Teamwork Makes a Difference

ith so many agencies reinventing, reengineering or otherwise renewing their acquisition processes, an immediate question comes to mind: What works? Are there lessons learned or, better yet, templates to follow that brighten the path and highlight the potholes?

The Federal Aviation Administration and the Commerce Department recently evaluated their change management efforts. Each had been given unique opportunities to make reforms. In 1995, Congress granted the FAA freedom to create its own procurement laws and rules, demanding a competent system to straighten out long-standing complaints about modernization woes. Commerce, on the other hand, was still required to play within existing procurement laws, though the agency was allowed to waive regulations as needed to get the results it sought. While there were strong external pressures to improve operations, the agencies themselves recognized the need for change, with senior level officials championing the reforms.

The bottom-line results were the same for both agencies, that is, accomplishing procurements in a radically compressed time-frame.

Pressed for Time

The FAA had only six months to come up with a new way of doing business. The agency had some contractor support and benefited from a blue ribbon panel that offered advice. However, the FAA relied mainly on teams of its own staff to lay out the approaches. The new system emphasized greater communications with industry, a preference for commercial products and services, a flexible selection process to keep the procurement moving, and a cross-functional team to get the job done. The agency expected the new approach to work, since it had successfully tested a similar model for procuring voice recorders under the 1994 Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act's pilot project provisions.

Commerce's Concept of Operations process, initiated in 1996, followed a similar path. Six procurements were identified at the Patent and Trademark Office and the Census Bureau for using the new system. Streamlined procedures, fluid communications with industry, and a team approach were mainstays of this model as well. A project agreement signed by PTO and Census team members cemented both accountability and procedure. This internal contract set the parameters for the acquisition and clarified the team's responsibilities. Like FAA's staff, the team was authorized to carry out the procurement, including the final selection.

In assessing the likelihood of real change, I recalled my old organizational change textbooks. The basic answer was, "Not in your lifetime." The books had said it would take 50 years for someone to recognize change was needed and then another 50 years for the change to be adopted (the "diffusion period," in organizational development parlance). The period was perceived to be so lengthy because so many interacting elements needed be affected. These included the task or mission to be accomplished, the institution's organizational structure, the technology available for the job, and most important, those who had to accept the changes.

In the cases of FAA and Commerce, however, we are talking months, not decades. Evaluations, while not conclusive, were positive, suggesting real reform was under way.

According to a Booz-Allen & Hamilton review of the FAA experience, competition is up and procurement lead time is down. Of the sample of FAA contracts reviewed, 90 percent are now awarded competitively, compared to 58 percent before the change. Also, the time from solicitation to award has been cut by more than half, from 380 days to 174 days.

The results were similar at the Commerce Department. An in-depth internal survey showed that procurements on average were completed in just 28 percent of the time spent using the traditional approach. The time spent ranged from 12 percent to 66 percent of previous intervals, depending on the procurement. Moreover, 80 percent of program managers rated their procurements as excellent or above average.

Team Players

Both agencies use cross-functional teams as the foundation for their change processes. These teams become the centerpiece for changing attitudes, roles, missions, technology and structure. Collaboration between procurement and program people, as opposed to an "over the transom" approach, becomes the norm. This new interdependence is so prevalent that some overseers have raised concerns that contracting officials may be spending too much time helping program officials define their needs.

Ralph Nash, professor emeritus at George Washington University, has described the willingness to work as a team player to be a key characteristic for the contracting officer of the future. The FAA and Commerce structures require that willingness. There is much talk about a need for partnership between agencies and industry. However, without first achieving that internal agency collaboration and trust, there isn't much chance for any external partnership to succeed. As agency teams go, so go the procurements. Leaders at both agencies would be the first to say it's the people on these teams who really make the difference. Of course, the agencies must stand behind and support their efforts.

Allan V. Burman, a former Office of Federal Procurement Policy administrator, is president of Jefferson Solutions in Washington.