Obama’s performance agenda a mix of old and new

The government reform agenda President Obama has set during his first four months in office is pragmatic and forward-leaning without reinventing the wheel, according to management observers.

In fact, several of the broad performance initiatives the president outlined earlier this month in his fiscal 2010 budget appear to tweak existing management vehicles, such as the Bush administration's Performance Assessment Rating Tool. Obama left intact other Bush creations, such as the performance improvement officer position and the Office of Management and Budget-led Performance Improvement Council.

The decision to build off existing structures is wise and deliberate, said Jon Desenberg, policy director for The Performance Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. "I think he realizes that we can't afford to totally tear everything down and start over," Desenberg said.

Observers said Obama's approach to governance appears to be driven by the pressures of solving crises such as the recession, developing a foundation to manage long-term challenges such as health care reform, and fulfilling a campaign promise to change the way Washington works.

To build "a high-performing government," Obama has proposed revamping PART, hiring several hundred thousand more federal employees and reforming federal contracting. The focus will shift from grading programs as successful or unsuccessful to requiring agency leaders to set priorities, demonstrate progress in achieving them and explain performance trends.

"We are moving from capacity building to actual action on priorities across agencies," said John Kamensky, senior fellow at the IBM Center for the Business of Government.

While the administration appears to be making some progress toward its goals, Kamensky and Desenberg agreed there is room for significant improvement. Kamensky recommended better integration of transparency and performance management philosophies so data is available not only for public consumption but to make informed decisions that result in better outcomes.

Obama should be cautious in his use of trend analysis, a technique of examining historical results to predict future outcomes, Desenberg said. "I hear from agencies that they are worried about trend analysis because they can't always make the numbers look better," he said. "Some programs get more funding than others and resources change over time."

The administration also must overcome a common governmental fear of putting poor performance on public display, Desenberg and Kamensky said. The Bush administration used its PART system and quarterly score cards to shame managers of poor performing programs and agencies into improvement. The Obama administration has not yet adopted such a tactic.

Obama should make better use of the President's Management Council in implementing his performance vision, Kamensky said. The panel of agency chief operating officers and other key management leaders was established during the Clinton administration to provide advice and best practices for governmentwide performance, but recently has maintained a low profile.

Another challenge for Obama -- just as it was for Bush -- will be convincing Congress the administration's performance data is accurate and impartial.

"The question is, can we find an objective source of data for this process," Desenberg said. "OMB will [collect the data], but will Congress be 100 percent comfortable with it?"