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
I recently attended the public meeting held in Las Vegas on the Managing for Excellence initiative. I have several comments about the process and want to make it clear that these views are mine alone and do not necessarily represent the feelings of the Board of Trustees of the District. I applaud the Bureau's effort to look to the future in an effort to determine the various issues that will or might face the Bureau and determine in advance which structure would enable it to most efficiently accomplish those tasks. As I listened to and reviewed the various action items the process reminded me of re-engineering efforts that I have been involved with in the private sector. If the Bureau is serious about conducting a serious 360 degree review, there are a few things that I think need to be considered. 1. All stake holders are not equal! While I agree that all stake holders should have a place at the table it seems to me that those with whom the Bureau has existing contracts should be considered separately and preferentially as this process moves on. 2. The Bureau seems to be dedicating a large amount of resources to this process and rightfully so. Small districts like ours, however, do not have the manpower to dedicate a large amount of time to this effort without some sort of compensation. I would suggest that a cross section of those districts, who currently have contracts with the Bureau, be selected and then compensated for their involvement. 3. My experience with past "re-engineering" efforts has shown that an outside perspective is necessary when conducting this level of evaluation. It doesn't make sense to use only those who are so vested in the current culture that they can't see clearly what needs to be done. With all the resources being invested it would seem that the Bureau would want to have a result that truly captures what you set out to accomplish. My view is that so much of it will be watered down by "current institutional knowledge" that very little will change. There are many organizations and consultants that specialize in facilitating this kind of effort. By utilizing their expertise, the end result is much more likely to answer the questions being posed. 4. One of the issues that seem to be getting a lot of attention is that of "Title Transfers." As a small district we enjoy a very good working relationship with our area office and rely heavily on their expertise and understanding of dams and other facilities that are features of our projects. We count on the Bureau's involvement and don't have any desire to have title to these features transferred to our district. We provide the maintenance and operations of the features within our district, and that is as it should be; but we do not want to take on the responsibility and/or liability of ownership of the dams or other features. 5. As it pertains to this process, it is my opinion that the wrong people are leading the effort. The same people that will be eligible for retirement within the next 5 years are those that are leading this effort. Specifically Larry Todd just seemed to be going through the motions but didn't seem to grasp the importance of this effort nor the methodology for making it happen. I know for certain that there are many bright up-and-coming stars within the Bureau's ranks. Why not use them since they will be the ones to implement the changes. I had never met Larry Todd or Roseann Gonzales before this public meeting in Las Vegas but in my opinion, someone like Roseann Gonzales understands the process and knows how to accomplish this task far better the Larry Todd. There is a quote to the effect that "these significant problems we face can not be solved when standing on the same level we were on when we created them." If the Bureau is serious and wants to have something of value when the smoke clears and the work is done, it needs to utilize the abilities of those rising stars within its own ranks who may or may not be the current leaders and it needs to involve outside expertise to facilitate the effort. I would also caution against setting a rigid deadline because that could dilute the potential of this effort. I look forward to continued involvement in this process as time allows and will see you in Salt Lake City.	08/02/2006

Back To Comments Home

Comment

Submit Date

I recently attended the public meeting held in Las Vegas on the Managing for Excellence initiative. I have several comments about the process and want to make it clear that these views are mine alone and do not necessarily represent the feelings of the Board of Trustees of the District. I applaud the Bureau's effort to look to the future in an effort to determine the various issues that will or might face the Bureau and determine in advance which structure would enable it to most efficiently accomplish those tasks. As I listened to and reviewed the various action items the process reminded me of re-engineering efforts that I have been involved with in the private sector. If the Bureau is serious about conducting a serious 360 degree review, there are a few things that I think need to be considered.

1. All stake holders are not equal! While I agree that all stake holders should have a place at the table it seems to me that those with whom the Bureau has existing contracts should be considered separately and preferentially as this process moves on.

2. The Bureau seems to be dedicating a large amount of resources to this process and rightfully so. Small districts like ours, however, do not have the manpower to dedicate a large amount of time to this effort without some sort of compensation. I would suggest that a cross section of those districts, who currently have contracts with the Bureau, be selected and then compensated for their involvement.

3. My experience with past "re-engineering" efforts has shown that an outside perspective is necessary when conducting this level of evaluation. It doesn't make sense to use only those who are so vested in the current culture that they can't see clearly what needs to be done. With all the resources being invested it would seem that the Bureau would want to have a result that truly captures what you set out to accomplish. My view is that so much of it will be watered down by "current institutional knowledge" that very little will change. There are many organizations and consultants that specialize in facilitating this kind of effort. By utilizing their expertise, the end result is much more likely to answer the questions being posed.

4. One of the issues that seem to be getting a lot of attention is that of "Title Transfers." As a small district we enjoy a very good working relationship with our area office and rely heavily on their expertise and understanding of dams and other facilities that are features of our projects. We count on the Bureau's involvement and don't have any desire to have title to these features transferred to our district. We provide the maintenance and operations of the features within our district, and that is as it should be; but we do not want to take on the responsibility and/or liability of ownership of the dams or other features.

5. As it pertains to this process, it is my opinion that the wrong people are leading the effort. The same people that will be eligible for retirement within the next 5 years are those that are leading this effort. Specifically Larry Todd just seemed to be going through the motions but didn't seem to grasp the importance of this effort nor the methodology for making it happen. I know for certain that there are many bright up-and-coming stars within the Bureau's ranks. Why not use them since they will be the ones to implement the changes. I had never met Larry Todd or Roseann Gonzales before this public meeting in Las Vegas but in my opinion, someone like Roseann Gonzales understands the process and knows how to accomplish this task far better the Larry Todd.

There is a quote to the effect that "these significant problems we face can not be solved when standing on the same level we were on when we created them." If the Bureau is serious and wants to have something of value when the smoke clears and the work is done, it needs to utilize the abilities of those rising stars within its own ranks who may or may not be the current leaders and it needs to involve outside expertise to facilitate the effort. I would also caution against setting a rigid deadline because that could dilute the potential of this effort. I look forward to continued involvement in this process as time allows and will see you in Salt Lake City.

08/02/2006