Follow-up Actions Less
Frequently
Energy. Energy reported through our survey that participants identify and agree on specific follow-up actions in quarterly review meetings about half of the time. According to an Energy official, however, in instances where follow-up actions are identified, those items are documented in a “Summary of Actions.” In addition to using quarterly review meetings to identify follow-up actions, the official stated that other topic-specific meetings are used to identify and address follow-up items for specific APGs. For example, the Summary of Actions from Energy’s August 2014 quarterly review meeting indicated that the Deputy Secretary would hold a meeting with a specific agency official to review the off-track status of a priority goal in more detail.
Small Business Administration. SBA reported through our survey that participants would rarely identify and agree on specific follow-up actions to be taken after meetings. During the course of our review, however, SBA officials instituted changes to the agency’s review processes as a result of new leadership, and have given the SBA Office of Performance Management responsibility for ensuring that all action items from their review meetings, as well as “key takeaways” for discussion at the next review, are recorded.
National Science Foundation. NSF reported through our survey that participants rarely identify and agree on specific follow-up actions. However, NSF officials stated that they chose this response because their goals are based primarily on the
achievement of milestones and goal teams have already outlined the specific actions they will be taking in goal documentation. The status of actions to complete each of these milestones is then reviewed in each review meeting. NSF officials also said that in the event a follow-up action or course correction is identified in a quarterly meeting, the status of these actions will be discussed in bi-weekly meetings between the PIO and COO, who determine whether the actions have been adequately addressed or whether additional steps are required.
In contrast, DOD reported through our survey that participants in review meetings rarely identify and agree on specific follow-up actions. After subsequent follow-up with the agency, we found that DOD practices are not consistent with OMB guidance or leading practices. Through our review of documents from DOD review meetings, we also found there was no information included in materials prepared before, or after, these
meetings to indicate that they are used to identify follow-up actions related to APGs. In our follow-up communication with them, DOD officials acknowledged the need to regularly identify follow-up actions, and
informed us that over the next year they plan to integrate the identification of specific follow-up actions into their reviews.
Clearly identifying and documenting follow-up items, identifying the individual or office responsible, and monitoring their status are important to ensure that agreed upon actions are taken after DOD’s review
meetings. This is supported by the results of our analysis, which showed that systematically identifying and following up on action items is
associated with review meetings having a greater impact as a
performance improvement tool. Furthermore, a failure to clearly identify and document follow-up actions may lead to a situation at DOD in which there is no commonly-held list of specific actions that will be taken after review meetings, and a limited ability to hold accountable those
responsible for the completion of action items.
The results of our survey on agency data-driven review practices indicate that review meetings have had positive effects on progress toward
agency goals, collaboration between agency officials, the ability to hold agency officials accountable for progress toward goals, and the ability to identify opportunities to improve agency operations. COOs, PIOs, APG goal leaders, and staff that we spoke with at the five selected agencies reinforced these findings, and also shared examples that illustrate the positive effects their data-driven review meetings are having in these areas.
Most Agencies
Reported Review
Meetings Have
Positively Affected
Performance,
Collaboration,
Accountability, and
Efficiency
Nearly all agencies reported that their data-driven review meetings have had a positive effect on progress toward the achievement of agency goals, and on their ability to identify and mitigate risks to goal
achievement. As illustrated in figure 10, all 22 agencies reported that their reviews have had a positive effect on progress toward their APGs, and 21 of 22 reported that their reviews have had a positive effect on their
agency’s ability to identify and mitigate risks to achieving priority goals.37
Figure 10: Effects of Reviews on Progress toward the Achievement of Agency Goals, As Reported by Agencies
N=22 agencies
In our discussions with officials from selected agencies, data-driven review meetings were described as venues for agency leaders and managers to assess progress toward key goals and milestones, the status of ongoing initiatives and planned actions, potential solutions for problems or challenges hindering progress, and additional support or resources needed to improve performance.
Agency officials emphasized that discussions in their review meetings tend to focus on those goals or issues most in need of attention, where the achievement of a goal or milestone is at risk. In this way, reviews can
37DOD reported the reviews have had no effect on its ability to identify and mitigate risks
to achieving priority goals.