragraph bridging page 12-13 states that Reclamation would be prepared to have a COG-Customer meeting periodically. Will the topics, discussion contents, and outcomes of these meetings be shared with Reclamation staff/other interested stakeholders? 4. While Team 12 has stated (in response to reviewer concerns) that the COG will not be a bureaucratic layer, it seems obvious that the group will in fact be an additional layer. (1) Reclamation staff will be required to collect and report info to the group; (2) appeals/protests will be routed through the group, and (3) the group will have advisory authority to the DCO on whether projects should be farmed out or assigned in-house. These requirements will create additional workload at the program offices (raising project costs), and COG involvement in project decisions will lengthen project timelines. If Team 12 doesn’t anticipate these outcomes, please explain how the COG will operate without causing them… 5. The COG should also be involved in assessing work quality, through customer and supplier feedback (see page 15/16 for description of COG duties). 6. Please explain how limiting field/area office work to the lowest complexity will enable program managers in these offices to attract/retain/compensate ambitious, highly-competent engineering/technical staffs. 7. Fee for service agreements need to have a feedback/customer satisfaction loop incorporated into the process (customer rating of product quality, satisfaction with process/product, provision of service). This will help address quality issues, as well as increase transparency regarding project deliverables. 8. On Attachment 3 – Draft D&S on Collaboration – Section 7 addresses work performed by customers. A fifth section should be added (Section F) that identifies customer report-out requirements. Customers performing work should be required to prepare completion reports that have similar data reporting requirements to those required of Reclamation staffers. The reports and work will be subject to evaluation according to established standards.	11/07/2007

Back To Comments Home

Comment

Submit Date

Comments on Team 12 Document for Nov 7 Mtg

1. How will the requirement for compliance w/customer involvement vary between those projects that are reimbursable and those that aren’t? Will the program managers of non-reimbursable projects be required to adhere to the customer involvement and workload distribution guidelines?

2. Throughout the document I read about three focus areas: cost-effectiveness, transparency, and accountability. Nowhere do I see explicit mention of quality as a focus or priority. Perhaps Team 12 intends quality to be a subset of cost-effectiveness. If so, quality as a critical goal for our projects could be discussed on page 15, under the section on Cost-Effectiveness of Engineering, etc.

3. Under the Section entitled Collaboration Within the Business Model the paragraph bridging page 12-13 states that Reclamation would be prepared to have a COG-Customer meeting periodically. Will the topics, discussion contents, and outcomes of these meetings be shared with Reclamation staff/other interested stakeholders?

4. While Team 12 has stated (in response to reviewer concerns) that the COG will not be a bureaucratic layer, it seems obvious that the group will in fact be an additional layer. (1) Reclamation staff will be required to collect and report info to the group; (2) appeals/protests will be routed through the group, and (3) the group will have advisory authority to the DCO on whether projects should be farmed out or assigned in-house. These requirements will create additional workload at the program offices (raising project costs), and COG involvement in project decisions will lengthen project timelines. If Team 12 doesn’t anticipate these outcomes, please explain how the COG will operate without causing them…

5. The COG should also be involved in assessing work quality, through customer and supplier feedback (see page 15/16 for description of COG duties).

6. Please explain how limiting field/area office work to the lowest complexity will enable program managers in these offices to attract/retain/compensate ambitious, highly-competent engineering/technical staffs.

7. Fee for service agreements need to have a feedback/customer satisfaction loop incorporated into the process (customer rating of product quality, satisfaction with process/product, provision of service). This will help address quality issues, as well as increase transparency regarding project deliverables.

8. On Attachment 3 – Draft D&S on Collaboration – Section 7 addresses work performed by customers. A fifth section should be added (Section F) that identifies customer report-out requirements. Customers performing work should be required to prepare completion reports that have similar data reporting requirements to those required of Reclamation staffers. The reports and work will be subject to evaluation according to established standards.

11/07/2007