This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-231 
entitled 'Architect of the Capitol: Management and Accountability 
Framework Needed for Organizational Transformation' which was released 
on January 17, 2003.



This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 

longer term project to improve GAO products’ accessibility. Every 

attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 

the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 

descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 

end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 

but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 

version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 

replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 

your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 

document to Webmaster@gao.gov.



Report to Congressional Requesters:



January 2003:



Architect of The Capitol:



Management and Accountability Framework Needed for Organizational 

Transformation:



GAO-03-231:



GAO Highlights:



Highlights of GAO-03-231, a report to the Subcommittee on Legislative 

Branch, Senate Committee on Appropriations, and the Subcommittee on 

Legislative, House Committee on Appropriations



Why GAO Did This Study:



The Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) plays an important 

role in supporting the effective functioning of the Congress and its 

neighboring institutions.  With a budget of $426 million, AOC is 

responsible for the maintenance, renovation, and new construction of 

all buildings and grounds within the Capitol Hill complex.  GAO was 

mandated by the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2002, to 

conduct a comprehensive management review of AOC’s operations to 

help identify improvements in strategic planning, organizational 

alignment, and strategic human capital management to help AOC better 

achieve its mission and to address long-standing program issues. 

To address these objectives, GAO reviewed AOC’s legislative authority 

and internal documents, interviewed key AOC officials and senior 

managers, and conducted employee focus groups.



What GAO Found:



AOC is an agency working to transform itself and has planned 

management improvement efforts, such as a new strategic planning 

process, to help it make this transition.  GAO found that without 

AOC establishing a management and accountability framework, it might 

have difficulty leading and executing its organizational 

transformation. Leading organizations undergoing transformation 
efforts 

draw from the following management and accountability components: 

(1) demonstrating top leadership commitment to organizational 

transformation, (2) involving key stakeholders in developing an 

organizationwide strategic plan, (3) using the strategic plan as the 

foundation for aligning activities, core processes, and resources to 

support mission-related outcomes, (4) establishing a communications 

strategy to foster transformation and create shared expectations and 

build involvement, (5) developing annual goals and a system for 

measuring performance, and (6) managing human capital and 

information technology strategically to drive transformation 

and to support the accomplishment of agency goals.  



To support its transformation initiatives and to cope with 

shifting environments and evolving demands and priorities, 

AOC also should continue to develop its management infrastructure 

and controls.  Establishing this management and accountability 

framework and further developing its management infrastructure and 

controls can also help AOC improve performance in program areas of 

long-standing concern to AOC’s employees and congressional 

stakeholders—worker safety, project management, and recycling.



AOC’s mission is to preserve and enhance the Capitol and related 

facilities



[See PDF for image]



Source: AOC; Hill International, Inc.



[End of figure]



What GAO Recommends:



GAO recommends that AOC establish a strategic management and 

accountability framework, including strong management infrastructure 

and controls, to drive its agency transformation effort and to 

address long-standing program issues. 



AOC generally agreed with our recommendations and is developing 

a plan to implement them.



www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-231



To view the full report, including the scope

and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact J. Christopher Mihm at (202) 

512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov.



Letter:



Executive Summary:



Purpose:



Background:



Results in Brief:



Principal Findings and Recommendations for Agency Action:



Matters for Congressional Consideration:



Agency Comments:



Chapter 1: Introduction:



Background:



Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:



Chapter 2: Strategic Management Framework Needed to 

Achieve Transformation 



AOC Needs to Undergo Organizational Transformation:



Conclusions:



Recommendations for Agency Action:



Matters for Congressional Consideration:



Agency Comments:



Chapter 3: Management Infrastructure and Controls Needed to 

Support Organizational Transformation Initiatives:



Standards for Internal Control Can Provide a Strong Foundation for 

Organizational Transformation:



Strengthening Human Capital Policies, Procedures, 

and Processes:



Continue Improving Financial Management to Support Program Management:



AOC Could Benefit from an Agencywide and Disciplined Approach to IT 

Management:



Conclusions:



Recommendations for Agency Action:



Agency Comments:



Chapter 4: Strategic Management Framework Important for Addressing 

Long-standing Worker Safety, Project Management, and Recycling Issues:



AOC’s Worker Safety Efforts Are Substantial, but AOC Needs to Develop a 

Strategic Approach to Achieve a Safer Workplace:



Conclusions:



Recommendations for Agency Action:



AOC Has Identified Best Practices for Project Management, but 

Implementation Is Uneven:



Conclusions:



Recommendations for Agency Action:



AOC Needs to Build on Current Efforts by Adopting a Strategic Approach 

to Recycling:



Conclusions:



Recommendations for Agency Action:



Agency Comments:



Appendixes:



Appendix I: Employee and Supervisor Focus Groups--Objectives, Scope, 
and Methodology:



Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:



Appendix II: Comments from the Office of the Architect of the Capitol:



Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements:



Tables :



Table 1: Federal Agencies with the Highest Injury and Illness Rates, 

Fiscal Years 1999 through 2001:



Table 2: Components of an Effective Safety and Health Program and How 

They Are Demonstrated:



Table 3: Ten Steps Identified by GSA for Best Administering a Recycling 

Program:



Figures:



Figure 1: Strategic Plan for Aligning AOC’s Activities, Core Processes, 

and Resources to Support AOC’s Mission-Related Outcomes:



Figure 2: AOC Workers’ Compensation Payments, Fiscal Years 1997 through 

2002:



Figure 3: AOC Annual Appropriations for Capital Projects from Fiscal 

Years 1994 through 2003:



Abbreviations:



AOC: Office of the Architect of the Capitol:



BCA: building condition assessment:



CAA: Congressional Accountability Act of 1995:



CFO: chief financial officer:



COO: chief operating officer:



DOD: Department of Defense:



EAC: Employee Advisory Council:



EEO: equal employment opportunity:



GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act:



GSA: General Services Administration:



HRMD: Human Resource Management Division:



IT: information technology:



OAP: Office of Attending Physician:



OCODC: Office of the Chief of Design and Construction:



OIRM: Office of Information Resource Management:



OOC: Office of Compliance:



OSHA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration:



PHS: Public Health Service:



PIC: Project Information Center:



PMBOK: A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge:



PMI: Project Management Institute:



Letter January 17, 2003:



The Honorable Robert F. Bennett

Chairman

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Legislative Branch

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate:



The Honorable Jack Kingston

Chairman

The Honorable James P. Moran

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Legislative

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives:



In response to the management review of the Office of the Architect of 

the Capitol (AOC) mandated by the Legislative Branch Appropriations 

Act, 2002, this report discusses (1) improvements in strategic 

planning, organizational alignment, and strategic human capital 

management that would help AOC better achieve its mission and 

accomplish its strategic goals, (2) actions that AOC can take in other 

key areas of its management infrastructure, such as financial and 

information technology management, to improve its performance and 

better accomplish its goals, and (3) best practices and specific 

improvements in three key program areas of long-standing concern to 

AOC’s congressional stakeholders and employees--worker safety, project 

management, and recycling. This report contains recommendations to the 

Architect of the Capitol for establishing a strategic management and 

accountability framework, including strong management infrastructure 

and controls, to drive its agency transformation effort and to address 

long-standing program issues.



Please call me at (202) 512-6806 if you or your staff members have any 

questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are 

listed in appendix III.



J. Christopher Mihm

Director, Strategic Issues:



Signed by J. Christopher Mihm



[End of section]



Executive Summary:



Purpose:



The Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) plays an important 

role in supporting the effective functioning of the Congress and its 

neighboring institutions. With a budget of $426 million, AOC is 

responsible for the maintenance, renovation, and new construction of 

all buildings and grounds within the Capitol Hill complex, such as the 

Capitol building, the House and Senate office buildings, the Library of 

Congress, and the Supreme Court. The historic nature and high-profile 

use of many of these buildings creates a complex environment in which 

to carry out this mission. AOC must also perform its duties in an 

environment that requires balancing the divergent needs of 

congressional leadership, committees, individual members of the 

Congress, congressional staffs, and the visiting public. The challenges 

of operating in this environment were compounded by the events of 

September 11, 2001, and their aftermath, including the October 2001 

discovery of anthrax bacteria on Capitol Hill, and the resulting need 

for increased security and safety.



This review was mandated by the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 

2002.[Footnote 1] Senate and House Appropriations Committee reports 

also asked GAO to help address certain management shortcomings at AOC 

that needed attention, with a focus on recommending solutions.[Footnote 

2] In April 2002, at the request of the Subcommittee on Legislative 

Branch, Senate Committee on Appropriations, GAO submitted a statement 

for the record for AOC’s appropriations hearing that outlined its 

preliminary observations on what AOC needed to do to improve its 

management. This report completes GAO’s review. This report discusses 

(1) improvements in strategic planning, organizational alignment, and 

strategic human capital management that would help AOC better achieve 

its mission and accomplish its strategic goals, (2) actions that AOC 

can take in other key areas of its management infrastructure, such as 

financial and information technology management, to improve its 

performance and better accomplish its goals, and (3) best practices and 

specific improvements in three key program areas of long-standing 

concern to AOC’s employees and congressional stakeholders--worker 

safety, project management, and recycling. This report also discusses 

actions taken to date by AOC and GAO recommendations for further 

enhancements. As mandated by the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 

2002, AOC is to develop a management improvement plan to address GAO’s 

recommendations.[Footnote 3]



Background:



Organizationally, AOC is made up of a centralized staff that performs 

administrative functions and “jurisdictions” that handle their own day-

to-day operations. These jurisdictions include the Senate Office 

Buildings, the House Office Buildings, the U.S. Capitol Buildings, the 

Library of Congress Buildings and Grounds, the Supreme Court Buildings 

and Grounds, the Capitol Grounds, the Capitol Power Plant, and the U.S. 

Botanic Garden. There are over 2,300 employees in AOC; nearly 1 out of 

every 3 employees is a member of a union. New requirements to meet 

long-standing labor and safety laws have added to the complexity of AOC 

operations. For example, the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 

(CAA) applied 11 civil rights, labor, and workplace laws to AOC as well 

as other legislative branch agencies.[Footnote 4] CAA also requires AOC 

to meet standards set by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

1970, which applied new life and fire safety codes, as well as other 

building codes, to the agency.



Across the federal government, fundamental questions are being asked 

about what government does; how it does it; and in some cases, who 

should do the government’s business. The answers to these questions are 

driving agencies to transform their organizational cultures. AOC 

confronts many of these same issues. The experiences of successful 

major change management initiatives in large private and public sector 

organizations suggests that such initiatives can often take at least 5 

to 7 years until they are fully implemented and the related cultures 

are transformed in a sustainable manner. To achieve such organizational 

transformation, agencies across the government will need to (1) elevate 

attention on management issues and transformation, (2) integrate 

various key management functions and transformation responsibilities, 

and

(3) institutionalize accountability for addressing management issues 

and leading transformation.



Results in Brief:



AOC has demonstrated a commitment to organizational transformation 

through the management improvements it has planned and under way, such 

as commencing a new strategic planning effort that focuses on 

developing mission-critical goals. To build upon this commitment and 

achieve the magnitude of change needed, AOC needs to establish a 

management and accountability framework as the centerpiece of its 

transformation efforts. This framework includes (1) demonstrating top 

leadership commitment to organizational transformation, (2) involving 

key congressional and other stakeholders in developing an AOC-wide 

strategic plan, (3) using the strategic plan as the foundation for 

aligning activities, core processes, and resources to support mission-

related outcomes, (4) establishing a communications strategy to foster 

transformation and create shared expectations and build involvement, 

(5) developing annual goals and a system for measuring performance, and 

(6) strategically managing AOC’s human capital and information 

technology to drive transformation and to support the accomplishment of 

agency goals.



To support its transformation initiatives and to cope with shifting 

environments and evolving demands and priorities, AOC also should 

continue to develop its management infrastructure and controls in the 

areas of human capital, financial, and information technology 

management. Establishing a management and accountability framework and 

further developing its management infrastructure and controls can also 

help AOC improve the performance of program areas of long-standing 

concern to AOC’s employees and congressional stakeholders--worker 

safety, project management, and recycling.



The change under way at AOC will require further long-term and 

concerted action on the part of AOC, the Congress, and other interested 

parties. Organizational transformation does not come quickly or easily. 

However, such transformation is possible through focused efforts and 

careful and thorough planning. In that regard, GAO makes 

recommendations to the Architect of the Capitol, and suggests that the 

Congress consider actions directed at supporting this transformation 

and improving the strategic and operational management of AOC. In 

responding to this report, AOC generally agreed with our findings, 

conclusions, and recommendations.



Principal Findings and Recommendations for Agency Action:



Strategic Management Framework Needed to Achieve Transformation:



AOC has demonstrated a commitment to organizational transformation 

through the management improvements it has planned and under way. AOC 

has recently (1) commenced a new strategic planning effort that focuses 

on developing mission-critical goals, (2) drafted congressional 

protocols patterned after GAO’s protocols, (3) conducted client surveys 

in the Capitol, House, Senate, and Library of Congress jurisdictions, 

and 

(4) implemented a senior executive performance evaluation system.



To better serve the Congress, central AOC management needs to build the 

capability to define goals, set priorities, ensure follow-through, 

monitor progress, and establish accountability for results. Therefore, 

as a first priority, AOC needs to establish a management and 

accountability framework to help it lead and execute such 

organizational transformation. This framework includes (1) 

demonstrating top leadership commitment to organizational 

transformation, (2) involving key congressional and other stakeholders 

in developing an AOC-wide strategic plan, (3) using the strategic plan 

as the foundation for aligning activities, core processes, and 

resources to support mission-related outcomes, (4) establishing a 

communications strategy to foster transformation and create shared 

expectations and build involvement, (5) developing annual goals and a 

system for measuring performance, and (6) strategically managing AOC’s 

human capital to support the accomplishment of agency goals.



Making such fundamental changes in AOC’s culture will require a long-

term, concerted effort. Given the nature and scope of changes needed 

and under way at AOC, it can demonstrate that progress is being made 

along the way by establishing action-oriented implementation goals over 

the long term, and a time line with milestone dates to track the 

organization’s progress towards those achieving those implementation 

goals.



To implement the management and accountability framework, GAO found 

that AOC needs to (1) elevate attention on management issues and 

organizational transformation, (2) integrate various key management and 

transformation efforts, and (3) institutionalize accountability for 

addressing management issues and leading organizational 

transformation.



To adopt the elements of the management and accountability framework--

strategic planning, organizational alignment, communications, 

performance measurement, and strategic human capital management--and 

build on efforts under way at AOC, GAO recommends that the Architect of 

the Capitol:



* improve strategic planning and organizational alignment by involving 

key congressional and other external stakeholders in AOC’s strategic 

planning efforts and in any organizational changes that may result from 

these efforts;



* develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external 

communications by completing the development of congressional protocols 

with stakeholder involvement and continuing to regularly measure 

customer satisfaction AOC-wide, among other strategies; and:



* strengthen accountability for results by developing annual goals, 

measuring performance, and strategically managing human capital to 

support achieving those goals and measures.



The Architect should work with key congressional and other stakeholders 

to develop this plan.



Management Infrastructure and Controls Needed to Support Transformation 

Initiatives:



The effectiveness with which AOC can use the management and 

accountability framework--leadership, strategic planning, 

organizational alignment, communications, performance measurement, and 

strategic human capital management--to achieve organizational 

transformation will depend in part on its ability to focus on 

management improvement in its day-to-day operations. A key factor in 

helping an agency to better achieve its mission and program outcomes 

and minimize operational problems is to implement appropriate internal 

control--or management controls. Effective internal control also helps 

in managing change to cope with shifting environments and evolving 

demands and priorities.



AOC has recently focused on improving its internal controls in a number 

of key areas: (1) improved budget formulation and execution processes, 

(2) begun preparations for producing auditable financial statements, 

and (3) begun drafting a policy to establish an agencywide approach to 

information technology management. AOC must continue to assess and 

evaluate its internal control to assure that the control activities 

being used are effective and updated when necessary in the areas of 

human capital, financial, and information technology management.



GAO found that AOC will need to further develop and consistently apply 

transparent human capital policies and procedures in the area of leave, 

awards, and overtime and examine discrepancies in job classification 

and pay levels across the agency. AOC must also continue improving its 

approach to financial management to support effective and efficient 

program management. For example, it must continue to develop and 

implement effective budget formulation and execution policies and 

procedures that govern capital projects and operating activities AOC-

wide. Finally, AOC will need to adopt an agencywide approach to 

information technology management to position itself to optimize the 

contribution of information technology to agency mission performance.



To continue to develop a management infrastructure and strengthen 

appropriate management controls, GAO recommends that the Architect of 

the Capitol:



* strengthen and consistently implement AOC’s human capital policies 

and procedures, and assess ways in which AOC management could better 

gather and analyze data on employee relations issues;



* continue to improve AOC’s approach to financial management by 

developing strategies to institutionalize financial management 

practices that will support budgeting, financial, and program 

management at AOC; and:



* adopt an agencywide approach to information technology management by 

establishing appropriate leadership and developing the policies, 

procedures, and tools needed to effectively and efficiently manage 

information technology resources across the agency.



Strategic Management Framework Important for Addressing Long-standing 

Worker Safety, Project Management, and Recycling Program Issues:



The need for AOC to put in place the management and accountability 

framework for organizational transformation, and the management 

infrastructure of financial, information technology, and other controls 

that support the transformation, cuts across the agency’s programs and 

influences its performance in all areas critical to achieving its 

mission. Improvements in these areas can also contribute to improving 

the performance of program areas of long-standing concern to AOC’s 

employees and congressional stakeholders--worker safety, project 

management, and recycling.



AOC has made recent progress in all these areas. For example, AOC has 

(1) drafted a workplace safety and health master plan, (2) consulted 

with experts on how to structure its request for proposals for 

developing a long-term master plan for the Capitol Hill complex, and 

(3) improved recycling program coordination and client outreach.



However, significant opportunities exist to build on this progress to 

bring about lasting performance improvements. For example, the 

Architect has declared that safety is the agency’s number one priority 

and established a target for reducing injuries. Nonetheless, relating 

safety to other pressing priorities and developing a clear strategy for 

how working safely will become the cultural norm, is still a work in 

progress at AOC. Similarly, AOC has adopted industry best practices for 

project management, but implementation is uneven and would benefit from 

stronger leadership and improvements in performance and financial 

management, priority setting, communication, and strategic management 

of human capital. Finally, although AOC has recently made improvements 

to the House and Senate recycling programs, contamination of recycled 

materials remains high, and the goals for the overall program remain 

unclear.



To improve worker safety, GAO recommends that the Architect of the 

Capitol enhance AOC’s ongoing efforts to establish a strategy for the 

worker safety program by:



* establishing safety program goals that are fully integrated with 

AOC’s agencywide goals, performance measures for achieving the goals, 

and accountability for results;



* improving AOC’s capacity to report hazards, conduct investigations 

and follow-up, and provide employee safety training that fully supports 

safety program goals;



* clarifying the role of the Congressional Office of Attending 

Physician to help AOC meet its safety goals; and:



* establishing a senior management-level work group that will routinely 

discuss workers’ compensation cases and costs, and developing 

strategies to reduce these injuries and costs.



To improve project management at AOC, GAO recommends that the Architect 

of the Capitol:



* develop a Capitol Hill complex master plan and complete condition 

assessments of all buildings and facilities under the jurisdiction of 

AOC;



* develop a process for assigning project priorities that is based on 

clearly defined, well-documented, consistently applied, and 

transparent criteria;



* develop tools to effectively communicate priorities and progress of 

projects, as a part of a broader communication strategy;



* define project management-related performance measures to achieve 

mission-critical strategic and annual performance goals; and:



* align project management staff and resources with AOC’s mission-

critical goals.



To improve recycling at AOC, GAO recommends that the Architect of the 

Capitol adopt a strategic approach to recycling by:



* developing a clear mission and goals for AOC’s recycling program, 

with input from key congressional stakeholders, as part of its proposed 

environmental master plan;



* developing a performance measurement, monitoring, and evaluation 

system that supports accomplishing AOC’s recycling mission and goals; 

and:



* examining the roles, responsibilities, and accountability of AOC’s 

recycling program staff.



Matters for Congressional Consideration:



The Congress should consider ways in which to elevate, integrate, and 

institutionalize accountability for addressing management issues and 

leading organizational transformational at AOC. One option would be to 

create a statutory Chief Operating Officer or similar position for AOC 

to improve its executive decision-making capacity and accountability.



To help ensure that AOC implements its management improvement plan, the 

Congress should consider requiring AOC to provide periodic status 

reports on the implementation of its plan, including progress made and 

milestones not met, and any adjustments to the plan in response to 

internal or external developments.



Agency Comments:



On November 20, 2002, we provided to the Architect of the Capitol a 

draft of this report for comment. We received written comments from the 

Architect, which are reprinted in appendix II. AOC also provided 

technical comments that were incorporated where appropriate.



In his written comments, the Architect stated that he is “dedicated to 

preserving and enhancing the national treasures entrusted to my 

agency’s care, and to providing high quality service to the Congress 

and our other clients.” He further stated “the GAO testimony provided 

in April 2002 and our discussions with GAO regarding the report 

resulted in our advancing improvement efforts at the [AOC].” The 

Architect generally agreed with our findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations and indicated that AOC is developing an implementation 

plan to adopt recommended management changes and that three themes--

strategic planning, communications, and performance management--will 

be the primary focus of its immediate efforts. The Architect disagreed 

with our statement that AOC’s 5-year Safety Management Plan was drafted 

independent of its broader strategic planning effort. Although we 

believe that this statement was true at the time of our review, AOC has 

subsequently made efforts to improve the alignment between its draft 

strategic and worker safety plans. Therefore, we deleted this 

statement.



[End of section]



Chapter 1: Introduction:



The Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) is responsible for 

maintaining and caring for the buildings and grounds primarily located 

in the Capitol Hill complex, such as the Capitol building, the House 

and Senate office buildings, the Library of Congress, and the Supreme 

Court. AOC is also responsible for making all necessary capital 

improvements within the complex, including major renovations and new 

construction. The historic nature and high-profile use of many of these 

buildings creates a complex environment in which to carry out this 

mission. For example, the U.S. Capitol building is, at once, a national 

capitol, museum, office building, ceremonial site, meeting center, 

media base, and tourist attraction. In making structural or other 

physical changes, AOC must consider the historical significance and the 

effect on each of these many uses. Further, AOC must perform its duties 

in an environment that requires balancing the divergent needs of 

congressional leadership, committees, individual members of the 

Congress, congressional staffs, and the visiting public. The challenges 

of operating in this environment were compounded by the events of 

September 11, 2001, and their aftermath, including the October 2001 

discovery of anthrax bacteria on Capitol Hill, and the resulting need 

for increased security and safety.



Given the important role AOC plays in supporting the effective 

functioning of the Congress and neighboring institutions, the 

Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2002, mandated this 

review,[Footnote 5] and Senate and House Appropriations Committee 

reports directed our review on certain management shortcomings at AOC 

that needed attention, with a focus on recommending solutions--

strategic planning, organizational alignment, strategic human capital 

management, and financial management.[Footnote 6] The committees also 

asked us to assess information technology, and three key program areas-

-worker safety, recycling, and project management--both to illustrate 

the management issues we are addressing and to help AOC identify best 

practices and areas for improvement in these important programs. This 

report also discusses actions taken to date by AOC and our 

recommendations for further enhancements. In April 2002, at the request 

of the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Senate Committee on 

Appropriations, we submitted a statement for the record for AOC’s 

appropriations hearing that outlined our preliminary observations on 

what:



AOC needed to do to improve its management.[Footnote 7] This report 

completes our review. The act also requires AOC to develop a management 

improvement plan to address our recommendations.[Footnote 8]



We recognize that this report outlines a large and complex agenda for 

achieving organizational transformation at AOC, and that AOC cannot 

tackle all these changes at once. The experiences of successful major 

change management initiatives in large private and public sector 

organizations suggest that such initiatives can often take at least 5 

to 7 years until they are fully implemented and the related cultures 

are transformed in a sustainable manner. Nonetheless, this agenda 

provides the broad landscape of issues confronting AOC and is therefore 

important to crafting a comprehensive and integrated approach to 

addressing AOC’s challenges and setting appropriate priorities, even 

though by necessity it will have to be phased in over time. By drawing 

on the full potential of its management team, AOC can begin to take 

immediate steps on a number of actions, although we recognize that AOC 

will be able to implement some of these actions more quickly than 

others.



Background:



In fiscal year 2002, AOC operated with a budget of $426 million, which 

included $237 million for capital expenditures associated with the 

construction or major renovation of facilities within the Capitol Hill 

complex. Organizationally, AOC has a centralized staff that performs 

administrative functions; what AOC refers to as “jurisdictions” handle 

their own day-to-day operations. These jurisdictions include the Senate 

Office Buildings, the House Office Buildings, the U.S. Capitol 

Buildings, the Library of Congress Buildings and Grounds, the Supreme 

Court Buildings and Grounds, the Capitol Grounds, the Capitol Power 

Plant, the U.S. Botanic Garden. There are over 2,300 employees in AOC; 

nearly 1 out of every 3 employees is a member of a union.



New requirements to meet long-standing labor and safety laws have added 

to the complexity of AOC operations. For example, the Congressional 

Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA) applied 11 civil rights, labor, and 

workplace laws to AOC as well as other legislative branch 

agencies.[Footnote 9] In particular, meeting the obligations of labor 

laws, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Federal 

Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, while overcoming a history 

of poor labor-management relations has been a struggle. CAA also 

requires AOC to meet standards set by the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act of 1970, which applied new life and fire safety codes, as 

well as other building codes, to the agency. CAA established the Office 

of Compliance (OOC) to enforce the provisions of the act through 

inspections, investigations, and prosecution of potential violations. 

In addition, OOC provides education to employees and employing offices, 

and administers dispute resolution procedures if violations are found.



AOC has demonstrated a commitment to change through the management 

improvements it has planned and under way. For example, consistent with 

the preliminary observations we provided in our April statement, AOC 

has recently:



* commenced a new strategic planning effort that focuses on developing 

mission-critical goals,



* drafted congressional protocols patterned after our protocols,



* conducted client surveys in the Capitol, House, Senate, and Library 

of Congress jurisdictions,



* implemented a senior executive performance evaluation system,



* improved budget formulation and execution processes,



* begun preparations for producing auditable financial statements,



* begun drafting a policy to establish an agencywide approach to 

information technology management,



* drafted a workplace safety and health master plan,



* consulted with experts on how to structure its request for proposals 

for developing a long term master plan for the Capitol Hill complex, 

and:



* improved recycling program coordination and client outreach.



Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:



The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2002, directed us to conduct 

a comprehensive management study of AOC’s operations. Under this 

mandate, we address three objectives: (1) What improvements in 

strategic planning, organizational alignment, and strategic human 

capital management would help AOC better achieve its mission and 

accomplish its strategic goals? (2) What actions can the AOC take to 

improve its overall management infrastructure in other key functional 

areas, such as financial management and information technology 

management, to improve its performance and better accomplish its goals? 

(3) What specific improvement can AOC make in selected program areas, 

including worker safety, project management, and recycling, vital to 

achieving its mission?



To address these objectives, we have been working constructively with 

AOC managers to understand their complex operating environment and the 

long-standing challenges they must address. In addition to the standard 

audit methods described below, as part of our constructive engagement, 

we provided AOC briefings and GAO reports on best practices in the 

areas we reviewed. For example, at AOC’s request, GAO officials 

provided briefings on our own approach to strategic planning and 

establishing congressional protocols along with copies of our strategic 

planning and protocol documents. In addition, we provided GAO reports 

on areas such as strategic human capital management[Footnote 10] and 

world-class financial management[Footnote 11] and other guidance on 

GAO’s human capital policies and procedures. Finally, upon request we 

provided details of our focus group methodology discussed below to 

assist AOC in replicating our approach in AOC jurisdictions we did not 

cover.



For each of the management functions and the worker safety and health, 

recycling, and project management programs, we reviewed AOC’s 

legislative authority and internal AOC documents, including selected 

AOC policies and procedures, internal and consultant reports on AOC 

management issues, reports by the Inspector General and GAO, and other 

reports on best practices.



To obtain management’s perspective on the objectives, we interviewed 

key senior AOC officials, including the Architect; the Chief of Staff; 

the Assistant Architect; the Chief Financial Officer; the General 

Counsel; the Deputy Chief of Staff; the Director of Safety, Fire, and 

Environmental Programs; the Director of the Office of Labor Relations; 

and the Acting Chief of the Office of Design and Construction. We also 

interviewed AOC officials at the next level of management responsible 

for strategic planning, human resources, information technology, 

budget, accounting, project management, architecture, engineering, 

construction, and recycling. We also spoke to senior AOC managers and 

toured facilities in the following AOC jurisdictions: U.S. Capitol 

Building, House Office Building, Senate Office Buildings, Library 

Buildings and Grounds, Supreme Court, Capitol Power Plant, and the U.S. 

Botanic Garden. We interviewed the Inspector General to discuss the 

work his office had done on the management areas we reviewed.



In addition to formal interviews, AOC allowed us to attend as observers 

a number of key internal meetings, including two budget review meetings 

on budget formulation and execution progress and issues for two 

jurisdictions, three quarterly capital project review meetings to 

discuss the status of AOC projects, an August 2002 National Academy of 

Sciences workshop to discuss Capitol Hill complex-wide master planning 

efforts, and a June 2002 workshop by DuPont Safety Resources on 

strategies for safety excellence.



To obtain additional perspectives on the areas examined as part of our 

review and as an initial effort to support AOC planned efforts to begin 

to routinely obtain employee feedback, we used focus groups to gather 

employee and supervisor perceptions, opinions, and attitudes about 

working at AOC. For our focus groups at AOC, we were interested in 

obtaining (1) employees’ views of what aspects of working at AOC were 

going well or needed improvement, (2) whether employees had the 

resources needed to perform their jobs, and (3) employees’ perspectives 

on AOC’s worker safety program. We contracted with the firm of 

Booz|Allen|Hamilton to conduct the focus groups and summarize and 

analyze the results. We conducted 13 of these focus groups with 

employees randomly selected from the House and Senate Office Building 

jurisdictions, Capitol Power Plant, Senate Restaurants, and the 

Construction Management Division. We selected employees from these 

parts of AOC in accord with our specific review areas of worker safety 

and project management and also because they contained some of the 

largest employee populations. The other two focus groups consisted of 

randomly selected employee supervisors from the House and Senate 

jurisdictions. In all, we invited 200 employees to attend 15 focus 

groups and 127 employees participated.



To obtain a better understanding of project management at AOC, we also 

conducted a focus group with full-time AOC project managers. For the 

focus group, we asked about what is working well at the AOC in project 

management and where there might be areas for improvement. We also 

discussed (1) the project management process at AOC, (2) the project 

management environment, and (3) resources and tools used in performing 

project management duties at AOC. We invited 14 project managers and 8 

attended. A more detailed discussion of our focus group objectives, 

scope, and methodology, including a list of our focus group questions 

is contained in appendix I.



To further understand how project management works at AOC, we conducted 

two in-depth case studies of projects currently under way--the 

relocation of the Senate Recording Studio and the modernization of the 

coal handling system at the Capitol Power Plant. We selected these case 

studies using the following criteria: both were drawn from AOC’s “hot”-

-or high priority--projects, one was a medium project and one was a 

large project, and one had a project manager from the central Assistant 

Architect’s office and the other from a jurisdiction. In addition both 

projects were on a critical path to the completion of other high 

priority AOC projects. Our methodology entailed reviewing relevant 

project documents as well as interviewing key internal and external 

stakeholders for the projects.



On November 20, 2002, we provided to the Architect of the Capitol a 

draft of this report for comment. We received written comments from the 

Architect. The Architect’s comments are reprinted in appendix II. AOC 

also provided technical comments that were incorporated where 

appropriate.



In his written comments, the Architect stated that he is “dedicated to 

preserving and enhancing the national treasures entrusted to my 

agency’s care, and to providing high quality service to the Congress 

and our other clients.” He further stated “the GAO testimony provided 

in April 2002 and our discussions with GAO regarding the report 

resulted in our advancing improvement efforts at the [AOC].” The 

Architect generally agreed with our findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations and indicated that AOC is developing an implementation 

plan to adopt recommended management changes and that three themes--

strategic planning, communications, and performance management--will 

be the primary focus of its immediate efforts. The Architect disagreed 

with our statement that AOC’s 5-year Safety Management Plan was drafted 

independent of its broader strategic planning effort. Although we 

believe that this statement was true at the time of our review, AOC has 

subsequently made efforts to improve the alignment between its draft 

strategic and worker safety plans. Therefore, we deleted this 

statement. We performed our work in Washington, D.C., from November 

2001 through September 2002 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards.



Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.



[End of section]



Chapter 2: Strategic Management Framework Needed to Achieve 

Transformation:



The Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) recognizes that 

because of the nature of the challenges and demands it faces, change 

will not come quickly or easily. AOC therefore must ensure that it has 

the policies, procedures, and people in place to effectively implement 

the needed changes. That is, to serve the Congress, central AOC 

management needs the capability to define goals, set priorities, ensure 

follow-through, monitor progress, and establish accountability. The 

themes we discuss in this chapter focus on building the capability to 

lead and execute organizational transformation. Therefore, as a first 

priority, AOC needs to establish a management and accountability 

framework by, among other things,



* demonstrating top leadership commitment to organizational 

transformation;



* involving key congressional and other stakeholders in developing its 

strategic plan;



* using its strategic plan as the foundation for aligning its 

activities, core processes, and resources to support mission-related 

outcomes;



* establishing a communications strategy to foster change and create 

shared expectations and build involvement;



* developing annual goals and a system for measuring performance; and:



* strategically managing its human capital to drive transformation and 

to support the accomplishment of agency goals.



AOC Needs to Undergo Organizational Transformation:



Across the federal government, fundamental questions are being asked 

about what government does; how it does it; and in some cases, who 

should do the government’s business. The answers to these questions are 

driving agencies to transform their organizational cultures. This 

organizational transformation entails shifts from:



* processes to results,



* stovepipes to matrixes,



* hierarchical to flatter and more horizontal structures,



* an inward focus to an external (customer and stakeholder) focus,



* micro-management to employee empowerment,



* reactive behavior to proactive approaches,



* avoiding new technologies to embracing and leveraging them,



* hoarding knowledge to sharing knowledge,



* avoiding risk to managing risk, and:



* protecting turf to forming partnerships.



AOC confronts many of these same issues. For example, to serve its 

clients, AOC is organized along jurisdictional lines--stovepipes that 

are not fully matrixed. In this environment, AOC faces the challenge of 

how best to marshal its jurisdiction-based resources to address the 

strategic planning, performance management, human capital, project 

management, and other functional issues that cut across the 

organization. AOC also faces the challenge of how to shift from 

reacting to problems as they arise to getting in front of the problems 

to address root causes, while still responding to the day-to-day 

service needs of its clients. Change is always risky, but continuing to 

address problems with only short-term tactical solutions can be even 

riskier--AOC needs to develop the capacity to identify the risks to 

achieving its goals and manage them before crises occur.



Making such fundamental changes in AOC’s culture will require a long-

term, concerted effort. The experiences of successful major change 

management initiatives in large private and public sector organizations 

suggests that such initiatives can often take at least 5 to 7 years 

until they are fully implemented and the related cultures are 

transformed in a sustainable manner. As a result, it is essential to 

establish action-oriented implementation goals over the long term and a 

time line with milestone dates to track the organization’s progress 

towards achieving those implementation goals.[Footnote 12]



The nature and scope of the changes require the sustained and inspired 

commitment of the top leadership. Top leadership attention is essential 

to overcome organizations’ natural resistance to change, marshal the 

resources needed to implement change, and build and maintain the 

organizationwide commitment to new ways of doing business. On September 

9, 2002, the Comptroller General convened a roundtable of executive 

branch leaders and management experts to discuss the Chief Operating 

Officer concept and how it might apply within selected federal 

departments and agencies as one leadership strategy to address certain 

systemic federal governance challenges.[Footnote 13] There was general 

agreement in the roundtable on a number of overall themes concerning 

the need for agencies to do the following:



* Elevate attention on management issues and organizational 

transformation. The nature and scope of the changes needed in many 

agencies require the sustained and inspired commitment of the top 

political and career leadership.



* Integrate various key management functions and transformation 

responsibilities. While officials with management responsibilities 

often have successfully worked together, there needs to be a single 

point within agencies with the perspective and responsibility--as well 

as authority--to ensure the successful implementation of functional 

management and, if appropriate, transformation efforts.



* Institutionalize accountability for addressing management issues and 

leading transformation. The management weaknesses in some agencies are 

deeply entrenched and long-standing and will take years of sustained 

attention and continuity to resolve. In addition, making fundamental 

changes in agencies’ cultures will require a long-term effort.



In our April 2002 statement, we noted that we were exploring options to 

strengthen AOC’s executive decision-making capacity and 

accountability, including creating a Chief Operating Officer (COO) 

position, which could be responsible for major long-term management and 

cultural transformation and stewardship responsibilities within AOC. On 

July 25, 2002, the Senate passed S.2720, the Legislative Branch 

Appropriations Act, 2003, in which it established a Deputy Architect of 

the Capitol/COO. This official was to be responsible for the overall 

direction, operation, and management of AOC. In addition to developing 

and implementing a long-term strategic plan, including a comprehensive 

mission statement and an annual performance plan, the bill requires 

that the Deputy Architect be responsible for proposing organizational 

changes and new positions needed to carry out AOC’s mission and 

strategic and annual performance goals. Regardless of whether the 

Congress decides to pursue a COO position for AOC, concerted efforts 

will be needed to elevate, integrate, and institutionalize 

responsibility for transformation at AOC.



Successful Organizations Align Their Activities, Core Processes, and 

Resources to Support Mission-Related Outcomes:



In our prior work, we have concluded that for strategic planning to be 

done well, organizations must involve their stakeholders and align 

their activities, core processes, and resources to support mission-

related outcomes. We found that leading results-oriented organizations 

consistently strive to ensure that their day-to-day activities support 

their organizational missions and move them closer to accomplishing 

their strategic goals. In practice, these organizations see the 

production of a strategic plan--that is, a particular document issued 

on a particular day--as one of the least important parts of the 

planning process. This is because they believe strategic planning is 

not a static or occasional event. It is, instead, a dynamic and 

inclusive process. If done well, strategic planning is continuous and 

provides the basis for everything the organization does each day. 

Therefore, it is important for an organization to go through the 

strategic planning process first, and then align the organization to 

accomplish the objectives of that plan. Figure 1 shows how an agency’s 

strategic plan serves as the foundation for other strategic management 

initiatives, such as organizational realignment; performance planning, 

management, and reporting; and improvements to the capacity of the 

organization to achieve its goals.



Figure 1: Strategic Plan for Aligning AOC’s Activities, Core Processes, 

and Resources to Support AOC’s Mission-Related Outcomes:



[See PDF for image] 



[End of figure] 



Since 1997, AOC and a number of its subsidiary offices and 

jurisdictions have attempted to implement strategic planning processes. 

In 1997, the Architect led the first effort to produce an AOC-wide 

strategic plan that laid out AOC’s mission, vision, core values, 

strategic priorities, and goals and objectives. Similarly, a number of 

business units within AOC, such as the Human Resources Management 

Division, the Office of Inspector General, and the House Office 

Buildings jurisdiction have developed their own strategic plans, and 

the Capitol Buildings jurisdiction is developing a new master plan for 

the Capitol, but these plans do not flow directly from, and therefore 

are not necessarily consistent with, an AOC-wide plan.



According to AOC officials, turnover in key planning staff and 

inability to reach agreement on how to measure performance led AOC 

management to discontinue the AOC-wide strategic planning effort. 

Subsequently, in 2001 AOC shifted to a scaled-back strategic planning 

approach that focused on tasks to be completed in a number of key 

priority areas: (1) develop a process and establish realistic goals and 

priorities, (2) improve employee support by, for example, addressing 

space and equipment needs and improving communication about where the 

organization is going, 

(3) improve safety, (4) improve project delivery, and (5) focus on 

quality assurance. In our April 2002 statement, we stated that AOC 

needed to refocus and integrate its strategic planning efforts to 

identify and implement mission-critical goals for key results.



Consistent with the preliminary observations in our April 2002 

statement, AOC renewed its organizationwide strategic planning process. 

AOC formed a task force of senior managers to develop a “straw” 

strategic plan that outlines AOC’s mission; vision; core values; and 

long-term, mission-critical goals for fiscal years 2003 through 2007. 

When completed, AOC’s strategic plan should provide the starting point 

and serve as a unifying framework for AOC’s various business unit and 

jurisdictional planning efforts. The plan will also position AOC to 

answer questions such as what fundamental results does AOC want to 

achieve, what are its long-term goals, and what strategies will it 

employ to achieve those goals.



AOC Needs to Involve Key Congressional and Other Stakeholders in 

Developing Its Strategic Plan:



Successful organizations we studied ensure that their strategic 

planning fully considers the interests and expectations of their 

stakeholders. Among the stakeholders of AOC are the appropriations and 

oversight committees and individual members of the Congress and their 

staffs, the management and staff of the Supreme Court, the Library of 

Congress, and the Congressional Budget Office, AOC employees, and, of 

course, the American public.



AOC strategic planning efforts have not yet involved such outreach. To 

date, AOC’s task force of senior managers has developed a straw 5-year 

strategic plan that outlines AOC’s mission, vision, core values, and 

high level goals and objectives for the four strategic focus areas its 

has identified: strategic management and business initiatives, human 

capital, facilities management, and project management.[Footnote 14] 

Consistent with our constructive engagement with AOC, we have provided 

several best practice briefings to the agency’s leadership as 

requested. A senior GAO executive in GAO’s Office of External Liaison 

briefed the Architect of the Capitol and other AOC senior managers on 

October 8, 2002, on our continuing process to update and revise our 

strategic plan. The briefing emphasized the need for continual 

stakeholder involvement. As a result, according to AOC, it recently 

defined its key stakeholders and a methodology for obtaining their 

feedback on the strategic plan.



In moving forward with its strategic planning efforts, it will be 

critical that AOC fully engage its stakeholders and obtain their buy-in 

to provide a strong foundation for any organizational or operating 

changes that may be needed to implement the plan. In contrast to 

previous strategic planning initiatives, AOC needs to move beyond a 

focus on actions to be completed quickly to a broader focus on the 

mission-critical, long-term goals needed to serve the Congress. Thus, 

stakeholder involvement will be especially important for AOC to help it 

ensure that its efforts and resources are targeted at the highest 

priorities. Just as important, involving stakeholders in strategic 

planning efforts can help create a basic understanding among the 

stakeholders of the competing demands that confront most agencies, the 

limited resources available to them, and how those demands and 

resources require careful and continuous balancing.



An AOC-Wide Communications Strategy Will Help Achieve Mission-Critical 

Goals:



An effective communications strategy is a key success factor for 

organizations undergoing transformation. In a September 24, 2002, forum 

convened by the Comptroller General on mergers and transformation 

issues, there was consensus among the participants that communication 

is essential to organizational transformation. As we discussed in our 

April 2002 statement, for successful implementation of strategic 

planning and change management, AOC must develop a comprehensive 

communications strategy for its internal and external customers. The 

Architect of the Capitol agrees that improving communications is one of 

his top priorities. As AOC continues to develop its strategic plan, it 

should consider how it can build such a communications strategy to help 

to achieve the organization’s mission. It is also important for AOC to 

assess ways that it can measure the success of this strategy.



AOC continues to strengthen its internal communications by broadening 

participation in a series of regular meetings among its senior managers 

for decision making and routine sharing of information. For example, 

AOC has expanded participation in its management council meetings 

(biweekly meetings of AOC’s senior managers to address agency business 

issues and priorities) to include jurisdictional superintendents and 

office directors.



In our April 2002 statement, we noted that AOC could strengthen its 

internal communications by developing a communications strategy that 

would help AOC’s line employees understand the connection between what 

they do on a day-to-day basis and AOC’s goals and expectations, as well 

as seek employee feedback and develop goals for improvement. We further 

stated that one way of implementing such a strategy is to conduct 

routine employee feedback surveys and/or focus groups. In addition, we 

continue to believe that AOC could benefit from knowledge sharing to 

encourage and reward employees who share and implement best practices 

across the various jurisdictions, teams, and projects.



The need for an organizationwide communications strategy is borne out 

by the results of the focus groups that we conducted with AOC employees 

and supervisors from June through July 2002. When we analyzed the 

results of the focus groups, several themes became apparent.[Footnote 

15] One of the themes cited by focus group participants involved 

supervisory communications and employee relations--specifically, that 

communications from supervisor to employee is insufficient. AOC plans 

to followup on our efforts by seeking employee feedback through focus 

groups and surveys. In a May 23, 2002, memorandum from the Architect to 

AOC’s employees announcing the focus groups we conducted, the Architect 

stated that AOC planned to gather the views of employees from the 

jurisdictions that we did not cover. Moreover, in its draft strategic 

plan, AOC noted that employee surveys is one strategy it plans to use 

to help achieve the human capital strategic goal of attracting, 

developing, and retaining diverse, satisfied, and highly motivated 

employees.



AOC must continue to improve its external communications and outreach 

by (1) further developing congressional protocols, (2) improving its 

accountability reporting, and (3) continuing to measure customer 

satisfaction with its services organizationwide. In our April 2002 

statement, we encouraged AOC to consider developing congressional 

protocols, which would help ensure that AOC deals with its 

congressional customers using clearly defined, consistently applied, 

and transparent policies and procedures. After working closely with the 

Congress and after careful pilot testing, we implemented congressional 

protocols in 1999. In response to our preliminary observations 

concerning the need for such protocols at AOC, on June 17, 2002, GAO’s 

Director of Congressional Relations and her staff briefed the Architect 

of the Capitol and AOC’s senior managers on lessons learned from GAO’s 

development of congressional protocols. They shared key lessons and 

success factors from our experiences in developing the protocols--that 

it is a time-consuming process that involves (1) the personal 

commitment and direction from the agency head, (2) senior management 

participation and buy-in, and (3) continuous outreach to and feedback 

from external stakeholders. As a result of our preliminary observations 

and our best practices briefing, AOC drafted an initial set of 

congressional protocols modeled after our congressional protocols. AOC 

noted that these protocols need to be finalized and distributed. In 

doing so, and consistent with the approach for AOC’s strategic plan, 

AOC needs to continually involve its stakeholders in developing these 

protocols.



Although AOC is not required to comply with the 1993 Government 

Performance and Results Act (GPRA) because it is a legislative branch 

agency, we believe that AOC could adopt the reporting elements of GPRA 

to strengthen accountability and transparency by annually reporting 

program performance and financial information. For example, although 

GAO is a legislative branch agency, since fiscal year 1999, we have 

annually produced performance and accountability reports as well as our 

future fiscal year performance plan. Such results-oriented 

accountability reporting would help AOC communicate what it has 

accomplished, as well as its plans for continued progress to its 

external stakeholders.



In tandem with AOC’s efforts to gather internal feedback from its 

employees, we noted in April 2002 that AOC’s communications strategy 

should also include tools for gauging customer satisfaction with its 

services. Customer feedback is an expectation for AOC’s senior managers 

and conducting client surveys is one proposed method in AOC’s draft 

strategic plan to achieve the strategic objective related to facilities 

management. In June 2002, AOC made a concerted effort to gather the 

views of some of its clients through a building services customer 

satisfaction survey for the Senate, House, Capitol building, and 

Library of Congress jurisdictions, which it plans to conduct annually. 

The Architect of the Capitol indicated to the survey participants that 

he will use the results of the survey to initiate service improvements 

based on the priorities they identify. AOC surveyed a total of 1,883 

congressional staff members and received 275 responses. The results of 

the survey were shared with the jurisdictions’ superintendents. AOC 

plans to report the results to the congressional leadership and members 

of the Congress and to the Library of Congress. In response, the 

jurisdictional superintendents are developing “action plans” to address 

areas of concern that were raised in the surveys. Continued AOC efforts 

to routinely measure customer satisfaction AOC-wide with both its 

congressional customers as well as other customers, such as visitors to 

the Capitol Hill complex, will help AOC identify its service quality 

strengths, performance gaps, and improvement opportunities.



AOC Should Develop Annual Goals and Measure Performance:



Another key action AOC needs to take is developing annual performance 

goals that provide a connection between the long-term strategic goals 

in the strategic plan and the day-to-day activities of managers and 

staff members. Measuring performance allows an organization to track 

the progress it is making toward its goals, gives managers crucial 

information on which to base their organizational and management 

decisions, and creates powerful incentives to influence organizational 

and individual behavior.



AOC’s draft strategic plan for 2002 through 2007 describes a number of 

strategic objectives and outcomes for each of its four focus areas. For 

example, under Facilities Management, AOC has as a strategic objective 

to “provide safe, healthy, secure, and clean facilities to our 

clients.” One of the outcomes described for this focus area is 

“satisfied visitors and occupants.” The draft plan also lists a 

performance goal methodology. In the case of Facilities Management, the 

methodology is “client surveys,” as we discussed above. According to 

the draft plan, AOC’s strategic plan is to be supplemented by more 

detailed functional plans that are developed along the same planning 

time line. These plans are to contain the tactical level actions, 

performance targets, and milestone data necessary to carry out agency-

level strategies. The draft plan states that AOC will use both 

quantitative and qualitative performance goals and measures to 

demonstrate progress toward its strategic goals and objectives.



As AOC moves forward in developing its performance goals and measures, 

it should consider the practices of leading organizations we have 

studied that were successful in measuring their performance. Such 

organizations generally applied two practices. First, they developed 

measures that were (1) tied to program goals and demonstrated the 

degree to which the desired results were achieved, (2) limited to the 

vital few that were considered essential to producing data for decision 

making, (3) responsive to multiple priorities, and (4) responsibility 

linked to establish accountability for results. Second, the agencies 

recognized the cost and effort involved in gathering and analyzing data 

and made sure that the data they did collect were sufficiently 

complete, accurate, and consistent to be useful in decision making.



Developing measures that respond to multiple priorities is of 

particular importance for programs operating in dynamic environments 

where mission requirements must be carefully balanced. This is the case 

for AOC where the role of protecting and preserving the historic 

facilities under its control may occasionally conflict with its role of 

providing maintenance and renovation services to occupants who use the 

facilities to conduct congressional business. For example, according to 

AOC officials, following elections, new members of the Congress may ask 

AOC to modify office suites containing historic architectural features. 

In those cases, AOC must balance the members’ needs for functional 

office design with its responsibility for protecting the architectural 

integrity of the rooms. Consequently, AOC, like other organizations, 

must weigh its mission requirements against its priorities. AOC could 

better gauge its success by first employing a balanced set of measures 

that encompasses its diverse responsibilities and requirements, such as 

maintaining historic facilities and satisfying customers and then 

benchmarking its results both internally--across its jurisdictions--as 

well as against other leading organizations with comparable facility 

management operations.



AOC Should Revisit Link between Its Performance Management Systems and 

Mission-Critical Goals in Its Strategic Plan:



Once AOC has reached agreement with its stakeholders on its strategic 

plan, AOC should revisit both its senior executive and employee 

performance management systems to strengthen individual accountability 

to organizational goals and performance. AOC also has not yet aligned 

and cascaded its performance expectations with its mission-critical 

goals at all levels of the organization. As our September 2002 report 

on managing senior executive performance using balanced expectations 

noted, leading organizations use their performance management systems 

to achieve results, accelerate change, and facilitate communication 

throughout the year so that discussions about individual and 

organizational performance are integrated and ongoing.[Footnote 16] 

Thus, effective performance management systems can be (1) strategic 

tools for organizations to drive internal change and achieve external 

results and (2) ways to translate organizational priorities and goals 

into direct and specific commitments that senior executives will be 

expected to achieve during the year. As we have reported in the past, 

another critical success factor for creating a results-oriented culture 

is a performance management system that creates a “line of sight” 

showing how individual employees can contribute to overall 

organizational goals.



In June 2002, AOC implemented a senior executive performance management 

system--informed by our human capital policies and flexibilities and 

structured around the Office of Personnel Management’s Executive Core 

qualifications--based on six performance requirements: results-driven, 

leading change, leading people, equal employment opportunity, business 

acumen, and building coalitions and communications. The senior 

executive performance management system is based on a balanced measures 

approach--an approach to performance measurement that balances 

organizational results with customer, employee, and other perspectives. 

As a part of this system, AOC instructed its senior executives to 

incorporate the agency’s strategic goals and responsibilities into 

their performance requirements and individual commitments for 

subsequent evaluation by the Architect.[Footnote 17] The results-driven 

performance requirement for AOC’s senior executives provides the basis 

for results-oriented accountability. The senior executive performance 

management system--once aligned with the strategic goals and objectives 

in AOC’s strategic plan, will serve as an important means for helping 

AOC to achieve its desired organizational results.



In June 2000, AOC implemented a performance management system--

Performance Communication and Evaluation System --for its General 

Schedule (up to GS-15) and Wage Grade employees (non-bargaining-unit 

employees). According to the Director of HRMD, approximately 875 

bargaining unit and trades employees--about 38 percent of AOC’s 

workforce--were not covered by these systems. As a next step, AOC 

should align its employee performance management system with its senior 

executive system to strengthen individual accountability to 

organizational goals and performance. For example, as we discuss later 

in the report, although the incentive to focus on safety has been built 

into the performance appraisal system for employees, it is not 

addressed in the senior executive performance evaluation system. While 

AOC supports this concept, AOC’s senior officials stated that they must 

balance the need to move forward in aligning these systems with the 

need to provide continuity in the employee performance management 

system currently in place.



A Competency-Based Approach Can Help AOC Meet Its Human Capital Goals 

and Objectives:



The establishment and integration of organizational competencies into 

performance management systems is another mechanism to create 

accountability for achieving mission-critical goals. Competencies, 

which define the skills or supporting behaviors that employees are 

expected to exhibit as they effectively carry out their work, can 

provide a fuller picture of an individual’s performance. Competencies 

can also help form the basis for an organization’s selection, 

promotion, training, performance management, and succession planning 

initiatives. Our August 2002 report on other countries’ performance 

management initiatives found that the United Kingdom, Australia, and 

New Zealand are using competencies in their public sector organizations 

to provide a fuller assessment of individual performance.[Footnote 18] 

GAO has also introduced a competency-based performance management 

system for analysts and specialists, driven by a best practice review 

of multidisciplinary professional service organizations in both the 

private and public sectors.



AOC should consider developing core and technical competencies as the 

basis for its performance management systems. Agencywide core and 

technical competencies can serve as guidance for employees as they 

strive to meet organizational expectations. The core competencies 

should be derived from AOC’s strategic plan and workforce planning 

efforts and reflect its core values.[Footnote 19] All employees should 

be held accountable for achieving core competencies as AOC moves to 

transform its culture. As we reported in April 2002, AOC has added to 

its professional workforce by hiring new jurisdictional 

superintendents, deputy superintendents, budget and accounting 

officers, a Chief Financial Officer, a Director of Facilities Planning 

and Programming, and worker safety specialists. As AOC works toward 

developing a cadre of managerial and professional employees, the 

development of specific technical competencies can assist the agency in 

creating and developing a successful leadership and managerial team.



AOC has made progress in establishing supervisory, management, and 

executive competencies. AOC’s Human Resources Management Division 

(HRMD) has also developed a competency model for its professional and 

administrative staff. HRMD intends to use this competency model to 

“reinforce its strategic focus … and outline the workforce requirements 

necessary to develop a highly competent cadre of human resources staff 

dedicated and committed to providing high-quality, timely and 

responsive human resources services to managers and employees of the 

AOC.”[Footnote 20] As AOC’s efforts move forward, it will identify 

opportunities to refine and/or develop technical competencies in other 

managerial and professional areas critical to achieving its mission, 

including project management, worker safety, financial management, and 

information technology. AOC can draw from best practices guidance and 

professional associations and certifications to assist it in developing 

these technical competencies. Some tools available to identify 

appropriate competencies are offered by the Joint Financial Management 

Improvement Program for financial management, and the Project 

Management Institute for project management.



After AOC has established its core and technical competencies, it can 

use these competencies as the basis for the performance requirements of 

its performance management systems for both senior executives and 

employees. The combination of a competency-based performance management 

system linked to mission-critical goals could provide AOC with a world-

class mechanism for holding its workforce accountable for achieving its 

mission.



AOC Needs to Determine Agency Workforce Needs and Assess Progress by 

Collecting and Analyzing Workforce Data:



AOC does not currently collect and analyze workforce data in a 

comprehensive way that would allow it to determine its workforce needs 

and to measure its progress in achieving its human capital strategic 

goals and objectives. The ability to collect and analyze data will 

greatly enhance AOC’s ability to acquire, develop, and retain talent, 

while allowing it to effectively plan for the needs of its workforce.



High-performing organizations use data to determine key performance 

objectives and goals that enable them to evaluate the success of their 

human capital approaches. Reliable data also heighten an agency’s 

ability to manage risk by allowing managers to spotlight areas for 

attention before crises develop and identify opportunities for 

enhancing agency results. Collecting and analyzing data are fundamental 

building blocks for measuring the effectiveness of human capital 

approaches in support of the mission and goals of an agency. AOC needs 

to develop a fact-based, comprehensive approach to the collection and 

analysis of accurate and reliable information across a range of human 

capital activities. AOC recognizes the need to comprehensively collect 

and analyze workforce data and has requested about $1 million in its 

fiscal year 2003 budget for an automated system to assist it in 

recruitment, classification, workforce management, and succession 

planning.



Appropriate data sources and collection methods are necessary to 

measure progress in meeting AOC’s human capital goals and objectives. 

For example, in order for AOC to determine if it is meeting equal 

employment opportunity (EEO) and diversity requirements--one of its 

strategic objectives--it must first establish a reliable data gathering 

method. We found that AOC does not have comprehensive procedures in 

place to track its progress to assess whether it is achieving its goal 

of a diverse workforce. Based on reliable data, AOC can then monitor 

its progress in meeting EEO requirements and develop appropriate 

intervention strategies if it is not.



Strategic Workforce Planning Would Help AOC Identify Workforce Needs 

and Develop Strategies to Fill Gaps:



AOC can benefit from strategically identifying its current and future 

workforce needs and then creating strategies to fill any gaps. AOC 

recognizes the need to conduct workforce planning; however, it has not 

yet initiated this effort. According to the principles embodied in our 

Model of Strategic Human Capital Management, effective organizations 

incorporate human capital critical success factors, such as integration 

and alignment, and data-driven human capital decisions as strategies 

for accomplishing their mission and programmatic goals and 

results.[Footnote 21] Strategic workforce planning and analysis is one 

such approach that can help AOC to effectively align its resources with 

agency needs.



Workforce planning efforts linked to strategic program goals and 

objectives can help the organization to identify such needs as ensuring 

a diverse labor force, succession planning for scarce skill sets, and 

other competencies needed in the workforce. For example, in AOC’s draft 

strategic plan, human capital is one of the four strategic planning 

focus areas. The strategic goal associated with the human capital focus 

area is to attract, develop, and retain diverse, satisfied, and highly 

motivated employees with the skills, talents, and knowledge necessary 

to support the agency’s mission. AOC established several strategic 

objectives to achieve this goal. One of the objectives is to develop a 

human capital plan designed to acquire, develop, and retain a talented 

workforce while integrating and aligning human capital approaches, 

equal opportunity requirements, and organizational performance. 

Specifically, an effective strategic workforce planning effort will 

entail:



* determining how many employees AOC needs to accomplish its mission-

critical goals;



* assessing the skills and competencies of the employees currently 

available to do this work (develop an employee skills and competencies 

inventory);



* determining gaps in the number, skills, and competencies of the 

employees needed to do this work;



* developing a training and recruitment plan for filling the gap, 

including a focus on the diversity and EEO goals of the organization;



* creating a succession plan to address workforce gaps created by 

employees exiting the organization; and:



* evaluating the contribution that the results of these strategic 

workforce planning efforts make to achieving mission-critical goals.



AOC does not currently have workforce planning efforts under way, 

although it does recognize the need to strategically plan for its 

workforce and has requested funding for four positions in its fiscal 

year 2003 budget to create an organization and workforce management 

team within the Office of the Architect.[Footnote 22] The purpose of 

this proposed team is to conduct workforce planning and analysis. The 

team would work collaboratively with AOC’s HRMD, Office of the Chief 

Financial Officer, and other agency managers to focus on skill mix, 

resource needs, and succession planning.



Conclusions:



AOC faces many challenges as it seeks to better serve the Congress. 

This report lays out a complex agenda for organizational transformation 

at AOC that includes developing the capacity to lead and execute change 

and becoming a more results-oriented, matrixed, client-focused, and 

proactive organization. AOC has indicated that it is committed to the 

long-term effort necessary to improve its service to the Congress and 

has already begun to make some improvements in areas such as strategic 

planning, client outreach, and accountability of senior management for 

achieving results. To make lasting improvements, AOC must continue on 

this path by:



* demonstrating top leadership commitment to long-term change;



* involving key congressional and other stakeholders in developing its 

strategic plan;



* using its strategic plan as the foundation for aligning activities, 

core processes, and resources to support mission-related outcomes;



* establishing a communications strategy to foster change and create 

shared expectations and build involvement;



* developing annual goals and a system for measuring performance; and:



* strategically managing its human capital to drive transformation and 

to support the accomplishment of agency goals.



AOC’s needs to improve its executive decision-making capacity and 

accountability in order to help (1) elevate attention on management 

issues and transformation, (2) integrate various key management and 

transformation efforts, and (3) institutionalize accountability for 

addressing management issues and leading transformation.



One option for addressing the transformation issues that AOC faces is 

to create a COO or similar position that would be accountable for 

achieving change at AOC.



Making such fundamental changes in AOC’s culture will require a long-

term, concerted effort. In developing a management improvement plan to 

address the recommendations in this report, it is essential that AOC 

work with key congressional and other stakeholders to establish action-

oriented implementation goals over the long term, and a time line with 

milestone dates to track the organization’s progress towards achieving 

those implementation goals.



Recommendations for Agency Action:



In order to adopt the elements of the management and accountability 

framework--strategic planning, organizational alignment, 

communications, performance measurement, and strategic human capital 

management--and build on efforts under way at AOC, we recommend that 

the Architect of the Capitol:



* improve strategic planning and organizational alignment, by involving 

key congressional and other external stakeholders in AOC’s strategic 

planning efforts and in any organizational changes that may result from 

these efforts;



* develop a comprehensive strategy to improve internal and external 

communications, by:



* providing opportunities for routine employee input and feedback,



* completing the development of congressional protocols by involving 

stakeholders,



* improving annual accountability reporting through annual performance 

planning and reporting, and:



* continuing to regularly measure customer satisfaction AOC-wide; and:



* strengthen performance measurement and strategic human capital 

management, by:



* developing annual goals and measuring performance,



* creating a “line of sight” by linking AOC’s senior executive and 

employee performance management systems to mission-critical goals,



* establishing agencywide core and technical competencies and holding 

employees accountable for these competencies as a part of the 

performance management system,



* developing the capacity to collect and analyze workforce data, and:



* identifying current and future workforce needs and developing 

strategies to fill gaps.



In developing a management improvement plan to address the 

recommendations in this report, we also recommend that the Architect of 

the Capitol establish action-oriented implementation goals over the 

long term and a time line with milestone dates to track the 

organization’s progress towards achieving those implementation goals. 

The Architect should work with key congressional and other stakeholders 

to develop this plan.



Matters for Congressional Consideration:



The Congress should consider ways in which to elevate, integrate, and 

institutionalize accountability for addressing management issues and 

leading organizational transformation at AOC. One option would be to 

create a statutory COO or similar position for AOC to improve its 

executive decision-making process and accountability.



To help ensure that AOC implements its management improvement plan, the 

Congress should consider requiring AOC to provide periodic status 

reports on the implementation of its plan, including progress made and 

milestones not met, and any adjustments to the plan in response to 

internal or external developments.



Agency Comments:



In his comments on this chapter, the Architect agreed with our 

recommendations and discussed the current efforts AOC has under way in 

response, including the development of a plan to implement our 

recommendations. For example, AOC is currently conducting an agencywide 

strategic planning effort--with stakeholder involvement--focused on 

developing mission-critical goals and action plans for mission-critical 

programs, such as facilities management, project management, and human 

capital. AOC has also formed a team to develop a comprehensive 

communications strategy to improve its internal and external 

communications. To strengthen transparency and accountability, as we 

recommended AOC plans to produce an annual performance plan that 

outlines the specific actions, milestones, and performance measures 

planned to achieve its goals for that year and an annual accountability 

report on progress achieved. In the area of strategic human capital 

management, AOC stated that it would implement our recommendations in a 

phased approach that will entail firmly establishing its overall 

strategy before aligning individual performance management programs to 

that strategy. AOC plans to explore the benefits of expanding the use 

of core and technical competencies agencywide, but wants first to 

ensure that the use of competencies is appropriate for all occupations 

and jurisdictions. The Architect’s comments are reprinted in appendix 

II.



[End of section]



Chapter 3: Management Infrastructure and Controls Needed to Support 

Organizational Transformation Initiatives:



The effectiveness with which the Office of the Architect of the Capitol 

(AOC) can use the management reforms discussed in chapter 2--strategic 

planning, organizational alignment, performance management, improved 

internal and external communications, and strategic human capital 

management--to achieve organizational transformation will depend in 

part on its ability to focus on management improvement in its day-to-

day operations. A key factor in helping an agency to better achieve its 

mission and program outcomes and identify and manage risks while 

leveraging opportunities is to implement appropriate internal 

control.[Footnote 23] Internal control is a major part of managing an 

organization. It comprises the plans, methods, and procedures used to 

meet missions, goals, and objectives and, in doing so, supports 

performance-based management. Internal control also serves as the first 

line of defense in safeguarding assets and preventing and detecting 

errors and fraud. In short, internal control, which is synonymous with 

management control, helps government program managers achieve desired 

results through effective stewardship of public resources. Effective 

internal control also helps in managing change to cope with shifting 

environments and evolving demands and priorities. As programs change 

and as agencies strive to improve operational processes and implement 

new technological developments, management must continually assess and 

evaluate its internal control to assure that the control activities 

being used are effective and updated when necessary.



Other aspects of AOC’s management infrastructure will also require 

continued management attention to support its new focus on achieving 

reforms in mission-critical areas of facilities management, project 

management, strategic planning, and human capital management. AOC will 

need to further develop and consistently apply transparent human 

capital policies and procedures in the areas of leave, awards, and 

overtime and examine discrepancies in job classification and pay levels 

across the agency. AOC must continue improving its approach to 

budgeting and financial management to support effective and efficient 

program management. Finally, AOC will need to adopt an agencywide 

approach to information technology (IT) management to position itself 

to optimize the contribution of IT to agency mission performance.



Standards for Internal Control Can Provide a Strong Foundation for 

Organizational Transformation:



AOC has made a number of important and positive efforts to improve its 

internal control. For example, in response to our 1994 report that 

AOC’s personnel management system did not follow many generally 

accepted principles of modern personnel management, AOC developed and 

implemented basic personnel policies and procedures that are designed 

to meet the guidelines set forth by the Architect of the Capitol Human 

Resources Act and the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 

(CAA).[Footnote 24] More recently, AOC has been developing standard 

policies and procedures to address various worker safety hazards. In 

the area of financial management, AOC has contracted for the 

development of AOC-wide accounting policies and procedures. For 

information security, in March 2002, AOC completed a partial risk 

assessment of its systems environment focusing on systems controlled by 

its Office of Information Resource Management (OIRM), and used that 

assessment to develop a security plan to address the identified 

vulnerabilities. These efforts are helping AOC to construct a sound 

foundation on which to build a high-performing organization.



However, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government 

reflects a broader approach to control that addresses, for example, how 

an agency demonstrates its commitment to competence, how it assures 

effective and efficient operations, how it communicates the information 

needed throughout the agency to achieve all its objectives, and how it 

monitors performance. As AOC moves forward in addressing the management 

reforms we discuss in this report, it should consider how adopting 

these standards for internal control could provide a strong foundation 

for institutionalizing the organizational transformation under way.



Internal control should provide reasonable assurance that the 

objectives of the agency are being achieved in the following 

categories:



* effectiveness and efficiency of operations, including the use of the 

entity’s resources;



* reliability of financial reporting, including reports on budget 

execution and financial statements and other reports for internal and 

external use; and:



* compliance with applicable laws and regulations.



A subset of these objectives is the safeguarding of assets. Internal 

control should be designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding 

prevention of or prompt detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or 

disposition of an agency’s assets.



Internal Control Is a Continuous, Built-in Component of Operations:



Internal control is not one event, but a series of actions and 

activities that occur throughout an entity’s operations and on an 

ongoing basis. Internal control should be recognized as an integral 

part of each system that management uses to regulate and guide its 

operations rather than as a separate system within an agency. In this 

sense, internal control is management control that is built into the 

entity as a part of its infrastructure to help managers run the entity 

and achieve their aims on an ongoing basis.



People are what make internal control work. The responsibility for good 

internal control rests with all managers. Management sets the 

objectives, puts the control mechanisms and activities in place, and 

monitors and evaluates the control. However, all personnel in the 

organization play important roles in making it happen.



Framework for Internal Control:



Five standards provide a general framework for the minimal level of 

quality acceptable for internal control in government and provide the 

basis against which internal control is to be evaluated:



* Control environment. Management and employees should establish and 

maintain an environment throughout the organization that sets a 

positive and supportive attitude toward internal control and 

conscientious management. For example, as AOC implements its new 

strategic planning process, it will need to demonstrate a positive and 

supportive attitude toward performance-based management by using the 

plan as the basis for all its programmatic decisions.



* Risk assessment. Internal control should provide for an assessment of 

the risks the agency faces from both external and internal sources. For 

example, as part of AOC’s ongoing strategic planning process, AOC needs 

to continually assess the risks to achieving its objectives, analyze 

the risks, and determine what actions should be taken.



* Control activities. Internal control activities help ensure that 

management’s directives are carried out. The control activities should 

be effective and efficient in accomplishing the agency’s control 

objectives. As AOC identifies areas for management improvements, it 

also needs to define the policies, procedures, techniques, and 

mechanisms it will use to enforce management’s directives. For example, 

as AOC works to improve its information systems acquisition management 

to standardize its acquisition processes, it will need to establish 

control activities to ensure the processes are applied consistently and 

correctly for each acquisition project.



* Information and communications. Information should be recorded and 

communicated to management and others within the entity who need it and 

in a form and within a time frame that enables them to carry out their 

internal control and other responsibilities. For example, as AOC 

develops new performance and financial information to support program 

management, the information needs to be communicated in a way that 

meets users needs and time frames.



* Monitoring. Internal control monitoring should assess the quality of 

performance over time and ensure that the findings of audits and other 

reviews are promptly resolved. For example, as AOC develops new 

performance and financial information, it should ensure that this 

information is both useful to and used by program managers for purposes 

of managing program performance.



Strengthening Human Capital Policies, Procedures, and Processes:



AOC is working towards transforming its culture and instituting 

regularized personnel policies, procedures, and processes, but there 

are still areas for improvement. In addition to internal control 

standards, we have found that there are key practices that can assist 

agencies in effectively using human capital flexibilities. In broad 

terms, human capital flexibilities represent the policies and 

procedures that an agency has the authority to implement in managing 

its workforce to accomplish its mission and to achieve its goals. These 

practices include educating managers and employees on the availability 

and use of flexibilities, streamlining and improving administrative 

processes, and building transparency and accountability into the 

system.



Comments from a majority of our focus group participants indicate that 

supervisors are not perceived to have applied awards, overtime, and 

leave policies consistently; that there was supervisory favoritism; and 

that grade and pay levels are not consistent across jurisdictions and 

shifts. AOC has been addressing these concerns by developing a 

comprehensive leave policy and a strategy for communicating this 

policy, reviewing perceived inequities in job classification, and 

issuing specific guidelines and procedures for its employee awards 

program. AOC should continue to develop consistent and transparent 

human capital policies and procedures and communicate them. AOC has 

various offices and an employee council engaged in improving employee 

relations. AOC’s senior managers could benefit from comprehensively 

collecting and analyzing data from these groups to allow it to 

determine its employee relations needs, and to measure its progress in 

achieving its strategic human capital goals and objectives. AOC has 

recently established its Office of the Ombudsperson, but should realign 

the office’s reporting relationship directly to the Architect to ensure 

that it is adhering to professional standards of independence.



AOC Should Continue to Develop and Communicate Consistent Human Capital 

Policies and Procedures:



Effective organizations establish clear and consistent human capital 

policies and procedures with clearly stated expectations for both 

employees and supervisors and ensure that there is accountability for 

following these procedures accordingly. According to internal control 

standards, such consistent procedures help to create a control 

environment that encourages employee trust in management.



A majority of our focus group participants perceived that supervisors 

applied awards, overtime, and leave policies inconsistently and that 

there was supervisory favoritism. For example, some employees stated 

that supervisors determine on their own when an employee is entitled to 

sick or annual leave and are not consistent when allowing some 

employees to take off time from work. Others remarked that there were 

varying procedures for signing into work and grace periods for lateness 

were not consistently applied for every employee. Several employees 

commented that access to working overtime was uneven and felt as if 

only favored employees had the opportunity to work overtime. In 

addition, several employees believe that favoritism resulted in uneven 

and unfair distribution of work, and that hiring and promotions 

frequently are not based on qualifications and experience but on 

personal connections.



AOC has been addressing employees’ concerns by developing a 

comprehensive leave policy and a strategy for communicating this 

policy. According to AOC’s Director of HRMD, AOC has drafted an 

agencywide comprehensive leave policy--which it expects to issue in 

November 2002--and is developing a strategy to communicate this policy 

internally. The issuance of a comprehensive agencywide leave policy is 

one way in which employees’ perceptions of inconsistent treatment by 

supervisors could be diminished. The policy could also provide a 

mechanism to hold supervisors and senior managers accountable for its 

fair and consistent application.



Inconsistencies in grade and pay levels across jurisdictions and shifts 

was another area of concern noted by a majority of the focus group 

participants. The perception expressed in focus groups was that 

employees in other AOC jurisdictions in similar positions and in other 

federal agencies were classified at higher grade levels, even though 

their job duties were similar. AOC’s HRMD Director told us that the 

division is aware that many AOC employees are concerned about possible 

misclassification and has received many requests from employees to 

review job classifications.[Footnote 25] According to AOC’s Employment 

and Classification Branch Chief, most of the employees who have raised 

concerns about how their jobs are classified have been upgraded. As a 

result, AOC is engaged in an ongoing initiative to review certain 

position descriptions that have not been updated for some time across 

jurisdictions and to reclassify them, if needed.



Employee rewards and recognition programs are an important human 

capital flexibility that is intended to provide appropriate motivation 

and recognition for excellence in job performance and contributions to 

an agency’s goals. In our December 2002 report on the effective use of 

human capital flexibilities, we report that agencies must develop clear 

and transparent guidelines for using flexibilities and then hold 

managers and supervisors accountable for their fair and effective use, 

and that agency managers and supervisors must be educated on the 

existence and use of flexibilities.[Footnote 26] The Architect’s Awards 

Program, which is AOC’s employee rewards and recognition program, is in 

its second year of operation. However, several implementation issues 

remained to be resolved. For example, a majority of the focus group 

participants felt that the program is not applied consistently across 

the jurisdictions and shifts for all employees. Some focus group 

participants also mentioned that they were promised awards by their 

supervisors for their good work on projects but never received them. 

Other views expressed by some members of the focus groups were that 

awards might be distributed, but only to certain members of a project 

team, even though everyone in the unit had worked on the same project 

or that supervisors did not always want to fill out the paperwork 

needed to make an award.



In March 2002, AOC issued a policy containing responsibilities and 

procedures, for the administration of the employee rewards and 

recognition program.[Footnote 27] However, as borne out by our focus 

group results, supervisors may be applying this policy inconsistently. 

AOC can strengthen and gain support for this program by holding 

managers and supervisors accountable for the fair and effective use of 

its rewards and recognition program as a useful tool for motivating and 

rewarding employees.



AOC Management Should Comprehensively Collect and Analyze Data from 

Employee Relations Groups:



In April 2002, we stated that to improve labor-management relations, we 

would explore the relationships between AOC’s various offices engaged 

in addressing employee relations. Several AOC offices and one employee 

group provide employees with assistance in resolving disputes or in 

dealing with other employment-related issues. These offices not only 

work to resolve disputes, but are also in a position to alert 

management to systemic problems and thereby help correct 

organizationwide issues and develop strategies for preventing and 

managing conflict.



* The Equal Employment Opportunity and Conciliation Program Office was 

created to include an affirmative employment program for employees and 

applicants and procedures for monitoring progress by AOC in ensuring a 

diverse workforce.[Footnote 28] The office serves to promote a 

nondiscriminatory work environment and works to resolve employment 

concerns informally.[Footnote 29]



* AOC’s Office of the Ombudsperson, formerly called the Employee 

Advocate, was staffed in 2002 and provides advice and counsel to non-

bargaining-unit employees concerning employment policies, employment 

practices, or other employment-related matters.[Footnote 30]



* The AOC Employee Advisory Council (EAC), created in 1995, has renewed 

its efforts to ensure its role of providing a voice for AOC employees 

on workplace and safety issues, and is another avenue for non-

bargaining-unit employees to bring their concerns to management. The 

EAC consists of AOC employees, and its purpose is to help address AOC 

policy, procedures, work products and methods, and other issues that 

relate to the overall efficiency and safety of the agency, as well as 

the fair treatment of employees.[Footnote 31]



It is not clear whether there is a coordinated approach to tracking 

agencywide patterns of employee relations issues among these offices 

and the EAC. If this information were to be collected and analyzed by 

AOC’s senior managers, it could provide a useful source of information 

to alert management of the status of employee relations. The advantages 

of an agencywide tracking method need to be balanced in a way so as not 

to compromise employee confidentiality. As discussed in chapter 2, AOC 

has established a strategic human capital goal and corresponding 

objectives related to acquiring, developing, and retaining a talented 

and diverse workforce. We believe that AOC senior managers could 

benefit from gathering and analyzing these data, in conjunction with 

results from the additional employee focus groups that AOC plans to 

conduct, to help determine how well it is meeting its human capital 

strategic goal and objectives.



In assessing the functions of these employee relations groups, we also 

assessed the Ombudsperson position at AOC to determine whether it 

adhered to the standards of practice for ombudsmen established by 

professional organizations. Ombudsmen provide an informal option to 

deal pragmatically with conflicts and other organizational climate 

issues. In April 2001, we reported that ombudsmen are expected to 

conform to professional standards of practice that revolve around the 

core principles of independence, neutrality, and 

confidentiality.[Footnote 32] In our discussion with the AOC 

Ombudsperson, she stated that she was familiar with the standards for 

ombudsmen and that she provided services confidentially and neutrally. 

According to AOC officials, the AOC Ombudsperson reports to the 

Administrative Assistant to the Architect of the Capitol or his or her 

authorized designate, but not directly to the Architect. In our April 

2001 report, the Ombudsman Association Standards of Practice define 

independence as functioning independent of line management, with the 

ombudsman having a reporting relationship with the highest authority in 

an organization. In addition, the American Bar Association’s ombudsman 

standards for independence discuss that the ombudsman’s office must be 

and appear to be free from interference in order to be credible and 

effective. If the Ombudsperson were to directly report to the Architect 

and not through another senior manager, the core principle of 

independence would be strengthened.



Continue Improving Financial Management to Support Program Management:



AOC faces significant challenges in building sound budget and financial 

management functions into the culture of the organization. Accurate and 

reliable budget formulation and execution and reliable financial 

accounting and reporting are important basic functions of financial 

control and accountability and provide a basis for supporting good 

program management. In the past, AOC has lacked reliable budgets for 

both projects and operations and has lacked internal policies and 

procedures to effectively monitor budget execution. In addition, AOC 

has lacked accounting policies and procedures needed to properly 

account for and report financial information especially in accounting 

for, controlling, and reporting assets, including inventory. Moreover, 

AOC has not prepared auditable financial statements.



A Chief Financial Officer (CFO) position was established at AOC, which 

the Architect filled in January 2002, in response to direction from the 

Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, Senate Committee on Appropriations 

that AOC begin essential financial management reforms.[Footnote 33] The 

new CFO is a member of the Architect’s Senior Policy Committee and, in 

carrying out his role in establishing a foundation of financial control 

and accountability at AOC, he is responsible for the activities of the 

Budget Office, the Accounting Office, and the Financial Systems Office. 

Among his first actions, the new CFO assembled a financial management 

team with the experience needed to establish a strong foundation of 

financial control and accountability by filling key budget and 

accounting officer positions.



As discussed in our executive guide on best practices in financial 

management,[Footnote 34] a solid foundation of control and 

accountability requires a system of checks and balances that provides 

reasonable assurance that an entity’s transactions are appropriately 

recorded and reported, its assets protected, its policies followed, and 

its resources used economically and efficiently for the purposes 

intended. The CFO, who has endorsed the executive guide as a road map 

for making improvements to financial management at AOC, has recognized 

the need for this foundation of financial control and accountability as 

well as the challenges his organization faces in establishing such 

checks and balances AOC-wide. Those challenges include:



* developing and implementing effective budget formulation and 

execution policies and procedures that govern capital projects and 

operating activities AOC-wide,



* developing and implementing formal financial accounting and reporting 

policies and procedures and related operating procedures,



* developing and implementing internal controls and monitoring the 

reliability of financial information and safeguarding of assets,



* implementing and operating the new financial management system, and:



* preparing auditable comprehensive entitywide financial statements.



In response to these challenges, the CFO has set a goal for AOC to 

prepare auditable AOC-wide financial statements for the first time for 

fiscal year 2003 and has made measurable progress in this and other 

areas in establishing a sound foundation of control and accountability 

at AOC. For example, some of the financial management team’s 

achievements to date include:



* deploying phase two of the new accounting system AOC-wide, including 

continuing system support and periodic training;



* revising budget formulation guidance to include requirements for 

specific minimum detail needed to justify capital projects requested 

and support construction cost estimates;



* conducting an AOC-wide budget execution review to evaluate the 

effectiveness of AOC’s budget execution;



* conducting an AOC-wide inventory to establish a basis for closing 

accounting records for fiscal year 2002 and a establishing a beginning 

balance for fiscal year 2003;



* developing a basis for valuing and classifying certain AOC assets, 

including property and equipment; and:



* contracting for the development of AOC-wide accounting policies and 

procedures needed to establish internal control and prepare first-time 

financial statements.



A significant factor in the achievements to date is the experience the 

new financial team brings to AOC in carrying out the fundamentals of 

sound financial management and the fact that the initiatives fall under 

the direct control of the CFO. However, much work remains to be done on 

an AOC-wide basis. Going forward, the CFO faces challenges, including:



* having program managers routinely provide critical project 

justification and cost information and obligation plans;



* establishing AOC-wide accounting and control procedures, such as 

controls over the receipt and use of inventory; and:



* finding a way to interface financial information with the AOC Project 

Information Center system.



Implementing these and other financial-control and accountability-

related initiatives will require the buy-in and support of key non-

financial managers and staff. As the finance team seeks to build a 

foundation of financial accounting and control into the organization’s 

culture, top management must demonstrate a commitment to making and 

supporting the needed changes throughout the organization. As noted in 

our executive guide, leading organizations identified leadership as the 

most important factor in successfully making cultural changes.



AOC Could Benefit from an Agencywide and Disciplined Approach to IT 

Management:



IT can be a valuable tool in achieving an organization’s mission 

objectives. Our research of leading private and public sector 

organizations shows that these organizations’ executives have embraced 

the central role of IT to mission performance.[Footnote 35] More 

specifically, these executives no longer regard IT as a separate 

support function, but rather view and treat it as an integral and 

enabling part of business operations. As such, they have adopted a 

corporate, or agencywide, approach to managing IT under the leadership 

and control of a senior executive, who operates as a full partner with 

the organization’s leadership team in charting the strategic direction 

and making informed IT investment decisions.



Complementing a centralized leadership of IT management, leading 

organizations have also implemented certain institutional or agencywide 

management controls aimed at leveraging the vast potential of 

technology in achieving mission outcomes. These management controls 

include using a portfolio-based approach to IT investment decision 

making,using an enterprise architecture, or blueprint, to guide and 

constrain IT investments, following disciplined IT system acquisition 

and development management processes, and proactively managing the 

security of IT assets.



AOC currently relies heavily on IT in achieving its mission 

objectives.[Footnote 36] As an example, AOC uses the Computer Aided 

Facilities Management system to request and fulfill work orders for 

maintenance of the Capitol and the surrounding grounds. In addition, it 

uses the Records Management system to archive architectural drawings 

pertaining to the U.S. Capitol, Library of Congress, Botanic Garden, 

and other buildings. According to AOC’s Chief Administrative Officer, 

the agency’s reliance on IT will increase in the future.



Despite the importance and prevalence of IT at AOC, the agency’s 

current approach to managing IT is not consistent with leading 

practices, as is described in the following five sections. Until AOC 

embraces the central role of IT to mission performance and implements 

an agencywide and disciplined approach to IT management, it is not 

positioned to optimize the contribution of IT to agency mission 

performance.



AOC Needs a Senior Executive with Agencywide Responsibility and 

Authority for IT Management:



Our research of private and public sector organizations that 

effectively manage IT shows that these organizations have adopted an 

agencywide approach to managing IT under the leadership of a chief 

information officer or comparable senior executive, who has the 

responsibility and authority for managing IT across the 

agency.[Footnote 37] According to the research, these executives 

function as members of the leadership team and are instrumental in 

developing a shared vision for the role of IT in achieving major 

improvements in business processes and operations to effectively 

optimize mission performance. In this capacity, leading organizations 

also provide these individuals with the authority they need to carry 

out their diverse responsibilities by providing budget control and 

management support for IT programs and initiatives.



Currently, AOC does not have a senior-level executive who is 

responsible and accountable for IT management and spending across the 

agency, and AOC does not centrally oversee IT, according to AOC’s OIRM 

Director. Rather, budget and acquisition authority is vested in each 

AOC organizational component that is acquiring a given IT asset. With 

such a decentralized approach to IT management and spending, AOC does 

not have an individual focused on how IT can best support the 

collective needs of the agency, and thus is not positioned to 

effectively leverage IT as an agencywide resource.



AOC Should Have an Agencywide, Portfolio-Based Approach to IT 

Investment Management:



If managed wisely, IT investments can vastly improve mission 

performance. If not, IT projects can be risky, costly, and unproductive 

investments. Our best practices guide, based on research of private and 

public sector organizations that effectively manage their IT 

investments, outlines a corporate, portfolio-based approach to IT 

investment decision making that includes processes, practices, and 

activities for continually and consistently selecting, controlling, and 

evaluating competing IT investment options in a way that promotes the 

greatest value to the strategic interest of the organization.[Footnote 

38]



The first major step to building a sound IT investment management 

process is to be able to measure the progress of existing IT projects 

to identify variances in cost, schedule, and performance expectations, 

and take corrective action, if appropriate, and to establish basic 

capabilities for selecting new IT proposals. To do this, the 

organization needs to establish and implement processes and practices 

for (1) operating an IT investment board responsible for selecting, 

controlling, and evaluating IT investments and that includes both 

senior IT and business representatives, (2) providing effective 

oversight for ongoing IT projects throughout all phases of their life 

cycle, (3) identifying, tracking, and managing IT resources, (4) 

ensuring that each IT project supports the organization’s business 

needs, and

(5) establishing criteria for selecting new IT proposals.



The second major step toward effective IT investment management 

requires that an organization continually assess proposed and ongoing 

projects as an integrated and competing set of investment options. That 

is, the organization should consider each new investment part of an 

integrated portfolio of investments that collectively contribute to 

mission goals and objectives. To do this, the organization needs to 

establish and implement processes and practices for (1) developing and 

implementing criteria to select investments that will best support the 

organization’s strategic goals, objectives, and mission, (2) using 

these criteria to consistently analyze and prioritize all IT 

investments, (3) ensuring that the optimal IT investment portfolio with 

manageable risks and returns is selected and funded, and

(4) overseeing each IT investment within the portfolio to ensure that 

it achieves its cost, benefit, schedule, and risk expectations.



AOC has not satisfied the components of either of these two major 

steps, and as a result does not currently have an agencywide, 

portfolio-based approach to IT investment management. For example, AOC 

has not developed the processes and established the key management 

structures, such as an investment review board, needed to manage and 

oversee IT investments. However, according to the OIRM Director, he has 

several activities under way to facilitate the agency’s movement to 

such an approach, should AOC choose to do so. These include:



* developing an IT capital planning and investment guide that is to 

define key elements of a portfolio-based approach to IT investment 

management and acquiring an automated tool to facilitate its 

implementation,



* introducing new IT budget categories and collecting corresponding 

fiscal year 2004 budget information to track and control IT 

investments,[Footnote 39] and:



* reassessing the role of its Information Technology Standards and 

Architecture Committee, including how and when the committee reviews 

projects, what projects are reviewed, and what information is provided 

to the committee.[Footnote 40]



Because the OIRM Director could not provide us with drafts or more 

detailed information on these activities, characterizing them as under 

development, we could not determine the extent to which these 

activities address the basic tenets of effective IT management. 

However, these activities are currently limited because they are 

confined to OIRM, which is not positioned to implement effective IT 

investment management on its own. Achieving an agencywide, portfolio-

based approach to IT investment management needs the full support and 

participation of AOC’s senior leadership. Until this occurs, AOC will 

continue to be limited in its ability to effectively leverage IT to 

achieve mission goals and objectives.



AOC Needs to Establish the Management Foundation to Effectively Develop 

an Enterprise Architecture:



Our experience with federal agencies has shown that attempting to 

modernize IT environments without an enterprise architecture to guide 

and constrain investments often results in systems that are 

duplicative, not well integrated, unnecessarily costly to maintain and 

interface, and ineffective in supporting mission goals. Managed 

properly, architectures can clarify and help optimize the 

interdependencies and interrelationships among related corporate 

operations and the underlying IT infrastructure and applications that 

support them. The development, implementation, and maintenance of 

architectures are recognized hallmarks of successful public and private 

organizations that effectively leveraged IT in meeting their mission 

goals.



An enterprise architecture--as defined in federal guidance, and as 

practiced by leading public and private sector organizations--acts as a 

blueprint and defines, both in logical terms (including business 

functions and applications, work locations, information needs and 

users, and the interrelationships among these variables) and in 

technical terms (including IT hardware, software, data communications, 

and security) how the organization operates today, how it intends to 

operate tomorrow, and a road map for transitioning between the two 

states.[Footnote 41] This guidance also defines a set of recognized key 

practices (management structures and processes) for developing and 

implementing an enterprise architecture. Among other things, these 

practices include the following:



* The head of the enterprise should recognize that the enterprise 

architecture is a corporate asset for systematically managing 

institutional change by supporting and sponsoring the architecture 

effort and giving it a clear mandate in the form of an enterprise 

policy statement. Such support is crucial to gaining the commitment of 

all organizational components of the enterprise, all of which should 

participate in developing and implementing the enterprise architecture.



* The enterprise architecture effort should be directed and overseen by 

an executive body, empowered by the head of the enterprise, with 

members who represent all stakeholder organizations and have the 

authority to commit resources and to make and enforce decisions for 

their respective organizations.



* An individual who serves as the chief enterprise architect, and 

reports to either a chief information officer or comparable senior 

executive, should lead the enterprise architecture effort and manage it 

as a formal program. A formal program entails creating a program 

office, committing core staff, implementing a program management plan 

that details a work breakdown structure and schedule, allocating 

resources and tools, performing basic program management functions 

(e.g., risk management, change control, quality assurance, and 

configuration management), and tracking and reporting progress against 

measurable goals.



* The enterprise architecture should conform to a specified framework.



AOC does not have an enterprise architecture or the management 

foundation needed to successfully develop one. Thus far, AOC’s 

architecture activities are confined to OIRM, and they consist of 

meeting with peer agencies, such as the U.S. Capitol Police, to learn 

about their architecture development experiences, and selecting a 

framework to use in developing the architecture. OIRM officials also 

told us that they are finalizing an approach for developing the 

architecture.



AOC has much to do and accomplish before it will have either the means 

for developing an architecture or the architecture itself. Central to 

what remains to be done is AOC’s executive leadership providing a clear 

mandate for the architecture and for managing its development 

consistent with recognized best practices and federal guidance. To do 

less risks producing an incomplete architecture that is not used to 

effectively guide and direct business and technology change to optimize 

agencywide performance.



AOC Should Define and Implement Institutional Processes for Acquiring 

and Developing IT Systems:



Our experience with federal agencies has shown that the failure to 

implement rigorous and disciplined acquisition and development 

processes can lead to systems that do not perform as intended, are 

delivered late, and cost more than planned. The use of disciplined 

processes and controls based on well-defined and rigorously enforced 

policies, practices, and procedures for system acquisition and 

development can reduce that risk. Such processes for managing system 

acquisition/development are defined in various published models and 

guides, such as Carnegie Mellon University’s Software Engineering 

Institute’s Capability Maturity ModelSM.[Footnote 42] Examples of key 

processes from this model include the following:



* Requirements management describes processes for establishing and 

maintaining a common and unambiguous definition of requirements among 

the acquisition team, the system users, and the software development 

contractor. Requirements management includes documenting policies and 

procedures for managing requirements, documenting and validating 

requirements, and establishing baselines and controlling changes to the 

requirements.



* Test management describes processes for ensuring that the software/

system performs according to the requirements and that it fulfills its 

intended use when placed in its intended environment. Test management 

includes developing a test plan, executing the plan, documenting and 

reporting test results, and analyzing test results and taking 

corrective actions.



* Configuration management describes processes for establishing and 

maintaining the integrity of work products throughout the life cycle 

process. Configuration management includes developing a configuration 

management plan; identifying work products to be maintained and 

controlled; establishing a repository or configuration management 

system for tracking work products; and approving, tracking, and 

controlling changes to the products.



* Quality assurance describes processes for providing independent 

verification of the requirements and processes for developing and 

producing the software/system. Quality assurance includes developing a 

quality assurance plan, determining applicable processes and product 

standards to be followed, and conducting reviews to ensure that the 

product and process standards are followed.



* Risk management describes processes for identifying potential 

problems before they occur and adjusting the acquisition to mitigate 

the chances of the problems occurring. Risk management includes 

developing a project risk management plan; identifying and prioritizing 

potential problems; implementing risk mitigation strategies, as 

required; and tracking and reporting progress against the plans.



* Contract tracking and oversight describes processes for ensuring that 

the contractor performs according to the terms of the contract. 

Contract tracking and oversight includes developing a plan for tracking 

contractor activities, measuring contractor performance and conducting 

periodic reviews, and conducting internal reviews of tracking and 

oversight activities.



OIRM has defined some of these key processes, but it has not defined 

others, and some that are defined are not complete. Moreover, the 

processes that have been defined have not been adopted and implemented 

agencywide. In 1995, OIRM developed its Information Systems Life Cycle 

Directive that defines policies and procedures for software development 

and acquisition. This directive fully addresses the tenets of two key 

process areas--requirements management and test management--and partly 

addresses the tenets of two other areas--quality assurance and 

configuration management. For example, for quality assurance, the 

directive includes the need to conduct quality assurance reviews to 

ensure that product and process standards are followed; however, it 

does not address the need to first identify the process and product 

standards to be followed or the development of a quality assurance 

plan. Similarly, for configuration management, the directive includes 

requirements for developing and executing a plan; identifying work 

products to be maintained and controlled; and tracking, controlling, 

and releasing work products and items. However, it does not include 

requirements for a repository or for a configuration management system 

that supports tracking and controlling changes to work products. 

Finally, the directive does not address two key process areas--risk 

management and contract tracking and oversight.



The OIRM Director told us that OIRM plans to improve its directive and 

acquire tools to facilitate its implementation. These efforts, if 

properly implemented and adopted, could allow AOC to institutionalize 

disciplined processes for system development and acquisition 

management. Until AOC implements agencywide, disciplined processes for 

managing the development and acquisition of IT systems, it risks 

investing in systems that do not perform as intended, are delivered 

late, and cost more than planned.



AOC Should Develop an Effective Information Security Program:



Effective information security management is critical to AOC’s ability 

to ensure the reliability, availability, and confidentiality of its 

information assets, and thus its ability to perform its mission. If 

effective information security practices are not in place, AOC’s data 

and systems are at risk of inadvertent or deliberate misuse, fraud, 

improper disclosure, or destruction--possibly without detection. Our 

research of public and private sector organizations recognized as 

having strong information security programs shows that their programs 

include (1) establishing a central focal point with appropriate 

resources, (2) continually assessing business risks, (3) implementing 

and maintaining policies and controls, 

(4) promoting awareness, and (5) monitoring and evaluating policy and 

control effectiveness.[Footnote 43]



AOC has taken important steps to establish an effective information 

security program, but much remains to be done. In May 2001, the OIRM 

Director established and filled an IT security officer position. The 

officer’s responsibilities include planning and coordinating security 

risk assessments, developing IT security policies, conducting security 

training, and evaluating the effectiveness of IT security policies and 

controls. In March 2002, the Security Officer completed a partial risk 

assessment of AOC’s systems environment focusing on systems that are 

controlled by OIRM, and used that assessment to develop a security plan 

to address the identified vulnerabilities. The plan contains steps to 

develop user access and network administrator account policies, as well 

as a security awareness and training program.



However, the Security Officer has since resigned and the position is 

vacant. Moreover, because the Security Officer was the only staff 

member dedicated to these tasks, the OIRM Director stated that AOC has 

yet to begin addressing the tasks outlined in the security plan. 

Currently, AOC is attempting to hire a new security officer and plans 

to hire an information systems security specialist. Until AOC addresses 

the elements of an effective security program, it will not be in a 

position to effectively safeguard its data and information assets.



Conclusions:



The effectiveness with which AOC can use the elements of the management 

and accountability framework--strategic planning, organizational 

alignment, improved internal and external communications, performance 

management, and strategic human capital management--to achieve 

organizational transformation will depend in part on its ability to 

focus on management improvement in its day-to-day operations. A key 

factor in helping AOC to better achieve its mission and program 

outcomes and identify and manage risks while leveraging opportunities 

is to implement and strengthen appropriate internal controls. As it 

transforms the agency, AOC will need to ensure that it adopts 

management controls by (1) further developing and consistently applying 

transparent human capital policies and procedures, (2) continuing to 

improve its approach to budgeting and financial management to support 

effective and efficient program management, and (3) adopting an agency 

wide approach to IT management to position itself to optimize the 

contribution of IT to agency mission performance.



Recommendations for Agency Action:



In order to continue to develop a management infrastructure and 

strengthen appropriate management controls, we recommend that the 

Architect of the Capitol take the following actions:



Strengthen AOC’s human capital policies, procedures, and processes by:



* continuing to develop and implement agencywide human capital policies 

and procedures, and holding management and employees accountable for 

following these policies and procedures;



* assessing ways in which AOC management could better gather and 

analyze data from the various employee relations offices and EAC while 

maintaining employee confidentiality; and:



* establishing a direct reporting relationship between the Ombudsperson 

and the Architect, consistent with professional standards.



Continue to improve AOC’s approach to financial management by 

developing strategies to institutionalize financial management 

practices that will support budgeting, financial, and program 

management at AOC. Such strategies could include developing performance 

goals and measures and associated roles aimed at increasing the 

accountability of non-financial managers and staff, such as 

jurisdictional superintendents, program managers, and other AOC staff-

-whose support is critical to the success of AOC’s financial management 

initiatives--and ensuring that these staff receive the training needed 

to effectively carry out their roles and responsibilities.



Adopt an agencywide approach to IT management by doing the following:



* Establishing a chief information officer, or comparable senior 

executive, with the responsibility, authority, and adequate resources 

for managing IT across the agency, who is a full participant in AOC’s 

senior decision-making processes, and has clearly defined roles, 

responsibilities, and accountabilities.



* Developing and implementing IT investment management processes with 

the full support and participation of AOC’s senior leadership. 

Specifically, the Architect must develop a plan for developing and 

implementing the investment management processes, as appropriate, that 

are outlined in our IT investment guide.[Footnote 44] At a minimum, the 

plan should specify measurable tasks, goals, time frames, and resources 

required to develop and implement the processes. The Architect should 

focus first on the management processes associated with controlling 

existing IT projects and establishing the management structures to 

effectively implement an IT management process.



* Developing, implementing, and maintaining an enterprise architecture 

to guide and constrain IT projects throughout AOC. The Architect should 

implement the practices, as appropriate, as outlined in the Chief 

Information Officer Council’s architecture management guide.[Footnote 

45] As a first step, the Architect should establish the management 

structure for developing, implementing, and maintaining an enterprise 

architecture by implementing the following actions:



* developing an agencywide policy statement providing a clear mandate 

for developing, implementing, and maintaining the architecture;



* establishing an executive body composed of stakeholders from AOC 

mission-critical programs offices to guide the strategy for developing 

the enterprise architecture and ensure agency support and resources for 

it; and:



* designating an individual who serves as a chief enterprise architect 

to develop policy and lead the development of the enterprise 

architecture, and manage it as a formal program.



* Requiring disciplined and rigorous processes for managing the 

development and acquisition of IT systems, and implementing the 

processes throughout AOC. Specifically, these processes should include 

the following:



* quality assurance processes, including developing a quality assurance 

plan and identifying applicable process and product standards that will 

be used in developing and assessing project processes and products;



* configuration management processes, including establishing a 

repository or configuration management system to maintain and control 

configuration management items;



* risk management processes, including developing a project risk 

management plan, identifying and prioritizing potential problems, 

implementing risk mitigation strategies, as required, and tracking and 

reporting progress against the plans; and:



* contract tracking and oversight processes, including developing a 

plan for tracking contractor activities, measuring contractor 

performance and conducting periodic reviews, and conducting internal 

reviews of tracking and oversight activities.



* Establishing and implementing an information security program. 

Specifically, the Architect should establish an information security 

program by taking the following steps:



* designate a security officer and provide him or her with the 

authority and resources to implement an agencywide security program;



* develop and implement policy and guidance to perform risk assessments 

continually;



* use the results of the risk assessments to develop and implement 

appropriate controls;



* develop policies for security training and awareness and provide the 

training; and:



* monitor and evaluate policy and control effectiveness.[Footnote 46]



Agency Comments:



In his comments on this chapter, the Architect generally agreed with 

our recommendations and discussed the relevant efforts AOC has under 

way in the areas of human capital policies, financial management, and 

IT management. For example, the Architect stated that AOC has formed a 

team including representatives from all key offices and employee groups 

to explore the development of a confidential process to track employee 

relations issues agencywide. In the area of financial management, the 

Architect underscored a number of initiatives under way, including the 

piloting of financial management training for line managers and staff 

and indicated that AOC’s implementation plan will include a strategy 

for incorporating financial management best practices throughout AOC. 

Finally, the Architect stated that IT is a key enabler of AOC’s 

strategy for organizational improvement and that OIRM will work closely 

with the Senior Policy Committee to establish an agencywide approach to 

IT management. The Architect cautioned that fully implementing the 

information technology framework that we laid out will take 

considerable time, but that AOC’s implementation plan will include a 

more specific approach to developing and implementing this framework. 

The Architect’s comments are reprinted in appendix II.



[End of section]



Chapter 4: Strategic Management Framework Important for Addressing 
Long-

standing Worker Safety, Project Management, and Recycling Issues:



In the preceding chapters, we discussed the need for the Office of the 

Architect of the Capitol (AOC) to put in place the management and 

accountability framework needed for organizational transformation--

leadership, strategic planning, organizational alignment, 

communications, and performance measurement--and the management 

infrastructure of financial, information technology, and other controls 

that support the transformation. The management and accountability 

framework needed for transformation and the management infrastructure 

of financial, information technology, and other controls cut across 

AOC’s programs and influence its performance in all areas critical to 

achieving its mission. Improvements in these areas can also ameliorate 

the performance of program areas of long-standing concern to AOC’s 

employees and congressional stakeholders--worker safety, project 

management, and recycling. In recent years, AOC has had among the 

highest worker injury rates in the federal government. Furthermore, 

AOC’s annual appropriations for capital projects have increased 

substantially in recent years, placing AOC at greater risk of project 

delays and cost overruns. Finally, high rates of contamination of 

recyclable materials continue to detract from accomplishing the 

environmental goals of AOC’s recycling programs.



AOC has made recent progress in all these areas. However, significant 

opportunities exist to build on this progress to bring about 

significant, lasting performance improvements. For example, the 

Architect has declared that safety is the agency’s number one priority 

and established a target for reducing injuries. Nonetheless, relating 

safety to other pressing priorities and developing a clear strategy for 

how working safely will become the cultural norm, is still a work in 

progress at AOC. Similarly, AOC has adopted industry best practices for 

project management, but implementation is uneven and hampered by 

weaknesses in leadership, performance and financial management, 

priority setting, communication, and strategic management of human 

capital. Finally, although AOC has recently made improvements to the 

House and Senate recycling programs, contamination of recycled 

materials remains high, and the goals for the overall program remain 

unclear.



AOC’s Worker Safety Efforts Are Substantial, but AOC Needs to Develop a 

Strategic Approach to Achieve a Safer Workplace:



Worker safety at AOC has been the subject of congressional scrutiny for 

the past several years because AOC had higher injury and illness rates 

than many other federal agencies and substantially higher rates than 

the federal government as a whole, as seen in table 1.



Table 1: Federal Agencies with the Highest Injury and Illness Rates, 

Fiscal Years 1999 through 2001:



1999: Agency: All federal government; 1999: Rate: 3.91; [Empty]; 2000: 

Agency: All federal government; 2000: Rate: 3.95; [Empty]; 2001: 

Agency: All federal government; 2001: Rate: 3.98.



1999: Agency: Immigration and Naturalization Service; 1999: Rate: 

14.14; [Empty]; 2000: Agency: Architect of the Capitol; 2000: Rate: 

17.90; [Empty]; 2001: Agency: Presidio Trust; 2001: Rate: 14.97.



1999: Agency: Architect of the Capitol; 1999: Rate: 14.11; [Empty]; 

2000: Agency: Immigration and Naturalization Service; 2000: Rate: 

14.04; [Empty]; 2001: Agency: Immigration and Naturalization Service; 

2001: Rate: ; 13.44.



1999: Agency: Bureau of Engraving and Printing; 1999: Rate: 12.76; 

[Empty]; 2000: Agency: U.S. Mint; 2000: Rate: 13.47; [Empty]; 2001: 

Agency: Architect of the Capitol; 2001: Rate: 11.02.



1999: Agency: National Park Service; 1999: Rate: 12.16; [Empty]; 2000: 

Agency: Bureau of Indian Affairs; 2000: Rate: 12.69; [Empty]; 2001: 

Agency: National Park Service; 2001: Rate: 10.92.



1999: Agency: U.S. Mint; 1999: Rate: 10.52; [Empty]; 2000: Agency: 

Bureau of Engraving and Printing; 2000: Rate: 12.28; [Empty]; 2001: 

Agency: U.S. Mint; 2001: Rate: 10.38.



Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA).



Note: Job related injuries and illnesses per 100 employees as recorded 

under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act program.



[End of table]



The Architect responded to these concerns by declaring safety the 

agency’s top priority and undertaking a number of initiatives that 

correspond to the components of an effective safety program, as 

identified by safety experts and federal safety agencies. These core 

components include management commitment, employee involvement, 

identification, analysis and development of controls for problem jobs, 

education and training, and medical management. Key among AOC’s 

activities is the planned development and implementation, by 2005, of 

about 43 specialized safety programs on topics ranging from handling 

asbestos to working safely in confined spaces. These programs are 

designed to help AOC comply with federal safety and health regulations. 

Fifteen of these specialized programs have been approved; none have yet 

been fully implemented across all of AOC’s jurisdictions.



AOC’s efforts are commendable and AOC employees who participated in our 

focus groups noted positive changes in worker safety. As a next step, 

AOC needs to integrate the safety goals in its draft Safety Master Plan 

with AOC’s strategic goals in its overall strategic plan, and to 

develop performance measures to assess its progress in achieving these 

goals. The Director of AOC’s Safety, Fire, and Environmental Programs, 

who oversees AOC’s workplace safety program, has acknowledged that the 

two strategic planning efforts must be further integrated. Also, AOC 

has established mechanisms to foster employee involvement, such as 

encouraging employees to report job-related injuries and hazards. 

Building on these efforts, AOC needs to establish a formal mechanism 

for reporting to ensure complete reporting of hazards. AOC’s approach 

to identifying, analyzing, and developing controls for problem jobs is 

inconsistent and does not ensure that all workplace hazards are being 

addressed. Moreover, AOC has provided a significant amount of training 

to its employees, but the training activities could be better linked to 

AOC’s safety goal of changing its workplace culture to increase staff 

awareness, commitment, and involvement in safety and health. Finally, 

AOC’s medical management activities could be better coordinated with 

the worker safety program, so that information about workplace injuries 

and illnesses could be more widely shared and used to better target 

prevention efforts.



Effective Safety and Health Programs Depend on a Set of Core 

Components:



Safety experts and federal safety agencies agree that, to build an 

effective safety program, organizations must take a strategic approach 

to managing workplace safety and health. This objective is generally 

accomplished by establishing a safety program built upon a set of six 

core program components, which, together, help an organization lay out 

what it is trying to achieve, assess progress, and ensure that safety 

policies and procedures are appropriate and effective. The six core 

components of an effective safety and health program are (1) management 

commitment, (2) employee involvement, (3) identification of problem 

jobs, (4) analysis and development of controls for problem jobs, (5) 

education and training, and (6) medical management. Table 2 lists these 

components, along with a description of the key activities upon which 

each component is built.



Table 2: Components of an Effective Safety and Health Program and How 

They Are Demonstrated:



Component[A]: Management commitment; Supporting activities: * 

Establish goals for the program, collect reliable data, and evaluate 

results.; * Establish program responsibilities of managers and 

employees for safety and health in the workplace and hold them 

accountable for carrying out those responsibilities.; * Communicate to 

the staff the program’s importance..



Component[A]: Employee involvement; Supporting activities: * Establish 

mechanisms to get employees involved in the program, such as creating 

committees or teams to receive information on problem jobs or areas.; * 

Establish procedures for employees to report job-related fatalities, 

injuries, illnesses, incidents, and hazards; ensure that employees are 

not discouraged from reporting job-related fatalities, injuries, 

illnesses, incidents, and hazards.; * Establish regular channels of 

communication with employees regarding worker safety issues..



Component[A]: Identification of problem jobs; Supporting activities: * 

Follow up on employee reports of fatalities, injuries, illnesses, 

incidents, and hazards.; * Review injury logs or other data to identify 

problem areas.; * Conduct inspections of the workplace to identify 

incidents and hazards causing injuries, illnesses, or fatalities..



Component[A]: Analysis and development of controls for problem jobs; 

Supporting activities: * Through investigation or other analysis, 

identify hazards present in problem jobs.; * Develop controls for 

problem jobs by brainstorming with employees or other methods.; * 

Follow up to ensure that hazards are abated and controls are 

effective..



Component[A]: Education and training; Supporting activities: * Provide 

general awareness training to all employees so they can recognize 

hazards and risks; learn procedures for reporting job-related 

fatalities, injuries, illnesses, incidents, and hazards; and become 

familiar with the program.; * Provide targeted training to specified 

groups of employees because of the jobs they hold, the hazards they 

face, or their roles in the program..



Component[A]: Medical management[B]; Supporting activities: * 

Encourage early reporting of symptoms and ensure that employees do not 

fear reprisal or discrimination.; * Ensure a prompt evaluation by a 

medical provider.; * Provide employees who have work-related medical 

conditions with restricted or light duty employment..



Sources: OSHA, Safety and Health Program Management Guidelines, 

Issuance of Voluntary Guidelines, Federal Register 54:3904-3916 

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 26, 1989) and U.S. General Accounting Office, 

Private Sector Ergonomics Programs Yield Positive Results, GAO/HEHS-97-

163 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 27, 1997).



[A] Different terminology is often used to describe these components. 

For example, identification of problem jobs is sometimes referred to as 

hazard identification and assessment. Analysis and development of 

controls for problem jobs is sometimes referred to as hazard prevention 

and control. The terms used here are identical to those used in our 

prior work.



[B] An organization may have a medical management program without 

necessarily having a safety and health program.



[End of table]



Our April 2002 statement assessed AOC’s efforts in implementing the 

first four components. Since that time, we have assessed AOC’s 

activities in the remaining two areas: education and training and 

medical management. We also met with DuPont Safety Resources[Footnote 

47] and the Department of Defense to discuss best practices in worker 

safety.



Management Commitment: Safety Program’s Importance Has Been 

Communicated, but Goals Need to Be Integrated with Agency Goals and 

Performance Measures Need to Be Developed:



AOC has undertaken a number of actions that demonstrate its commitment 

to worker safety. As a next step, it needs to develop safety program 

goals that are integrated with broader agency goals. In an effort to 

highlight the importance of worker safety, the Architect proclaimed 

safety to be the agency’s top priority in fiscal year 2001, and 

established the goal of reducing total injuries and illnesses by 10 

percent each year through fiscal year 2005. As we reported in April 

2002, AOC further demonstrated its commitment by devoting additional 

resources to safety, such as increasing staffing levels in its central 

safety office and assigning safety staff to seven of its eight 

jurisdictions. Additionally, AOC has consulted with the Department of 

Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)[Footnote 

48] on how to record illnesses and injuries and with the congressional 

Office of Compliance on how to comply with OSHA requirements. AOC has 

also contracted with DuPont Safety Resources to provide a baseline 

assessment of AOC’s safety activities and to provide best practices 

briefings for AOC senior executives and safety specialists for adopting 

a safety culture, including key components of an effective safety and 

health program. AOC has also contracted with the Department of Health 

and Human Services’ Public Health Service (PHS),[Footnote 49] which is 

developing AOC’s 43 specialized safety programs, providing safety 

training, and identifying hazards associated with AOC job tasks. AOC is 

developing a 5-year Safety Master Plan that, when completed, is to be 

used as a road map to identify its safety goals and philosophy, 

establish priorities, assign responsibilities, and identify project and 

funding needs. AOC employees who participated in our focus groups also 

noted positive changes in communicating worker safety. Many 

participants felt that AOC takes safety-related incidents seriously and 

that there has been an increased emphasis on safety.



To achieve a safer workplace, AOC needs to integrate the safety goals 

in its draft Safety Master Plan with the strategic goals in its draft 

Strategic Plan. The Director of AOC’s Safety Program has acknowledged 

that as a next step, the two strategic planning efforts must be 

integrated. Private sector best practices indicate that an organization 

needs safety goals that are consistent and integrated with other 

organizational goals. Safety goals should be well integrated into the 

organizational culture so that it becomes second nature for employees 

to perform all tasks safely, and so that there is little tolerance for 

unsafe work practices.



AOC has not yet developed performance measures to assess progress in 

achieving these safety goals. AOC officials have indicated that the 

development and implementation of the 43 specialized safety programs is 

their primary focus, and they plan to implement all of these programs 

by fiscal year 2005. Although 15 of these programs have been written 

and approved by the Architect, the standard operating procedures that 

are needed to fully implement these programs in the jurisdictions have 

not been approved. AOC’s draft Safety Master Plan currently provides 

information about the development and expected approval dates for the 

remaining programs, but does not provide other milestones or 

performance measures for the full implementation of these programs in 

the jurisdictions, including the anticipated time frames for developing 

and approving the standard operating procedures. Identifying interim 

milestones would help AOC assess its progress in achieving its fiscal 

year 2005 completion target and underscore for AOC employees and 

external stakeholders the importance AOC places on worker safety.



The only performance measure that AOC has developed for assessing the 

worker safety program is a 10 percent reduction in injuries. This 

measure was based on a general sense of how much of a reduction would 

be achievable overall and how high the goal should be to motivate 

improvements. As we reported in April 2002, AOC is measuring its 

progress in achieving this reduction using the number of claims for 

compensation for workplace injuries and illnesses under the Federal 

Workers’ Compensation Program. However, it provides an incomplete 

picture of the overall level of safety because the number of claims in 

any organization can be affected by factors not directly related to 

safety, such as poor morale among employees or a lack of knowledge 

about how or when to file a claim. Also, the use of these data as a 

measure of safety program performance is not directly comparable to key 

measures used in the private sector, which uses “OSHA recordables” to 

assess worker safety.[Footnote 50]We reported in April 2002 that AOC 

had begun to collect these data on a limited basis. Since that time, 

AOC has begun to develop a more standardized approach to collect and 

track OSHA recordables. AOC is also trying to formalize partnerships 

with the Office of Compliance and OSHA to provide technical assistance 

that could facilitate standardizing these data.



Moreover, AOC employees at all levels need to be held accountable for 

achieving the safety goals. For example, the first goal in AOC’s draft 

Safety Master Plan--providing a safe and healthful environment through 

the identification and elimination of hazards--has as an objective to 

ensure that all facilities, processes, and equipment include safety 

considerations in their design, development, and implementation to 

eliminate hazards. Yet, at this stage, AOC has not fully linked 

employee performance with the achievement of these safety goals and 

objectives. For example, there was a recurring observation made by 

focus group participants that time constraints to complete jobs and 

supervisory pressure adversely affect attention to safety. Although the 

incentive to focus on safety has been built into the performance 

appraisal system for employees, it is not addressed for senior managers 

and does not apply to employees who do not participate in AOC’s 

performance appraisal system.



We also reported in April 2002 that AOC needed to clearly define roles, 

responsibilities, and authorities of safety personnel at the central 

and jurisdictional levels. According to the central and jurisdictional 

safety staffs, AOC has now clearly defined their respective roles and 

responsibilities. However, it is still unclear how they are being held 

accountable for achieving the safety program’s goals. The central 

safety office staff are responsible for the overall management of the 

43 specialized programs, and they rely on the jurisdictional safety 

specialists to develop the specific procedures necessary for AOC to 

fully implement these programs. The jurisdictional safety specialists 

report to jurisdictional superintendents and not to the Director of 

Safety, Fire, and Environmental Programs, and they have other safety 

responsibilities and tasks, such as training and investigating 

accidents and injuries. Because jurisdictional safety specialists must 

focus on safety priorities as established by superintendents and line 

managers in their jurisdictions, they have limited time to spend on 

developing procedures to implement the specialized safety programs.



Employee Involvement: AOC Has Established Mechanisms for Involvement, 

but Complete Reporting of Hazards Is Not Assured:



AOC has a number of mechanisms to obtain employee involvement in its 

safety program and encourages employees to report injuries and hazards. 

AOC now needs to establish a formal reporting mechanism in order to 

provide assurance that these safety data are complete. AOC has 

established employee safety committees at both the jurisdictional and 

senior management levels. The jurisdictional committees, referred to as 

Jurisdictional Occupational Safety and Health committees, include 

frontline employees and jurisdictional specialists who perform a 

variety of activities ranging from training to accident investigations. 

The senior management committee, referred to as the Safety, Health, and 

Environmental Council, or SHEC, consists of superintendents and AOC 

safety staff. This committee meets quarterly and addresses various 

topics on an ad hoc basis. As we reported in April 2002, establishing 

these committees is a positive step toward achieving employee 

involvement. In its baseline assessment of AOC, DuPont Safety Resources 

cited these mechanisms as a strength of the agency’s worker safety 

program.



Employee involvement also includes establishing procedures for 

employees to report job-related illnesses, injuries, incidents, and 

hazards and encouraging them to do so. In April 2002, the Architect 

issued a memorandum encouraging employees to report all injuries and 

illnesses, regardless of severity. Many of the focus group participants 

indicated that they generally felt comfortable reporting injuries, 

incidents, and hazards. However, there were participants in some focus 

groups who indicated that they were hesitant to report hazards because 

they were not sure how seriously their supervisors would treat these 

reports. Many participants commented that they did not feel protected 

from safety and health hazards. For example, some participants said 

that they were not adequately prepared to deal with hazardous 

substances. In that respect, policies and procedures for reporting 

accidents should also apply to hazards and other conditions that may 

lead to accidents. The recent implementation of a performance appraisal 

system that holds frontline employees under this system accountable for 

observing and promptly reporting safety issues to supervisors is a very 

encouraging step. If effectively implemented, this appraisal system 

will also help ensure that employees will be encouraged to report 

hazards, that supervisors will take those reports seriously, and that 

senior managers will be accountable for acting on these reports.



Identification, Analysis, and Development of Controls for Problem Jobs: 

AOC’s Inconsistent Approach Does Not Ensure a Risk-Based Approach to 

Addressing Workplace Hazards:



AOC has a number of procedures in place to identify the underlying 

hazards that make jobs dangerous and to develop remedies for those 

hazards. However, these efforts are inconsistent and do not ensure that 

corrective actions are taken to eliminate hazards and prevent future 

injuries and illnesses. A comprehensive, consistently implemented 

system is critical to providing AOC with the assurance that its efforts 

are risk based--targeted directly toward identifying and abating those 

factors leading to the most severe and frequent incidents, accidents, 

and hazards.



We reported in April 2002 that AOC has provided some assurance that 

accidents are being investigated and hazards addressed by placing 

safety specialists in several jurisdictions. Yet, there is no 

consistent AOC-wide system for conducting investigations and follow-up 

to ensure that workers across the jurisdictions are receiving the same 

level of protection. In the absence of an AOC-wide system, we found 

that some of the jurisdictions have (1) developed their own specific 

procedures for conducting investigations, (2) involved different staff 

members in the investigations, and (3) developed their own forms to 

gather accident or incident data. However, there were a few focus group 

participants who questioned whether sufficient controls existed to 

ensure that supervisors acted on all reports, particularly those that 

are not documented. We found that only two of AOC’s eight jurisdictions 

have procedures for tracking hazard reports and the follow-up actions 

taken to address those reports, even when there has not been an 

accident. In the absence of consistent AOC-wide processes for 

conducting investigations, we found generally ad hoc or infrequent 

efforts to use existing information from either the internal workers’ 

compensation database or from other sources to look for common problem 

areas to identify potentially hazardous jobs.



Because AOC has not yet established an agencywide procedure to ensure 

that all jurisdictions perform at least a basic level of investigation 

and data gathering, it does not have the means for assuring that actual 

and potential causes of accidents will be abated. DuPont Safety 

Resources also found that AOC could improve its investigation process, 

and in 1998, the Office of Compliance recommended that AOC develop a 

system to routinely investigate accidents or hazardous situations and 

to ensure that hazards are corrected.



AOC has recognized the need to have better information on problem jobs 

and is beginning to make several improvements in this area. For 

example, AOC has contracted with PHS to conduct agencywide job hazard 

analyses. Eventually, this information on job hazards will be 

integrated with the agency’s Computer Aided Facility Management System, 

although AOC has not set a date for when this will be accomplished. 

Also, AOC has procured a data system--the Facility Management Assistant 

system--that it plans to use for recording and monitoring the results 

of inspections. According to AOC safety officials, this system should 

help safety personnel identify potential problem areas. However, this 

system is not scheduled for full implementation until later in fiscal 

year 2003. Finally, as a part of its long-term effort to develop its 43 

specialized safety programs, AOC has included at least 2 programs, 

scheduled to be implemented by the end of fiscal year 2005 that will 

address “Mishap Prevention and Reporting” and “Hazard Abatement and 

Inspections,” but these programs have yet to be developed or approved. 

In the meantime, at the recommendation of DuPont Safety Resources, AOC 

has convened several work groups composed of safety and other relevant 

staff to help improve accident and near-miss reporting and 

investigations, which we hope will guide AOC’s efforts to develop an 

agencywide system for conducting investigations and follow-up.



Education and Training: Activities Could Be More Supportive of 

Improving the Safety Culture; Effectiveness Evaluated in Achieving a 

Safer Workplace:



AOC has adopted a compliance-based approach to providing safety 

training to its employees. However, this type of training is not 

sufficient, in itself, to achieve AOC’s long-range goal of instilling 

safety as a basic organizational value. In fiscal year 2001 alone, AOC 

reported that it provided over 13,000 hours of formal training to its 

employees. Most of this training is driven by federal safety and health 

regulations, which provide the basis for AOC’s 43 specialized safety 

programs. This safety training, covering such topics as asbestos 

management, is offered by or through AOC’s HRMD. AOC safety specialists 

and supervisors have also provided informal training--such as general 

safety awareness talks--to frontline staff in the jurisdictions. These 

efforts were acknowledged in our focus groups, as almost all of the 

focus group participants reported receiving safety training in the last 

12 months.



In addition to helping AOC achieve compliance, training should support 

AOC’s safety goal of changing workplace culture to increase staff 

awareness, commitment, and involvement in safety and health. Comments 

from DuPont Safety Resources’ representatives and some AOC safety 

specialists suggest that in order to change the safety culture, AOC 

could target its safety awareness training so that it better motivates 

employees at all levels to incorporate safety into all aspects of their 

work. Many focus group participants reported that they did not 

understand how some of the training provided was pertinent to their 

work. Once AOC has gathered the safety data it needs to help it assess 

the areas of highest risk for hazards, injuries, accidents, and 

illnesses, AOC’s safety training could also be targeted to address 

these high-risk areas.



A comprehensive approach to evaluate the effectiveness of training 

includes assessments of changes in employee behaviors and how the 

training influences organizational results. While AOC performs quality 

control assessments for each course offered, it has not evaluated the 

overall effectiveness of its training activities to determine if they 

are helping AOC achieve a safer workplace and improving the safety 

culture. In this regard, as noted above, the majority of the formal 

training provided is required by federal safety and health regulations, 

and although AOC routinely obtains feedback from employees and subject 

matter experts on the quality of individual courses, there is little 

effort to evaluate whether these courses are having an impact on AOC 

employees’ work habits, so it is not clear to AOC if this training is 

effective in achieving this objective.



AOC safety and HRMD staffs have not yet established a systematic 

process to identify training needs for individual employees to help 

ensure the safety program’s success. Instead jurisdictional safety 

specialists, working with HRMD, are developing this training on an ad 

hoc basis. For example, according to the House jurisdiction safety 

specialist, supervisors needed additional skills to fully understand 

their role in the safety program. The House jurisdiction worked through 

HRMD and the National Safety Council of Maryland to deliver this type 

of training to supervisors in the House.



Also, the procedures and responsibilities for monitoring training 

requirements for the safety program are not well defined. Currently, 

the HRMD staff, the central safety office staff, jurisdictional safety 

specialists, and frontline supervisors share responsibilities for 

monitoring safety training. HRMD maintains a central record of AOC-

sponsored training courses and employees’ training attendance but does 

not identify when employees need training. As a result, jurisdictional 

safety specialists and frontline supervisors must determine when 

employees need required training and ensure that they receive such 

training. For example, jurisdictional safety specialists are tracking 

this information themselves using individual systems, thus leading to 

inconsistencies across jurisdictions and potentially duplicative 

record-keeping activities. AOC’s draft Safety Master Plan refers to a 

“tickler”[Footnote 51] that, once developed, is to be included in the 

central training system and will identify training needs for individual 

employees. This tool, in addition to a system that inventories 

employees’ certifications and licenses, should be valuable in helping 

AOC employees stay abreast of their safety training needs and 

requirements.



Medical Management: Activities Can Be Better Coordinated with AOC’s 

Safety Program So Potentially Useful Information Can Be Routinely 

Shared:



AOC’s medical management activities are carried out by several offices 

with no central coordination, so valuable information about workplace 

injuries and illnesses is not routinely shared or best used to target 

prevention efforts. Overall, AOC’s medical management activities are 

aimed at reducing the incidence and severity of work-related injuries 

and illnesses and controlling workers’ compensation costs, which have 

changed little over the last several years. (See figure 2). AOC has 

partnered with the congressional Office of the Attending Physician 

(OAP) to conduct OSHA-mandated medical examinations for AOC employees 

exposed to hazardous substances, while HRMD has developed a return-to-

work program that offers modified-duty assignments to enable recovering 

employees to return to work as soon as practical. HRMD also provides 

active outreach to AOC employees to keep them informed about their 

rights and duties with respect to the federal workers compensation 

program. In addition, HRMD follows up on reports of program abuses 

through private investigations and ongoing contact with the Department 

of Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs.



Figure 2: AOC Workers’ Compensation Payments, Fiscal Years 1997 through 

2002:



[See PDF for image] 



[End of figure] 



Although these activities generally support AOC’s safety program, we 

have observed a lack of clarity regarding the roles of the many offices 

involved in these efforts. Medical management activities typically 

involve a number of separate entities, including human resources staff, 

health care providers, occupational health and safety experts, 

employees, and managers. To be effective, these activities require a 

high level of coordination among these entities. However, the lack of 

clarity at AOC has led to a limited exchange of important information 

that could be used to improve the safety program’s performance.



In particular, the role of OAP could be more clearly defined and 

expanded, in accordance with the 1998 Memorandum of Understanding 

between AOC and OAP.[Footnote 52] OAP provides primary care and 

emergency, environmental, and occupational health services in direct 

support of members of the Congress, their staffs, pages, visiting 

dignitaries, and tourists.[Footnote 53] As specified in the Memorandum 

of Understanding, OAP conducts OSHA-mandated medical examinations for 

AOC employees exposed to hazardous substances, provides first aid for 

many AOC employees, and approves modified-duty assignments for 

recovering AOC employees.[Footnote 54] However, the Memorandum of 

Understanding allows a broader role for OAP in providing medical 

expertise, which could potentially include providing valuable data on 

the hazards causing injuries and illnesses at AOC, providing trend 

information on the results of medical examinations, and helping AOC 

standardize reporting procedures. According to the Director of AOC’s 

Safety, Fire, and Environmental Programs, as many as 30 percent of 

AOC’s reported injuries are probably not serious enough to warrant 

medical treatment. However, it is difficult to determine the severity 

of reported injuries without better injury data, underscoring the need 

for standardized reporting procedures. OAP could be instrumental in 

helping AOC develop these procedures.



AOC central safety staff and HRMD could coordinate more to facilitate 

the exchange of information to further control workers’ compensation 

costs. In particular, HRMD staff uses injury data primarily for 

processing workers’ compensation claims, but the central safety office 

does not systematically or routinely analyze these data to better 

understand and address the causes of injuries and illnesses. Also, 

superintendents do not routinely receive data on the costs associated 

with injuries in each jurisdiction, so they are not fully aware of 

them. Having these data would help AOC hold these managers accountable 

for reducing these costs. Furthermore, although HRMD encourages 

supervisor involvement in identifying and overseeing modified-duty 

assignments that would enable AOC to engage injured workers in 

productive work to reduce injury costs, some jurisdictional staff we 

spoke with generally do not feel it is their responsibility to do so. 

One way to ensure that information is fully disclosed and analyzed is 

to provide a regular forum, such as a work group of superintendents, 

HRMD staff, OAP staff, and safety specialists, to discuss new and 

ongoing claims. This strategy has been adopted by the Department of 

Defense (DOD) and has proved to be useful in managing workers’ 

compensation claims and costs, according to DOD officials who 

specialize in this area. By focusing management attention on workers’ 

compensation claims and costs, AOC may provide a clearer incentive for 

staff at all levels to be more actively involved in modified-duty 

assignments and in other safety activities.



Conclusions:



AOC has taken significant steps toward implementing the necessary 

components of an effective worker safety and health program, and the 

level of effort it has devoted to worker safety is unquestionable. 

However, achieving a safer workplace at AOC will depend in part on 

AOC’s ability to integrate the safety goals in its draft Safety Master 

Plan with the strategic goals in its draft Strategic Plan to bring 

about long-term cultural change so that there is little tolerance for 

unsafe work practices. AOC’s potential to realize success is greater if 

it develops safety goals and measures that are fully integrated with 

AOC’s other agencywide goals; this is the best way to ensure that 

management and employees are clear about where safety stands in 

relation to the many other work priorities AOC faces every day. For 

example, in order to ensure that AOC achieves its fiscal year 2005 

completion target for the 43 specialized safety programs, we believe 

that identifying interim milestones and measures would help AOC assess 

its progress in achieving its target.



AOC could also benefit from having clearly defined and documented 

policies and procedures for reporting hazards, much like those that 

exist for injuries and illnesses, for this is the best way to ensure 

that AOC fully understands problem areas. There is also merit to having 

consistent procedures for conducting investigations and follow-up, so 

AOC will be assured that potential hazards are being addressed 

consistently in all jurisdictions.



Regarding its safety training and medical management activities, AOC 

has made initial efforts to incorporate the knowledge and skills of 

various offices to help the safety program. Nonetheless, there are 

untapped resources within AOC that could be better utilized to help the 

safety program achieve its goals. For example, training that is more 

directly linked to AOC’s goal of adopting a safety culture, as well as 

more effective assessments of that training, will help AOC achieve its 

goals more efficiently. Also, AOC could benefit from a clearer 

definition of responsibilities for tracking and recording training that 

is received. AOC could also make better use of OAP’s resources. There 

are a number of additional functions OAP can provide for AOC that we 

believe are consistent with the current Memorandum of Understanding, 

such as providing valuable data on the hazards causing injuries and 

illnesses at AOC. We also believe that a senior-management group that 

routinely discusses workers’ compensation claims and costs will help 

highlight these issues to all managers, and ultimately make managers 

more accountable for reducing these costs. By taking advantage of these 

opportunities, AOC could ensure that these medical management 

activities are better linked to the goals of the safety program and the 

overall mission of the agency.



Recommendations for Agency Action:



To enhance AOC’s ongoing efforts to establish a strategy for the worker 

safety program by establishing safety program goals that are fully 

integrated with AOC’s agencywide goals, we recommend that the Architect 

of the Capitol:



* identify performance measures for safety goals and objectives, 

including measures for how AOC will implement the 43 specialized safety 

programs and how superintendents and employees will be held accountable 

for achieving results;



* establish clearly defined and documented policies and procedures for 

reporting hazards similar to those that apply to injury and illness 

reporting;



* establish a consistent, AOC-wide system for conducting investigations 

and follow-up;



* establish a safety training curriculum that fully supports all of the 

goals of the safety program and further evaluate the effectiveness of 

the training provided;



* assign clear responsibility for tracking and recording training 

received by AOC employees, including maintaining an inventory of 

employees’ certifications and licenses;



* clarify and explore the possibility of expanding the role of OAP in 

helping AOC meet its safety goals, consistent with the broad 

responsibilities laid out in the 1998 Memorandum of Understanding 

between AOC and OAP; and:



* establish a senior management work group that will routinely discuss 

workers’ compensation cases and costs, and develop strategies to reduce 

these injuries and costs.



AOC Has Identified Best Practices for Project Management, but 

Implementation Is Uneven:



AOC is responsible for the maintenance, operation, preservation, and 

development of the buildings and grounds primarily located within the 

Capitol Hill complex. The historic nature and high-profile use of many 

of these buildings create a complex environment in which to carry out 

this mission. As a part of that mission, AOC is responsible for making 

all necessary capital improvements within the complex, including major 

renovations and new construction. Over the next few years, four high-

profile capital projects are expected to cost over a half billion 

dollars: the $265 million Capitol Visitors’ Center project, the $122.3 

million Supreme Court Modernization project, the $81.8 million West 

Refrigeration Plant Expansion project, and a combined $72 million for 

the House and Senate Perimeter Security projects initiated following 

the events of September 11, 2001.



The magnitude of AOC’s recent projects and the recent growth in annual 

appropriations highlights the importance of managing this large 

portfolio of projects according to leading industry practices. As shown 

in figure 3, AOC’s annual appropriations for capital projects has 

increased over the last 10 years from $23.6 million in fiscal year 1994 

to $190.3 million in fiscal year 2003. AOC’s capital appropriations 

peaked in fiscal year 2001 at $279 million due to a $244 million 

emergency supplemental appropriation following the terrorist attacks--

over a 700 percent increase above the original capital appropriation. 

The growth in capital appropriations is most evident in the last 5 

years: the average capital appropriation from fiscal years 1999 through 

2003 was $186.5 million, while the average capital appropriation over 

the previous 5 years was $35.6 million.



Figure 3: AOC Annual Appropriations for Capital Projects from Fiscal 

Years 1994 through 2003:



[See PDF for image] 



Notes: The fiscal year 2003 capital project appropriation is the amount 

requested by AOC. Annual appropriations for capital projects do not 

include appropriations related to the Supreme Court jurisdiction.



[End of figure] 



AOC’s Office of the Chief of Design and Construction (OCODC) is 

responsible for the planning, design, and construction of capital 

projects vital to achieving the agency’s mission. The office also 

provides technical assistance to AOC jurisdictions as they handle their 

day-to-day operations. The office is divided into separate divisions 

that provide the direct and indirect services that are required 

throughout a project’s life cycle: 

(1) Architecture Division, (2) Engineering Division, (3) Construction 

Management Division, and (4) Technical Support Division. The office 

also has a Planning and Programming Division, which is not currently 

staffed, and there is a proposal for a separate Project Management 

Division.



As of May 2002, OCODC had a total of 128 full time equivalents, 

excluding Davis-Bacon workers assigned to the Construction Branch. 

Responsibility for the management of individual projects, including 

schedule, budget, scope, and quality, primarily falls to architects and 

engineers who are assigned as project managers. However, AOC 

jurisdiction staff can also be assigned as project managers for capital 

projects within their jurisdictions. As of July 2002, AOC had 83 

individuals--58 from the Office of Design and Construction and 25 from 

AOC jurisdictions--listed as project managers in some capacity. The 

majority, however, are not dedicated solely to the task of project 

management. AOC supplements its staff by contracting for many of the 

design, construction, and construction management services.



AOC divides capital projects into four categories:



* small capital projects--those valued at less than $250,000 and 

estimated to take an average of 1 year to complete;



* medium capital projects--those valued from $250,000 to $5 million and 

estimated to take an average of 3 years to complete;



* large capital projects--those valued at more than $5 million and 

estimated to take an average of 5 years to complete; and,



* large capital projects with construction managers--those valued at 

more than $20 million and estimated to take an average of more than 5 

years to complete.



As of June 2002, AOC’s workload consisted of 30 small capital projects, 

94 medium capital projects, 12 large capital projects, and, 4 large 

capital projects with construction managers. This does not include 

hundreds of other projects, such as floor plan redesigns, sketches, and 

jurisdiction-funded projects that are a core part of OCODC 

responsibilities.



AOC Has Recognized the Need to Improve Its Project Planning and 

Delivery Processes:



AOC recognizes that a disciplined project management process can help 

it complete capital projects on schedule, on budget, within scope, and 

of the highest quality. In 1999, AOC initiated several reviews of its 

project planning and delivery processes by independent consultant 

firms. The goal of the reviews was to streamline the agency’s processes 

and staff organization based upon “best practices” drawn from AOC and 

industry, as well as to address a management concern that a lack of 

continuity in project management resulted in a loss of effectiveness 

and efficiency in overall project delivery. As a result of these 

initiatives, AOC sought to create a consistent process to which all 

projects and project managers adhere, create a system where project 

managers are dedicated to individual projects from “cradle-to-grave”--

that is, from a project’s initiation to its completion, and increase 

the use of consultants to reduce the burden on in-house staff.



According to AOC, the best practices process took a year to develop and 

a year to implement. The policies and procedures are codified in 

various manuals produced and updated by AOC since 1999, two of which 

have recently been finalized.[Footnote 55] Since then, AOC has 

continued to review its best practices initiatives. For example, the 

consulting firm CenterLine Associates is assessing how the best 

practice standards and procedures have been applied across five capital 

projects.[Footnote 56] The effort is expected to identify improvements 

that can be incorporated into AOC standards, policies, and procedures, 

as well as identify areas to be covered in future project-delivery 

training sessions. AOC is also implementing a formal process for 

planning and budgeting for its capital projects, adapted from the DOD’s 

military construction budgeting process, that is intended to clearly 

define requirements and priorities, and requires that requests be 

reviewed, validated, and approved before submission to the Congress. 

This formal process augments the policy requiring a 100 percent 

complete design before AOC requests construction funds.



As AOC moves forward with its project management initiatives and 

consistent with the strategic management framework discussed in chapter 

2, AOC needs to ensure that it has the overall infrastructure in place 

to effectively implement and take full advantage of the best practices 

that are designed to improve project planning, design, and construction 

management:



* top leadership commitment,



* master planning for the Capitol Hill complex,



* transparent process to prioritize projects,



* strategy and tools to communicate,



* outcome-oriented goals and performance measures,



* proper alignment of staff and resources, and:



* strategic human capital management.



Without these elements, AOC and the Congress have no assurance that the 

project management initiatives are being employed to their fullest 

potential. Consequently, AOC cannot be assured that the capital 

projects it is managing can be completed on schedule, on budget, and 

within scope and are of high quality and meet the needs of their 

customers.



Top Leadership Commitment:



As with other critical management issues, the sustained commitment of 

top leadership will be vital to the success of AOC’s project management 

initiatives. On an ongoing basis, AOC leadership must set the clear 

expectation that staff adhere to the established best practice policies 

and procedures and then hold project management staff and contractors 

accountable for meeting this expectation. However, several project 

managers stated that they rely more heavily on their own experiences 

than on the specific policies and procedures laid out in the project 

manager manuals. One AOC official with project management 

responsibilities specifically noted, with respect to the best 

practices, that he did not know “if any of it was required,” but that 

if something was required he would be doing it.



AOC officials responsible for overall project management can also show 

leadership by initiating a shift in the way AOC supervises its projects 

from solely focusing on crisis management to more active oversight. 

Several senior OCODC officials noted that their principal supervisory 

role is to resolve problems faced by project management staff. 

Interaction between project managers and senior management then is 

often limited to times when they “kick problems upstairs.” This 

reactionary approach leaves open the possibility that other risks or 

opportunities exist that are not being addressed. We are not 

suggesting, however, that AOC supervisors engage in micromanagement of 

the project managers’ day-to-day activities. Rather, more active 

supervision would help ensure that project managers are held 

accountable for following best practices, achieving measurable results 

or outcomes, meeting the needs of clients, and communicating routinely 

with project stakeholders--both internal and external.



Master Planning for the Capitol Hill Complex:



AOC’s best practice initiatives are intended to begin with a planning 

process that incorporates four sets of plans: a 20-year master plan, a 

10-year facility assessment, a 5-year capital spending plan, and a 1-

year jurisdiction plan. All capital projects are supposed to be 

consistent with those planning efforts, except for projects requested 

by individual members of the Congress outside of the normal budget 

cycle. However, AOC does not yet have a master plan or a facility 

assessment plan, nor does AOC have formalized capital spending or 

jurisdiction plans.



In July 2001, at the direction of the Senate Committee on 

Appropriations, AOC contracted with the National Academy of Sciences 

(National Academy) to hold a planning workshop to determine the scope 

of a Capitol Hill complex Master Plan.[Footnote 57] Based on the 

results of the workshop, which was held September 23 through 24, 2002, 

AOC will develop a request for proposal for the master plan. While 

these initial efforts are positive steps, the overall effort has been 

slow to take shape given that the workshop took place over a year after 

the Senate’s directive. Moreover, as stated in chapter 2, AOC needs to 

tie its various long-term planning initiatives, including the master 

planning effort, to the agencywide strategic planning effort and obtain 

stakeholders’ input throughout the process. This message was reinforced 

by participants in the National Academy’s workshop, who explained that 

the master plan must be guided by a vision statement for the Capitol 

Hill complex, which is developed with stakeholder input and consistent 

with AOC’s strategic plan.



A key component of a master plan is building condition assessments 

(BCA), which are systematic evaluations of an organization’s capital 

assets. Such assessments will help AOC to “evaluate deferred 

maintenance and funding requirements; plan a deferred maintenance 

reduction program; compare conditions between facilities; establish 

baselines for setting goals and tracking progress; provide accurate and 

supportable information for planning and justifying budgets; facilitate 

the establishment of funding priorities; and develop budget and funding 

analyses and strategies.”[Footnote 58]



A number of AOC executives agreed that BCAs are a necessary first step 

to a comprehensive preventive maintenance program. However, according 

to AOC officials, AOC has never completed formal condition assessments 

of the facilities it is responsible for maintaining. Senior AOC and 

jurisdiction executives also stated that preventive maintenance of 

AOC’s assets has never been a major focus. According to AOC officials, 

AOC’s recent pilot effort to conduct an assessment of the Capitol 

Building was unsuccessful due to miscommunication of expectations 

between the agency and the contractor performing the assessment. 

Without BCAs, the agency has no assurance that it has fully documented 

the Capitol Hill complex’s preventive maintenance needs and cannot 

develop an overall plan with which to address those needs. As a result, 

AOC is unable to assure the Congress that the facilities in the Capitol 

Hill complex will be effectively and efficiently maintained and 

preserved consistent with the historic and high-profile nature of those 

facilities.



AOC recently formed a condition assessment team with representatives 

from each of the larger jurisdictions to develop a detailed statement 

of work that specifies exactly what is required of a BCA contractor. 

When conducted, the BCAs must be carried out consistently across all 

jurisdictions to help ensure that all assets are evaluated in the same 

manner and that AOC-wide priorities can be set and trade-offs made. The 

project manager focus group participants also pointed out that the BCAs 

will require substantial involvement from employees of many of the 

jurisdictional shops who will be asked to provide technical 

information, logistical support, and other forms of assistance to the 

assessment teams. Therefore, AOC must also plan for and set aside 

resources required by AOC jurisdictions for the effort. According to 

the National Research Council, using a risk-based approach, the initial 

assessments should focus on life, health, and safety issues and on 

critical building system components needed to operate 

effectively.[Footnote 59]



AOC also needs staff dedicated to ensuring that the master plan and 

building condition assessments are successfully completed. AOC 

officials told us they had hired a new Director of Facilities Planning 

and Programming in early December 2002. AOC officials stated that they 

are in the process of hiring an assistant planner and an assistant 

programmer. Because these individuals and the office would be the 

champions for the master planning and building condition assessment 

efforts, it is important that AOC fully staff the office with qualified 

individuals.



Transparent Process to Prioritize Projects:



An agencywide strategic plan and a complexwide master plan will help 

AOC determine priorities and then communicate them both internally to 

employees and externally to clients. In the absence of a strategic plan 

and a master plan to help determine overall priorities, AOC does not 

have a transparent process to prioritize its current projects. In the 

near term, a transparent process that incorporates stakeholder input 

would allow AOC to prioritize projects in a well documented manner. In 

the long term, AOC would be able to integrate the guidance of the 

strategic plan and master plan within a transparent priority setting 

process.



AOC assigns a priority designation for each of the projects in its 

appropriations request--1-A, 1-B, 1-C, and 2-A, 2-B, and so on through 

3-C at the lowest end of the priority scale. These priorities are 

further categorized as Life Safety, Americans with Disabilities Act, 

Security, Cyclical Maintenance, Improvement, and Technology-Management 

Systems. According to an OCODC official, each jurisdiction prioritizes 

capital projects and safety programs on a building-by-building basis 

for the coming fiscal year. Priorities are determined based on the 

subjective decisions made by jurisdiction officials and not on 

predefined criteria. The priorities are then converted into the 1-A, 1-

B, etc., priority designations by the Budget Office staff.



However, based on our review, it is not clear that project managers use 

this prioritization scheme to guide their day-to-day activities. The 

only practical, day-to-day prioritization of projects we found being 

used was a “hot projects” list. Projects were placed on the list by a 

group of senior OCODC officials who based their decisions on two 

undefined, subjective criteria: (1) time sensitivity and (2) high 

dollar volume. According to one AOC official, however, the process for 

placing priority projects onto the list is neither formal nor 

consistently applied. In fact, the official stated that the current hot 

project list needs to be updated to reflect fiscal year 2003 projects.



We also found a general consensus among AOC officials and project 

managers that prioritization of projects is a major weakness at the 

agency. Many lamented that AOC is unable to manage client requests for 

projects effectively. More specifically, AOC lacks a process that can 

communicate, both internally and externally, the trade-offs in 

prioritizing one project over another or how individual projects fit 

within a broader AOC framework. The confusion about overall agency 

priorities has also led to confusion about what individual priorities 

should be.



Strategy and Tools to Communicate:



Upon establishing priorities, AOC must then incorporate the 

communication of priorities and progress of projects within an 

agencywide communications strategy. Internally, that means AOC needs to 

communicate its priorities to staff and provide details on how related 

projects are linked to one another. However, we found that AOC lacks 

the project management tools necessary to assist in doing these tasks. 

For example, officials responsible for overall project management use 

the Project Information Center (PIC) system to prioritize work and 

ascertain the progress of individual projects. However, PIC is not 

capable of producing a unified document that shows schedules of active 

projects, their interrelationships, and required staffing. Without a 

resource-loaded master project planning document, it is difficult to 

determine the effect of priority changes and to quantify project 

manager staffing requirements.



AOC also needs to communicate the agency’s overall priorities to its 

clients and report progress on projects of importance to clients. The 

strategic and master planning efforts and BCAs discussed above will 

assist AOC in determining its project priorities. As discussed in 

chapter 2, an effort to establish congressional protocols could also 

help the agency determine how those priorities should be communicated, 

as well as how individual project priorities will be reported.



AOC has made strides in communicating with its clients on the progress 

of projects. For example, AOC has developed a web site that includes a 

Capitol Hill complex map of several ongoing projects. However, 

opportunities exist for additional progress in how AOC communicates 

with clients and reports progress to the Congress. Also, at the 

direction of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, AOC has begun 

issuing quarterly capital project reports on the status of all ongoing 

capital projects.[Footnote 60] However, the reports we reviewed 

described the status of all ongoing capital projects without 

highlighting those projects that were behind schedule, over budget, or 

otherwise of interest to clients. AOC needs to begin to incorporate 

stakeholder feedback to better structure this reporting mechanism. For 

example, in our April 2002 statement, we discussed the possibility of 

using a “reportable events” approach to accountability reporting that 

is based on predefined, risk-based events that would trigger a report 

to the Congress and prompt immediate attention.[Footnote 61]



However, the information reported is only as good as the information 

entered into the PIC system, which is the source of all project-related 

information. We have found that the data produced by the system and 

reported out by AOC are questionable because project managers do not 

consistently update the information in PIC. For example, a majority of 

the participants in the project manager focus group said they failed to 

consistently put information into the system because they viewed PIC as 

an administrative burden that provided no direct benefit to their own 

day-to-day activities. Additionally, our case studies showed that the 

project managers do not always keep PIC completely updated. For 

example, the Senate Recording Studio project had a current working 

estimate listed in PIC that was nearly double the amount appropriated 

for the project. Although we were told that the estimate was outdated, 

the information had not been updated in the PIC system. AOC officials 

recognize the inadequate data entry into PIC. In response, an OCODC 

official has recently met with all of AOC’s project managers to 

reinforce the importance of keeping PIC updated and to instruct them on 

how and what needs to be entered. While this is a positive step 

designed to improve the documentation of project information, AOC would 

benefit from more routine, systematic reviews of PIC data to uncover 

pervasive problems and their root causes.



Outcome-Oriented Goals and Performance Measures for Project Management:



As we discussed in chapter 2, AOC needs to work with its stakeholders 

to determine its long-term strategic goals for project management and 

develop annual performance goals that provide a connection between 

long-term goals and the day-to-day activities of its managers and their 

staff. This effort will enable AOC to track its progress, provide 

critical information for decision making, and create incentives for 

individual behavior by providing a basis for individual accountability.



In its draft strategic plan, AOC has identified facilities management 

and project management as two “focus areas,” and defined strategic 

goals for each focus area. However, AOC has not yet clearly defined the 

outcome-oriented goals and performance measures in each focus area. For 

example, as an outcome within the project management focus area, AOC 

lists “Projects and related services are executed and delivered on time 

and on budget.” To further clarify its goals, AOC could define terms 

such as “projects and related services” and establish quantitative 

performance measures for outcomes such as “on time” and “on budget.” 

Because AOC lacks specific measures, it is unclear whether AOC will be 

able to assess its current performance baseline, or how AOC will seek 

to improve. For example, it is unclear to internal and external AOC 

stakeholders if AOC’s goal is to improve on time delivery by a 

percentage point, or if it is to achieve some undefined standard. As 

AOC moves forward and establishes goals and measures for project 

management, it will be in a better position to consider how to balance 

competing needs, such as client satisfaction and quality against the 

need to meet deadlines and stay within budgets.



Alignment of Project Management Staff and Resources to Achieve Mission-

Critical Goals:



In June 2002, AOC officials responsible for overall project management 

identified several changes that were needed to improve the delivery of 

capital projects. Primarily, AOC recognized that the current “soft 

matrix” approach of assigning mostly architects and engineers as 

project managers who are assisted by task leaders from various sub-

disciplines was ineffective because, according to an AOC report on a 

proposed staff realignment within the Office of the Assistant 

Architect, there was no “clear objective, no supervisory authority that 

can exercise accountability over the Project Managers, and no clear 

lines of communication.”[Footnote 62] AOC officials responsible for 

project management proposed to senior AOC executives the creation of a 

new and independent Project Management Division, led with strong 

leadership, to “improve accountability, enforce organizational 

discipline, focus on client service needs, and tailor the skills of 

existing staff to necessary tasks.”:



The proposed staff realignment, which is in its early stages of 

implementation, is a good step within the framework of implementing 

best practices, particularly the concept of dedicated, cradle-to-grave 

project managers. However, AOC must ensure that this and other interim 

steps ultimately support the agency in meeting mission-critical goals 

and objectives as it develops the agencywide strategic plan. Moving 

forward with this realignment will require AOC to determine which 

individuals have the skills to be dedicated projects managers, as well 

as to identify the specific projects they should manage. Officials 

within OCODC recognize that not all of the architects and engineers who 

are currently assigned as project managers have the requisite skills 

for the job. With qualified staff, however, the realignment will 

ultimately address accountability issues by clarifying roles and 

responsibilities and creating true cradle-to-grave project management 

staff. Many of the project managers in our focus group stated that they 

are currently being asked to wear “too many hats,” which often 

distracts them from their primary duty to manage projects, and wanted 

AOC to move more quickly to a dedicated project management staff 

environment. We also observed that the initially slow progress of the 

Relocation of the Senate Recording Studio project and the Coal Handling 

Modernization project improved once dedicated project managers were 

assigned.



However, a missing component of the realignment proposal is the role of 

supervisors in the new project management division. AOC has not yet 

defined who will supervise the project managers, the number of 

supervisors that will be needed, nor the approach they will take with 

respect to supervision. AOC needs to evaluate all of these issues and 

integrate the role of day-to-day supervisors into the new Project 

Management Division.



Strategic Human Capital Management:



As discussed in chapter 2, strategic human capital management can 

transform an agency into a results-oriented organization by aligning 

employee performance with goals and by providing tools to better plan 

its workforce needs. AOC has taken initial steps to address the 

strategic workforce analysis criteria set forth in chapter 2, by 

identifying its project management workforce needs in its staff 

realignment proposal. That plan detailed tactical approaches to 

reassigning current project management staff and determining where 

additional staff would be placed within a restructured OCODC. 

Consistent with the strategic human capital challenges it faces in 

other areas, AOC has opportunities to strengthen its efforts for its 

project management workforce as well. Developing a set of core 

technical competencies for project management and implementing a 

training and development program for those competencies are two areas 

requiring particular attention.



AOC has not developed project management-specific technical 

competencies that define for what project managers will be held 

accountable. Defined competencies are important for ensuring that the 

right people are employed in the right positions and that they are 

routinely held accountable for their work. As a basis for developing 

these competencies, AOC can refer to standards developed by leading 

professional organizations. For example, the Project Management 

Institute (PMI) has published A Guide to the Project Management Body of 

Knowledge (PMBOK) that organizes the components of project management 

into nine knowledge areas: project integration management, project 

scope management, project time management, project cost management, 

project quality management, project human resources management, project 

communications management, project risk management, and project 

procurement management. Other entities have successfully used these 

knowledge areas as the basis for developing technical competencies. For 

example, the Australian government uses PMBOK as the basis for its 

National Competency Standards for Project Management.



As a next step, AOC could identify and implement training programs that 

are linked to the core and technical competencies required of project 

managers. Doing so is an essential component of building an effective 

and professional project management staff. To date, it is unclear 

whether AOC’s training fully supports the implementation of best 

practices throughout the agency. For example, some project manager 

focus group participants noted that they were not given initial 

orientation that familiarized them with AOC, including services 

provided by other offices, or that familiarized them with their 

ultimate client--the Congress. And if AOC is to effectively implement 

best practices, newly hired project managers must be trained in the 

policies and procedures and all project managers must receive ongoing 

best practice training as policies and procedures are revised. We found 

that neither of the project managers for the case studies we reviewed 

was provided best practice training when they were first hired, and one 

was not provided a copy of the project manager manual. AOC officials 

also stated that they have not yet provided updated best practices 

training sessions for project managers, although they said they plan to 

use the ongoing best practices assessments mentioned above to tailor 

such training.



Finally, AOC should require professional development certification and 

training, although this may not need to be provided internally by AOC. 

PMI administers a globally accepted and recognized professional 

certification program for project managers, which requires a specific 

level of education and experience, adherence to a code of professional 

conduct, successful completion of an examination, and ongoing 

continuing education requirements.



Conclusions:



As AOC moves forward with its project management initiatives, several 

elements are critical to the thorough implementation of best practices 

that are designed to improve project planning, design, and construction 

management. Project management could be improved by demonstrating top 

leadership commitment to change, planning, establishing outcome-

oriented goals, and strategically managing human capital to achieve 

those goals. A Capitol Hill complex-wide master planning effort, 

including building condition assessments, will help AOC establish long-

term priorities. Similarly, a transparent process to prioritize agency 

capital projects will help AOC clarify its short-term (1 to 5 years) 

focus. As a part of a broader communication strategy, effective 

reporting mechanisms will help AOC convey these long-and short-term 

priorities, as well detail the progress of projects to stakeholders. 

Clearly defining project-management-related measures will also help AOC 

achieve mission-critical strategic and annual performance goals. 

Finally, the alignment of project management staff and resources in 

accordance with best practices policies and procedures will help 

institutionalize those practices and help AOC meet mission-critical 

goals. Without these elements, AOC and the Congress have no assurance 

that the project management initiatives are being employed to their 

fullest potential. Consequently, AOC cannot be assured that the capital 

projects it is managing can be completed on schedule, on budget, and 

within scope and are of high quality and meet the needs of their 

customers.



Recommendations for Agency Action:



To improve project management--project planning, design, and 

construction--at AOC, we recommend that Architect of the Capitol:



* develop a Capitol Hill complex master plan and complete condition 

assessments of all buildings and facilities under the jurisdiction of 

AOC;



* develop a process for assigning project priorities that is based on 

clearly defined, well documented, consistently applied, and transparent 

criteria;



* develop tools to effectively communicate priorities and progress of 

projects, as a part of a broader communication strategy;



* define project-management-related performance measures to achieve 

mission-critical strategic and annual performance goals; and:



* align project management staff and resources with AOC’s mission-

critical goals.



AOC Needs to Build on Current Efforts by Adopting a Strategic Approach 

to Recycling:



Programs that separate and collect recyclable materials from the waste 

stream produce numerous benefits. It is estimated that recycling 1 ton 

of paper saves 17 mature trees, 3.3 cubic yards of landfill space, 

7,000 gallons of water, 380 gallons of oil, 4,100 kilowatt hours of 

energy, and 60 pounds of air pollutants. Recently, AOC has taken 

several steps to improve the effectiveness of its office recycling 

programs; however, it could increase the benefits derived from its 

recycling program by taking a more strategic approach. Such an approach 

would include revisiting and clarifying recycling mission and goals as 

part of an AOC planned environmental strategy, measuring and monitoring 

performance against goals to gauge and improve program effectiveness, 

and reexamining the roles and responsibilities of the recycling program 

staff to ensure accountability for achieving recycling goals. We 

provide observations on how AOC could improve recycling results by 

organizationally replicating its own and others’ best practices.



AOC Has Taken Steps to Improve Effectiveness of Recycling Programs:



AOC is responsible for implementing recycling programs for much of the 

Capitol Hill complex. Consistent with the preliminary observations in 

our April 2002 statement, AOC, both centrally and at the jurisdiction 

level, has taken recent steps to improve the overall effectiveness of 

its recycling programs. Some of the steps include:



* adopting a consultant’s recommendation to simplify the Senate’s 

recycling program to improve participation and increase effectiveness,



* developing a draft set of performance indicators and starting to 

collect data,



* increasing recycling promotion and education efforts,



* surveying recycling clients in the House to determine if the program 

is meeting their needs, and:



* sharing information on recycling promotion and education strategies 

among the House and Senate recycling program managers.



AOC’s Recycling Program Has Made Limited Progress in Achieving Typical 

Recycling Goals:



Office recycling programs can have a variety of environmental and 

financial benefits. A typical goal is reducing to the extent possible 

the amount of solid waste sent to landfills. Another typical goal is 

generating as much revenue as possible from the sale of the recyclable 

materials collected. A key to achieving either goal is making the 

recycling program as easy as possible for employees to use. Generally, 

the less sorting, decision making, and walking required by individual 

participants, the more successful the program will be. Although the two 

goals of waste reduction and revenue generation are not mutually 

exclusive, the relative importance placed on these goals generally 

affects the design of the recycling program implemented.



Specifically, a recycling program with the goal of generating revenue, 

commonly referred to as a source separation program, is more 

complicated, expensive, and difficult to implement than a program 

designed for waste reduction. This is because separating a greater 

variety of recyclable materials at the source requires more resources 

for educating clients and the recycling staff, collecting the 

recyclable materials, and monitoring for compliance. The complexity of 

source separation, unfortunately, also increases the likelihood of 

contamination of the recyclable materials collected (potentially 

recyclable materials are mixed together with other categories of 

recyclables or wet waste), reducing their value and increasing the 

volume of waste sent to landfills. Given the complexity and potential 

performance problems with a source separation program, an organization 

needs to analyze the costs and benefits of such a program compared to 

other, simpler options to determine whether such a program will be 

cost-effective.



High levels of contamination have prevented the House and Senate 

recycling programs from substantially achieving either waste reduction 

or revenue generation. AOC’s recycling contractor does not pay for 

high-grade (e.g., white copy) paper with greater than 5 percent 

contamination or mixed-grade (e.g., glossy or colored) paper with 

greater than 10 percent contamination. From fiscal years 2001 through 

2002, AOC did improve its recycling results. According to General 

Services Administration (GSA) data, the rate of contamination of 

recyclable paper products collected dropped from 70 percent in fiscal 

year 2001 to 55 percent in fiscal year 2002 in the House jurisdiction 

and from 60 percent to 37 percent in the Senate jurisdiction. However, 

although AOC avoided the cost of disposing of the waste, the 

contaminated materials generated no revenue. The recycling contractor 

may sort and recycle some of this contaminated waste, but some 

potentially recyclable materials may be too contaminated and will 

ultimately go to a landfill.



During fiscal year 2002, the Senate jurisdiction implemented a 

consultant’s recommendation to change from a source separation to a 

simpler combined-paper recycling program. According to the consultant’s 

report, simplifying the program by reducing the amount of source 

separation required could both increase revenue and decrease the 

contamination levels. In contrast, the House jurisdiction continues to 

operate a more complex source-separation program. Similar to the 

conclusions made in the review of the recycling program operations for 

the Senate program, a recently completed consultant study of the House 

program made the point that a mixed-paper program is easier to 

administer and usually leads to increased participation, decreased 

contamination, and less collection time. However, the consultant’s 

report did not recommend making any changes to the House’s program at 

this time because it found the existing program to be “user-friendly” 

and accepted. Nonetheless, given the high rates of contamination in the 

House recycling program, AOC needs to closely monitor contamination to 

determine if a simpler program design is warranted.



AOC Needs to Revisit and Clarify Recycling Mission and Goals as Part of 

Its Planned Environmental Strategy:



AOC’s goals for its recycling programs are unclear. AOC has not 

documented any mission and goals for its recycling programs. We found 

various references--albeit indirect and inconsistent--to AOC recycling 

goals. For example, a 1999 audit by the AOC Inspector General, 

indicated that AOC is pursuing the goal of waste reduction. A similar 

goal is indicated in the position description of the AOC Resource 

Conservation Program Manager. In contrast, the position descriptions 

for the House and Senate recycling program managers state that these 

managers are responsible for, among other things, increasing the 

financial returns of their programs.



If AOC’s goal is to generate as much revenue as possible through a 

source separation program, then based on the high rate of contamination 

it will need to design a program that is much more aggressive in terms 

of the education, training, and equipment it provides to participants 

and the collection staff. However, if the goal is reducing the volume 

of waste sent to landfills, then AOC should implement a simpler 

program, requiring as little separation as possible to increase 

participation and compliance as was done in the Senate. In addition, 

AOC has made some effort to expand its recycling program to other 

facilities within the Capitol Hill complex, such as the Botanic Garden, 

the Page Dormitory, and--in response to our recent suggestion--the 

Capital Power Plant. Furthermore, according to AOC officials, AOC 

recycles fluorescent lamps, batteries, scrap metal, and some computer 

equipment and has required its contractors to recycle their 

construction debris. However, it has no formal plans to expand its 

recycling programs to include other types of recyclable materials, such 

as waste from its own landscaping or construction activities. 

Incorporating these materials into its overall recycling program could 

improve AOC’s overall performance in reducing waste sent to landfills. 

However, AOC management stated that adequate resources are not 

presently available to carry out such expanded recycling programs, 

although it has requested funding for an additional position in fiscal 

year 2003 to assist the recycling program manager, allowing for further 

expansion of the recycling program.



AOC recycling program staff recently discussed their view that the 

mission of their recycling programs ought to be primarily reducing 

waste sent to landfills rather than maximizing recycling revenues. AOC 

management stated that it would be important to obtain input from 

congressional stakeholders before making any changes to the mission or 

goals of the program. Furthermore, clarifying the goals of the program 

is something AOC management would address only as part of the long-term 

environmental management plan for the Capitol Hill complex that it 

plans to undertake after completing its Safety Master Plan. Consistent 

with the communication strategy we outline in this report, AOC will 

need to seek input from its stakeholders to determine the most 

appropriate mission and goals for its recycling program(s). Whether the 

resulting program is Capitol Hill complex-wide or is tailored to meet 

the specific requirements of the House or Senate, AOC needs to clarify 

whether the primary focus of the recycling program is to reduce the 

total amount of waste sent to landfills, to generate a desired level of 

revenue, or both.



AOC Needs to Develop a Performance Measurement, Monitoring, and 

Evaluation System That Supports Accomplishment of Recycling Mission and 

Goals:



As discussed in our April 2002 statement, to support the accomplishment 

of AOC’s recycling mission and goals, a performance measurement system 

should (1) show the degree to which the desired results were achieved, 

(2) be limited to the vital few measures needed for decision making, 

(3) be responsive to multiple priorities, and (4) establish 

accountability for results. Also, as part of its responsibility for 

handling waste from government facilities, including recyclable 

materials, the GSA has developed a guide that describes a number of 

steps an agency can take to measure and monitor recycling efforts that 

could be useful to AOC in developing its system. These steps are listed 

in table 3.



Table 3: Ten Steps Identified by GSA for Best Administering a Recycling 

Program:



Steps: 1. Determining the building profile; Purpose and example: 

Purpose: To ascertain the types of materials to be recovered in a 

recycling program and identify any special restrictions or 

requirements.; Example: Does the storage space have sprinklers or will 

special containers be required?.



Steps: 2. Determining the waste stream size; Purpose and example: 

Purpose: To manage and reduce a building’s waste stream; data on the 

total size of the waste stream are compiled.; Example: Obtain monthly 

reports showing the amount of waste hauled..



Steps: 3. Analyzing the waste stream; Purpose and example: Purpose: To 

determine the quantity of various types of recyclable materials 

included in the waste stream.; Example: Develop an estimate of the 

quantity of recyclable material collected daily..



Steps: 4. Determining the amount recycled; Purpose and example: 

Purpose: To show how much is being diverted from the waste stream.; 

Example: The recycling contractor provides a monthly report showing the 

amounts and types of materials recycled..



Steps: 5. Tracking the information; Purpose and example: Purpose: To 

determine the percentage of the total waste stream diverted by 

recycling.; Example: Data are entered on a regular basis, for example, 

monthly, and totaled at the end of the fiscal year..



Steps: 6. Reporting the information; Purpose and example: Purpose: To 

report status of the program to management and to offices participating 

in the program.; Example: Reports to offices keep employees informed 

about how their efforts are helping the environment and measuring 

progress and goals..



Steps: 7. Reducing the waste stream; Purpose and example: Purpose: To 

determine whether trash includes recyclable materials that are 

improperly discarded and opportunities to recycle other materials 

(e.g., construction debris, discarded/leftover carpeting, or scrap 

metal).; Example: Meet with office representatives to ascertain their 

container needs and find out what types of waste they generate..



Steps: 8. Assessing the program; Purpose and example: Purpose: To 

determine how well the program is working.; Example: Observe whether 

employees understand how the program works or what modifications might 

be necessary..



Steps: 9. Educating employees; Purpose and example: Purpose: To provide 

employees with reasons for recycling and a description of how the 

program works; to reduce the container contamination by giving detailed 

instructions on what is and is not acceptable.; Example: An 

environmental team consisting of building management and participating 

offices would promote and educate employees..



Steps: 10. Monitoring and evaluating program; Purpose and example: 

Purpose: To be aware of fluctuations in the volume of recycled 

materials collected in an effort to identify the cause and determine 

whether associated waste disposal costs can be reduced.; Example: 

Periodically review waste disposal costs and assess whether the program 

implemented has had an impact..



Source: U.S. General Services Administration, Recycling Program Desk 

Guide (Washington, D.C.: March 2001).



[End of table]



In response to the Senate Committee on Appropriations’ requirement for 

quarterly updates on the recycling program in the Senate, AOC developed 

a performance measurement system that it is using to monitor both the 

Senate and the House recycling programs.[Footnote 63] Initially, the 

indicators on which AOC collected data included, among other things, a 

two-digit increase in tonnage recycled, revenue generated from the sale 

of recyclables, market prices for various recycled materials, customer 

satisfaction, education of participating offices, results of desk side 

container inspections, status of equipping offices with recycling 

containers, rate of office participation, and training of recycling 

collection staffs.



Consistent with the preliminary observations in our April 2002 

statement, AOC significantly reduced the number of indicators it is 

collecting and reporting to two: total tonnage collected by type of 

material and total tonnage contaminated. This more focused approach to 

measuring the effectiveness of its program is noteworthy. As AOC 

revisits its program mission, goals, and design, it will have 

opportunities to reexamine and refine its performance measurement 

efforts to ensure that it has the right set of performance measures to 

support program monitoring and decision making.



The absence of AOC recycling program goals does not allow measures to 

be linked to a desired level of performance and thus AOC cannot 

demonstrate the extent to which performance is achieved. For example, 

AOC seeks to decrease contamination rates for recyclable materials 

collected, but does not state a goal for a desired level of 

contamination against which to measure progress. As shown in table 3, 

steps 2 and 3, AOC should determine how much waste the Capitol Hill 

complex generates overall and analyze how much of that waste could be 

recycled. AOC officials have told us that they plan to conduct such an 

analysis as part of its future, long term environmental management plan 

and use the information to form the basis of AOC’s overall waste 

reduction goals.



Furthermore, AOC should develop its performance measurement system with 

input from recycling program staff members to ensure that the data 

gathered will be sufficiently complete, accurate, and consistent to be 

useful in decision making. As AOC clarifies its goals and performance 

measures for its recycling program, it will likely identify 

opportunities to create a balanced set of measures that respond to 

multiple priorities, such as increasing customer satisfaction while 

also achieving recycling performance goals. Consistent with our 

preliminary observations, AOC recycling program staff has begun 

surveying its clients to obtain feedback on their satisfaction with the 

program. This performance information could be a useful addition to the 

set of measures AOC is currently collecting and monitoring.



After establishing its mission and goals and building a performance 

measurement system, the next key step for AOC is to put performance 

data to work. As shown in table 3, steps 4 through 8 and step 10 

provide guidance on ways to monitor and evaluate program performance. 

AOC has proposed a quarterly monitoring system. Such monitoring of 

performance against goals will enable AOC program managers to identify 

where performance is lagging, investigate potential causes, and 

identify actions designed to improve performance.



Reexamine Roles, Responsibilities, and Number of AOC Recycling Program 

Staff Members:



The roles and responsibilities of AOC’s recycling program staff members 

have evolved in recent years, without the guidance of a clearly defined 

mission and goals. In revisiting its recycling program mission and 

goals, AOC should also reexamine the roles and responsibilities of its 

program staff members to ensure that they are performing the right jobs 

with the necessary authority. AOC recently changed the responsibilities 

of its recycling program management positions to incorporate a greater 

focus on program planning and evaluation. However, according to these 

staff members, much of their time is spent in day-to-day program 

implementation activities, leaving little time to fulfill their 

expanded roles.



The AOC Resource Conservation Manager, originally responsible for only 

the AOC hazardous waste program, currently is responsible for planning 

and developing policies and programs for an AOC-wide approach to waste 

management, analyzing waste removal programs, developing and presenting 

briefing and training materials on agency recycling efforts, and 

serving as the administrator and technical representative for the 

recycling collection contract. However, according to the Resource 

Conservation Manager, about half of her effort is devoted to hazardous 

waste management activities. She has little time and no staff to carry 

out the broad, agencywide planning and evaluation activities required 

by the position.



In fiscal year 2001, AOC replaced its recycling coordinator position 

with a Recycling Program Manager position in the House and Senate 

jurisdictions. These positions are responsible for working with other 

Capitol Hill complex recycling specialists to carry out agencywide 

recycling, planning and developing recycling policies and programs, 

reviewing program effectiveness and monitoring implementation (e.g., 

compliance inspections), and analyzing the financial returns of waste 

recycling contracts. However, the House Recycling Program Manager told 

us that her current focus has been primarily on implementation 

activities, such as providing recycling equipment to offices, limiting 

the time available to focus on other responsibilities, such as program 

monitoring and evaluation. However, according to this manager, the 

recent hiring of an assistant to focus on operations will allow her to 

devote more time to recycling program management activities.



As previously stated, AOC needs to provide a results-oriented basis for 

individual accountability. With respect to recycling, AOC has neither 

established clear goals nor assigned accountability for achieving 

results. Because program implementation occurs in the House and Senate 

jurisdictions, AOC needs to incorporate its desired recycling goals 

into its performance management system and cascade those goals down 

through the jurisdictions to the individuals responsible for program 

implementation.



Overlapping responsibilities for planning, education, monitoring, and 

evaluation between the Resource Conservation Manager and jurisdiction 

recycling program managers raise questions about the appropriate number 

of staff members and mix of responsibilities needed to carry out AOC’s 

recycling programs at the central and jurisdictional levels. For 

example, the jurisdiction recycling managers focus primarily on the 

implementation of the recycling program, including equipping offices, 

educating participants, and collecting recyclable materials. 

Furthermore, the AOC Resource Conservation Manager has little time and 

no staff to carry out broad management and oversight responsibilities. 

As a result, little capacity exists to carry out the planning, 

development, monitoring, and evaluation of AOC’s recycling programs on 

an AOC-wide basis.



Conclusions:



Although the Architect of the Capitol has managed an office recycling 

program in the House and Senate jurisdictions for more than a decade, 

high levels of contamination present in the materials collected has 

prevented it from fully realizing either the environmental or financial 

benefits that it could have achieved. Adopting a more strategic 

approach to recycling--clarifying AOC’s recycling mission and goals to 

assess whether it has the right program design, organization, and 

implementation strategies in place to achieve desired results, 

measuring and monitoring performance against goals, and reexamining the 

roles and responsibilities of the recycling program staff to ensure 

accountability for achieving recycling goals--could improve the 

environmental results of the program. AOC officials have indicated that 

the recycling program will be included in an overall environmental 

master plan that it will develop in 2003. We agree with this approach 

and believe that developing a clear mission statement for the recycling 

program and using that statement as a basis for establishing reasonable 

performance goals, developing a set of performance measures, and 

aligning the organization to hold managers accountable for results, 

would help AOC further improve its recycling program results.



Recommendations for Agency Action:



In order adopt a strategic approach to recycling, we recommend that the 

Architect of the Capitol take the following actions:



* Develop a clear mission and goals for AOC’s recycling program with 

input from key congressional stakeholders as part of its proposed 

environmental master plan. AOC may want to establish reasonable goals 

based on the total waste stream--information it plans to obtain as part 

of its long term environmental management plan--that could potentially 

be recycled.



* Develop a performance measurement, monitoring, and evaluation system 

that supports accomplishing AOC’s recycling mission and goals.



* Examine the roles and responsibilities of AOC’s recycling program 

staff to ensure that they are performing the right jobs with the 

necessary authority, and holding the staff accountable for achieving 

program and agency results through AOC’s performance management system.



Agency Comments:



In his comments on this chapter, the Architect generally agreed with 

our recommendations and discussed the relevant efforts AOC has under 

way in the areas of worker safety, project management, and recycling. 

In the area worker safety, in addition to initial efforts to target 

areas that have the potential for danger to life and health, the 

Architect stated that AOC is in the process of developing program 

policies for incident reporting and investigation, inspection, and 

hazard abatement and control. AOC disagreed with our statement that its 

5-year Safety Management Plan was drafted independent of the broader 

strategic planning effort. Although we believe this statement was true 

at the time of our review, AOC has subsequently made efforts to improve 

the alignment between its draft strategic and worker safety plans. 

Therefore, we deleted this statement. The Architect stated that AOC’s 

implementation plan will focus on strategic, long-term planning, 

training, and continuous improvement in worker safety.



The Architect stated that AOC plans to address our recommendations in 

the area of project management as another focus of its implementation 

plan. Current initiatives include developing and scheduling training 

for project managers; conducting condition assessments of the Senate, 

House, and Capitol buildings this fiscal year, and of other Capitol 

Hill complex buildings in subsequent fiscal years; and developing a 5-

year capitol improvement plan and the scope of work for a 20-year 

master plan of the Capitol Hill complex.



In the area of recycling, the Architect stated that AOC is committed to 

defining clear goals for its recycling program and will establish a 

dedicated environmental function. AOC’s implementation plan will 

discuss its approach to establishing program goals, integrating 

environmental concerns into AOC’s overall strategy, and ensuring that 

measures reflect goals and are linked to performance of key activities.



The Architect’s comments are reprinted in appendix II.



[End of section]



Appendixes:



Appendix I: Employee and Supervisor Focus Groups--Objectives, Scope, 
and 

Methodology:



To obtain additional perspectives on the areas examined as part of our 

review and as an initial effort to support the subsequent collection of 

routine employee feedback, we used focus groups to gather employee and 

supervisor perceptions, opinions, and attitudes about working at the 

Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC). Focus group interviews 

are a form of qualitative research in which a specially trained leader, 

a moderator, meets with a small group of people (usually 8 to 10) who 

are knowledgeable about the topics to be discussed. This appendix 

describes our objectives, scope, and methodology for the focus groups 

and lists the specific questions used to conduct the focus groups.



Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:



For our focus groups at AOC, we were interested in obtaining 

(1) employees’ views of what aspects of working at AOC were going well 

or needed improvement, (2) whether employees had the resources needed 

to perform their jobs, and (3) employees’ perspectives on AOC’s worker 

safety program. We developed the overall approach to conducting the 

focus groups, including the development and pretesting of the focus 

group guide and questions and the selection of participants. We 

contracted with Booz|Allen|Hamilton to facilitate 15 focus groups 

sessions and provide a moderator, note taker, and analyses of the 

sessions.



We conducted 13 of these focus groups with employees from the House and 

Senate Office Building jurisdictions, Capitol Power Plant, Senate 

Restaurants, and the Construction Management Division. We selected 

employees from these parts of AOC in accordance with our specific 

review areas of worker safety and project management and also because 

they contained some of the largest employee populations.



We attempted to assure that each group consisted of employees from the 

same jurisdiction and shift and worked in trades versus nontrades 

occupational categories, for example, a group comprising plumbers and 

electricians versus a group comprising custodians and laborers. In 

composing groups of employees from trade shops, we allocated our sample 

roughly proportional to the number of employees in each shop with the 

restriction that at least one employee from each shop within each 

jurisdiction be selected for participation. There was one session that 

was not composed in this manner due to scheduling difficulties and the 

disparate number of employees within certain jurisdictions on certain 

shifts. This session comprised employees from the evening shift from 

both the House and the Senate jurisdictions.



Once the composition of each focus group was defined, we randomly 

selected 12 to 14 employees from a list of those employees who worked 

in the jurisdiction, shift, and occupational categories that defined 

the group. We invited a few more employees than would usually 

constitute a focus group to adjust for the possibility that there would 

be some employees who would not be interested in participating or would 

be unable to attend.



The other two focus groups comprised randomly selected employee 

supervisors from the House and Senate jurisdictions. We held one focus 

group with supervisors of employees in trade shops and the other focus 

group with supervisors of nontrade employees. In all, we invited 200 

employees to attend 15 focus groups and 127 employees participated.



A Booz|Allen|Hamilton facilitator and a note taker were present during 

each of these 15 focus group sessions along with a GAO observer. AOC 

management was not present during any session. During each session, the 

facilitator let participants know that we were conducting a general 

management review of AOC, and that they were randomly selected by GAO 

to participate. The GAO representative assured participants that all 

comments would be kept confidential and consolidated into one larger 

report without identification, so no one individual or jurisdiction 

could be identified.



We also administered an anonymous paper exit survey at the end of each 

session to gauge whether employees felt comfortable speaking during the 

session and make additional comments. The exit survey asked 

participants whether they felt free to speak openly during the session. 

Only 7 participants of the 115 participants returning the exit surveys 

marked the “no” response.



To obtain a better understanding of project management at AOC, we also 

conducted one additional focus group with full-time, day-to-day AOC 

project managers. For this focus group, we asked about what is working 

well at AOC in project management and where there might be areas for 

improvement. We also discussed (1) the project management process at 

AOC, (2) the project management environment, and (3) resources and 

tools utilized in performing project management duties at AOC.



We randomly selected 10 project managers from the Office of Design and 

Construction and 4 project managers from the AOC jurisdictions. Eight 

project managers participated in the focus group--5 from the Office of 

Design and Construction and 3 from AOC jurisdictions. We facilitated 

the session. The project manager’s focus group followed the same set of 

general guidelines as described above. All project manager participants 

responding to the survey said they felt comfortable speaking freely in 

the session.



The focus group results discussed in this report are summary 

descriptions reflecting the range of views and perceptions held by 

employees, supervisors, or project managers. A rough gauge of the 

significance of these views can be discerned in the extent to which 

certain opinions or perceptions are repeatedly expressed or endorsed by 

many participants from multiple groups. Although the randomly selected 

participants are, in part, representative of employees in those AOC 

components where they work,[Footnote 64] the descriptive nature of the 

responses and the relatively small sample sizes do not permit the 

development of reliable, quantitative estimates that are generalizable 

to these AOC components.



[See PDF for image] 



[End of figure] 



[End of section]



Appendix II: Comments from the Office of the Architect of the Capitol:



Washington, DC 20515:



December 20, 2002:



Mr. J. Christopher Mihm, Director, Strategic Issues:



U.S. General Accounting Office 441 GSt. NW:



Washington, DC 20548:



Dear Mr. Mihm:



Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the U. S. General 

Accounting Office (GAO) draft report “Architect of the Capitol: 

Management and Accountability Framework Needed for Organizational 

Transformation.” As Architect of the Capitol, 1 am dedicated to 

preserving and enhanc i ng the national treasures entrusted to my 

agency’s care, and to providing high quality service to the Congress 

and our other clients. I welcome any recommendations that provide an 

opportunity to improve focus on that mission and performance in key 

operational areas such as worker safety. The GAO testimony provided in 

April 2002 and our discussions with GAO regarding the report resulted 

in our advancing improvement efforts at the Office of the Architect of 

the Capitol (AOC), as wel I as identified opportunities to improve our 

current management approach. We are developing an Implementation Plan 

to adopt recommended management changes. This letter outlines key 

aspects of our Implementation Plan to improve AOC performance and 

specific comments on each of the three primary chapters of the report. 

Also attached is a short appendix that lists clarifications we suggest 

GAO make in the final report.



AOC’s Approach to Organizational Management Transformation:



GAO acknowledges in the report that ADC’s challenge is to operate 

efficiently and professionally in a political environment of multiple 

stakeholders with differing and sometimes conflicting expectations. 

Amore explicit strategy will help AOC in its stewardship 

responsibilities and better serve our clients and increase our 

accountability to stakeholders. Our strategy is to target the root 

causes of our organizational challenges by addressing the seven key 

organizational and management components noted in your report: three 

primary management initiatives (strategic planning, communications, 

and performance management) and four management infrastructure themes 

(human capital, financial accountability, information technology, and 

client management). We will develop an Implementation Plan, as part of 

our current Strategic Planning initiative, to create this strategic 

management framework that includes input from our ongoing stakeholder 

meetings. We will provide a copy of the Implementation Plan to GAO and 

our congressional oversight committees within 90 days of this letter.



GAO notes that organizational transformation requires sustained 

management commitment, organizational capacity to change, and can take 

as long as five to seven years until it is fully implemented and 

institutionalized. To be successful, we are committed to this 

transformation.



Our approach is to align and, where practical, integrate our 

Implementation Plan development while enhancing our ongoing strategic 

planning efforts. This process will set our direction by validating our 

vision and mission, and provide structure around our priorities. This 

direction, supported by interaction with our stakeholders, will then be 

cascaded and ‘operational ized’ through performance measures and 

milestones, and a disciplined adherence to a performance management 

framework. I also intend to move out quickly on a comprehensive 

communication strategy to understand the expectations of our clients, 

involve our workforce, and further enhance our relationship with our 

stakeholders. These three themes - strategic planning, communications, 

and performance management-structured in our Implementation Plan, will 

be the primary focus of our immediate efforts.



We will also focus on enhancing the management infrastructure that 

supports achieving our goals and aligning our resources to those goals. 

The elements of the management infrastructure identified by GAO will 

provide the foundation for creating sustainable organizational 

performance. These initiatives, as noted in the GAO report, are 

appropriately structured around our key resources: our people, our 

finances, our technology, and our clients.



Concurrent to our work on our primary management initiatives, we will 

address the specific programmatic areas identified in the report: 

worker safety, project management, and recycling. We want to be sure 

that worker safety continues to be an integral part of how we do our 

work, that project management tools and technology enhance our ability 

to meet the needs of our clients, and that the recycling program meets 

the expectations of our stakeholders as well as supports AOC’s broader 

environmental goals.



From its inception, the Implementation Plan will be developed with key 

stakeholder involvement. This involvement will help ensure that the 

plan reflects their needs and expectations; that the people to whom we 

are responsible in service and oversight understand our challenges; and 

that our measures and milestones are responsive to stakeholder needs. I 

want to note that the plan must also reflect the realities of the AOC 

environment, requiring a phased approach that recognizes organizational 

change capacity, intensive resource requirements, and multiple 

stakeholders with different priorities. Implementing our plan will take 

time, resources, and sustained management focus, but we believe that 

the long-term benefit to AOC and our clients will be worth the effort.



The following comments broadly outline our current and planned approach 

for the specific areas identified in each chapter of the GAO report. 

All of the activities identified in this letter will be incorporated 

into the overall Implementation Plan.



Strategic Management Framework Needed to Achieve Transformation: 

Strategic Planning and Performance Measurement:



As acknowledged in the GAO report, my management team is currently 

leading an agency-wide strategic planning effort. This effort focuses 

on developing goals and action plans for mission critical programs such 

as facilities management, project management, and human capital. We 

recognize the need for aligning the strategic process with the 

recommendations in your report and the importance of obtaining feedback 

on our strategic plan from Congress and other key stakeholders, my 

staffand I have already begun conducting interviews as part of this 

effort. We also understand the importance of developing a 

communications strategy and a performance management framework as 

described in the GAO report. We agree with GAO’s recommendation to 

improve internal and external communications, and we have assembled a 

team to develop a comprehensive communications strategy. One of our top 

communications priorities is to finalize the drafted Congressional 

protocols.



As Suggested by GAO, AOC will produce annual reports similar to those 

outlined in the Government Performance and Results Act in order to 

strengthen accountability and transparency. At the beginning of each 

fiscal year, AOC will develop an Annual Performance Plan that outlines 

the specific actions, milestones, and performance measures planned to 

achieve our goals for that year. At the end of the fiscal year, we will 

publish an Annual Accountability Report so that both AOC and our 

stakeholders can assess progress and focus on next steps.



The Implementation Plan will include steps to refine our strategic 

planning process and create the infrastructure needed to support a 

repeatable process. The communications element of the Implementation 

Plan will establish two-way mechanisms to communicate and receive 

feedback on AOC’s strategy, measures, and results to employees, 

clients, and stakeholders.



Strategic Management Framework Needed to Achieve Transformation: Human 

Capital:



GAO recommends that AOC gather and analyze workforce data and then use 

that data to drive workforce planning. AOC fully agrees with both 

recommendations and, as acknowledged in the report, we requested 

resources in our fiscal year 2003 appropriations to hire staff and to 

purchase technology that will enable us to conduct workforce analysis 

and planning. Our Implementation Plan will integrate this workforce 

planning with our overall strategic planning effort.



GAO also recommends that AOC create a “line of sight” between senior 

executive and employee performance management and establish an agency-

wide competency-based performance management program. AOC agrees with 

both recommendations, however we will implement them in a phased 

approach. AOC must firmly establish its overall strategy before we can 

align our individual performance management programs to that strategy. 

Additionally, our employee 

performance management program is relatively new and we need to balance 

improvement ideas with the need to provide continuity.



The report acknowledges our progress in establishing competency models 

in the Human Resources Management Division. In addition, we are also 

using a competency-based approach for employees in the Office of the 

Chief Financial Officer. AOC plans to explore the benefits of expanding 

the use of core and technical competencies agency-wide, but wants to 

ensure the use of competencies is appropriate for all occupations and 

jurisdictions before establishing an agency-wide policy. Further, 

inclusion of all AOC employees in an agency-wide performance system 

will require acceptance by ADC’s bargaining unit’s.



Management Infrastructure & Controls Needed to Support Organizational 

Transformation Initiatives: Human Capital Policies:



AOC is moving forward on both of the GAO recommendations in the area of 

human capital policies. GAO recommended that AOC continue to develop 

and implement agency-wide human capital policies and assess ways to 

better gather and analyze employee issues. As acknowledged in the 

report, AOC has been reviewing human capital policies and effectively 

communicating those policies to employees. Additionally, managers are 

currently held accountable for consistent application of human capital 

policies and procedures under the “Supervision” element in our 

individual performance management program, the Performance 

Communication Evaluation System (PCES).



AOC has created a team that includes representatives from all key 

offices and employee groups and that team is exploring the development 

of a process to track employee relations issues agency-wide. However, 

as GAO acknowledges in the report, maintaining employee confidentiality 

will be extremely important. Employees will be less likely to raise 

issues, especially with the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and 

Conciliation Programs and the Ombudsperson, if they are concerned about 

confidentiality.



Management Infrastructure & Controls Needed to Support Organizational 

Transformation Initiatives. Financial Management:



AOC appreciates GAO’s recognition of our financial management work to 

date. We will continue to aggressively adopt financial management best 

practices. We are working hard to ensure that the appropriate 

information and necessary processes result in auditable financial 

statements for fiscal year 2003. The Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer (OCFO) has piloted financial management training for twenty-

five operational managers and staff through a three-day course. We have 

also improved the incorporation of financial information in the project 

management decision process by requiring managers to determine and 

document the full scope of costs for a project. One of our

primary goals is to institutionalize the financial management reforms 

in all AOC jurisdictions inorder to better support budgeting, financial 

management, and program management. Our Implementation Plan will 

provide a strategy for developing mechanisms and procedures to 

incorporate financial management best practices throughout AOC.



Management Infrastructure and Controls Needed to Support Organizational 

Transformation Initiatives. Information Technology:



AOC recognizes that information technology is a key enabler of our 

strategy for organizational improvement. To that end, I support GAO’s 

recommendations for developing an agency-wide approach to information 

technology management. ADC’s Office of Information and Resource 

Management (OIRM) is currently working closely with the Senior Policy 

Committee to establish such an approach.



In the report, GAO recommends that AOC establish a chief information 

officer, or comparable senior executive, to manage information 

technology across the agency. AOC recognizes that appropriate senior 

management leadership is needed to implement an agency-wide approach to 

information technology management. With input from my senior management 

team, I will determine whether a chief information officer or another 

senior level person will perform this role.



AOC also supports GAO’s recommendation that AOC develop, implement, and 

maintain an enterprise architecture framework. OIRM has drafted 

guidelines for AOC’s approach to enterprise architecture. In addition, 

OIRM is developing a statement of work for a portfolio management 

system, establishing an investment review board framework and policy, 

and procuring a software solution to facilitate investment selection 

and prioritization.



Similarly, AOC agrees that an effective information security program is 

critical to our ability to ensure the reliability, availability, and 

confidentiality of our information assets. We are currently conducting 

interviews to backfill our recently vacated information technology 

security officer position. The information technology security officer 

will continue ongoing work including completing ADC’s risk assessment, 

finalizing the information systems security program, and developing and 

implementing policies and guidance for performing periodic risk 

assessments, appropriate controls, and security training and awareness.



Fully implementing the information technology management framework laid 

out by GAO will take considerable time. Our Implementation Plan will 

include a more specific approach to developing and implementing this 

framework.



Strategic management Framework Important for Addressing Long Standing 

Issues: Worker Safety:



1n addition to recommendations for broad management improvement, the 

GAO report highlights three specific program areas-worker safety, 

project management and recycling. The first of these is worker safety, 

which is a top priority for AOC. First and foremost, attention to 

enhanced worker safety will reduce the danger of harm to our employees. 

But in addition this can reduce costs, improve productivity, help us 

maintain satisfied and highly motivated personnel, and reduce business 

interruptions and delays.



I concur with GAO’s recommendations that AOC adopt an explicit 

strategy, proactive safety management processes, and an infrastructure 

that supports those processes in order to ensure continuous and lasting 

improvements in our work environment. Worker safety has become more 

central to our culture, in part due to the Congressional Accountability 

Act of 1995 requirement that AOC comply with Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) standards. Initially, AOC targeted its 

worker safety efforts at areas that have the potential for an imminent 

danger to life and health. This includes policies for chemical use and 

exposure, confined spaces, fall protection, electrical safety, and 

respiratory and other personnel protection. We are in the process of 

developing program policies for incident reporting and investigation, 

inspection, and hazard abatement and control, as well as a number of 

other policies addressing the remaining OSHA requirements.



Recent efforts in worker safety have shown positive results and work-

related injuries and illnesses are decreasing. While OSHA has not yet 

published the official fiscal year 2002 injury and illness rate, AOC 

estimates the injury and illness rate will be approximately 9 per 100 

employees, an improvement from the fiscal year 2000 rate of 17.9 per 

100 and fiscal year 2001 rate of l l per 100. This data demonstrates 

that AOC has made great strides in reducing workplace injuries and 

illnesses and is progressing toward our ultimate goal of reducing the 

injury and illness rate to zero.



The GAO report states that the Safety, Fire, and Environmental Programs 

Office has drafted a 5-year Safety Master Plan independent of the 

broader strategic planning effort. We disagree. The Occupational Safety 

and Health (OSH) program plan (formerly known as the Safety Master 

Plan) is being drafted in close coordination with the agency-wide 

strategic plan. Worker safety is threaded through all four agency-wide 

strategic plan goals. Agency-wide strategic planning teams have cross -

functionaI membership of worker safety personnel, team champions have 

reviewed the draft OSH program plan, and the Director of Safety, Fire, 

and Environmental Programs has met with champions to discuss worker 

safety. We believe it would be appropriate for GAO to recognize this 

integration in the final report.



Our Implementation Plan will focus on strategic long-term planning, 

training, and continuous improvement in worker safety. Our OSH program 

plan will include goals, activities, and milestones and we will closely 

monitor our progress. Utilizing infrastructure already in place-the 

Facility Manager Assistant - we will track hazards, investigations and 

follow-up. Additionally, to ensure continuous improvement in reducing 

costs and injuries, beginning in 

February 2003 worker’s compensation cost and case analysis will be a 

standing agenda item for the Safety, Health, and Environmental Council 

quarterly meeting.



Strategic Management Framework Important for Addressing Long Standing 

Issues: Project Management:



I strongly support GAO’s recommendations to continue and expand on our 

efforts to adopt industry best practices for project management. We are 

working hard to establish the framework needed to implement these 

recommendations. Currently, each project is assigned one project 

manager throughout its life cyc le. Along with other project management 

improvements and staffing increases, this approach will enable us to 

complete projects on schedule, on budget, within scope, and of the 

highest quality. To further these improvements, training for new 

project managers has been scheduled and ongoing training for existing 

project managers is under development. We also understand the need to 

effectively communicate the status of projects, develop a process to 

assign project priorities, and measure performance. To address these 

and other project management issues, we will include project management 

as one of the focuses of our Implementation Plan.



One key aspect ofour facilities management focus is to understand the 

current condition of buildings under AOC jurisdiction, so that we can 

plan appropriately. Beginning this fiscal year we will conduct 

condition assessments of the Senate, House, and Capitol buildings. In 

fiscal year 2004, we will assess the Library of Congress buildings and 

in fiscal year 2005, the Botanic Garden and other buildings. 

Additionally, AOC is working with the National Academy of Sciences to 

determine the scope of work for a 20-year master plan to be implemented 

in fiscal year 2004. We will also be developing a 5-year capital 

improvement plan.



It will take time for AOC to fully develop a robust project management 

capability. We are in the process of hiring a Director of Project 

Management who will lead our project management reforms and will work 

to align project management staff with AOC’s mission-critical goals. 

Our Implementation Plan will further spell out these reforms and create 

the process for developing, implementing, and gaining buy-in for the 

new approach to project management.



Strategic Management Framework Important, for Addressing Long Standing 

Issues: Recycling:



GAO recommends that AOC clarify the purpose of the recycling program 

and ensure that the roles and responsibilities of recycling program 

staff support this purpose. My management team is committed to defining 

clear goals for the program. We plan to take a strategic approach to 

recycling through establishing a dedicated environmental function. Our 

Implementation Plan will include our approach to establishing program 

goals, integrating environmental concerns into ADC’s overall strategy, 

and ensuring that measures reflect goals and are linked to performance 

of key activities.



The GAO quotes AOC officials as saying that they do not believe they 

can establish performance goals for the recycling program. Our position 

is that we can and will establish performance goals as part of an 

Environmental Program Plan. We are dedicated to reconciling different 

priorities among stakeholders who have differing goals for the program 

and developing an acceptable solution that can be applied across the 

organization while allowing flexibility, if needed, in jurisdictional 

programs.



AOC has requested resources in our fiscal year 2003 appropriations to 

hire an environmental engineering supervisor and a safety/environmental 

technician. These positions are key to our program and will support 

agency-wide planning and evaluation.



AOC’s Next Steps:



My goal as Architect of the Capitol is to establish a high-performing 

organization with motivated employees providing outstanding service to 

clients in a safe working environment. In this letter, 1 have outlined 

my approach for reaching this goal. We will face challenges of 

increased responsibility, limited resources, and heightened 

expectations. We will address these challenges through focused 

management commitment, purposeful prioritization, and appropriate 

phasing of our actions. Our Implementation Plan will outline many 

specific initial steps that we will take to meet this goal, We will 

provide a copy of this plan to GAO and our congressional oversight 

committees within 90 days of this letter.



AOC appreciates the assistance and recommendations GAO has provided to 

improve service delivery and operations. If you have any questions 

about our comments, please feel free to contact me.



Sincerely,



Alan M. Hantrnan, FAIA

Architect of the Capitol:



Signed by Alan M. Hantrnan



Attachment:



[End of section]



Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements:



For further information about this statement, please contact J. 

Christopher Mihm at (202) 512-6806. Individuals making key 

contributions to this statement included Thomas Beall, Justin Booth, 

Carole Cimitile, Kevin J. Conway, Elizabeth Curda, Deborah Davis, 

Terrell Dorn, Elena Epps, 

V. Bruce Goddard, David Merrill, Christina Quattrociocchi, Benjamin 

Smith Jr., Lori Rectanus, John Reilly, William Roach, Regina Santucci, 

Gary Stofko, Kris Trueblood, Sarah Veale, Michael Volpe, and Daniel 

Wexler.



(450071):



FOOTNOTES:



[1] Section 129(d) of Pub. L. No. 107-68, Nov. 12, 2001.



[2] Sen. Rep. No. 107-37 at 28, 29 (2001) and H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 107-

148 at 73 (2001).



[3] Section 129(d) of Pub. L. No. 107-68, Nov. 12, 2001.



[4] Pub. L. No. 104-1, Jan. 23, 1995.



[5] Section 129(d) of Pub. L. No. 107-68, Nov. 12, 2001.



[6] Sen. Rep. No. 107-37 at 28, 29 (2001), and H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 107-

148 at 73 (2001).



[7] U.S. General Accounting Office, Architect of the Capitol: 

Management and Accountability Framework Needed to Lead and Execute 

Change, GAO-02-632T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 17, 2002).



[8] Section 129(d) of Pub. L. No. 107-68, Nov. 12, 2001.



[9] Pub. L. No. 104-1, Jan. 23, 1995.



[10] U.S. General Accounting Office, A Model of Strategic Human Capital 

Management, Exposure Draft, GAO-02-373SP (Washington, D.C.: March 

2002).



[11] U.S. General Accounting Office, Executive Guide: Creating Value 

Through World-class Financial Management, GAO/AIMD-00-134 (Washington, 

D.C.: April 2000).



[12] For GAO products discussing the elements of successful 

transformation in more detail, see U.S. General Accounting Office, 

Highlights of a GAO Forum on Mergers and Transformation: Lessons 

Learned for a Department of Homeland Security and Other Federal 

Agencies GAO-03-293SP (Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2002), Homeland 

Security: Critical Design and Implementation Issues, GAO-02-957T 

(Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2002), Managing for Results: Using 

Strategic Human Capital Management to Drive Transformational Change, 

GAO-02-940T (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2002), and FBI Reorganization: 

Initial Steps Encouraging but Broad Transformation Needed, GAO-02-865T 

(Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2002).



[13] U.S. General Accounting Office, Highlights of a GAO Roundtable: 

The Chief Operating Officer Concept: A Potential Strategy to Address 

Federal Governance Challenges, GAO-03-192SP (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 

2002).



[14] Architect of the Capitol, Draft Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2003-

2007 (reflects comments from AOC Management Council meeting held June 

18, 2002).



[15] Crosscutting themes were found in majority view comments that were 

common across the jurisdictions, skills sets, and shifts we selected 

and represented the most pervasive issues coming out of the focus 

groups.



[16] U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Cultures: Using 

Balanced Expectations to Manage Senior Executive Performance, GAO-02-

966 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2002).



[17] AOC Performance Review Process for Employees Serving at the 

Pleasure of the Architect, Order 430-2, June 15, 2002, p. 3.



[18] U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Culture: Insights 

for U.S. Agencies from Other Countries’ Performance Management 

Initiatives, GAO-02-862 (Washington, D.C.: August 2002).



[19] AOC’s core values are professionalism, respect and diversity, 

integrity, loyalty, stewardship, teamwork, and creativity.



[20] Office of the Architect of the Capitol, HRMD’s Model for Success, 

(Washington, D.C.: October 1999).



[21] U.S. General Accounting Office, A Model of Strategic Human Capital 

Management, GAO-02-373SP (Washington, D.C.: March 2002).



[22] AOC, FY 2002 Budget Estimates, January 2002.



[23] U.S. General Accounting Office, Standards for Internal Control in 

the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 

1999).



[24] See Pub. L. No.103-283, July 22, 1994, Sec. 312, Architect of the 

Capitol Human Resources Act.



[25] AOC generally uses Office of Personnel Management General Schedule 

Qualifications Standards for position classification.



[26] U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Effective Use of 

Flexibilities Can Assist Agencies in Managing Their Workforces, GAO-03-

2 (Washington, D.C.: December 2002).



[27] AOC’s Human Resources Manual, Order 451-1, March 14, 2002.



[28] See Pub. L. No. 103-283, July 1994, Sec. 312, Architect of the 

Capitol Human Resources Act.



[29] AOC Draft Memo from Acting EEO Director, AOC EEO/CP Annual Report, 

fiscal year 2000.



[30] H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-796 at 41 (2000).



[31] AOC Memo, March 7, 2002, on EAC.



[32] U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: The Role of 

Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution, GAO-01-466 (Washington, D.C.: April 

13, 2001).



[33] S. Rep. No. 107-37, at 29 (2001).



[34] U.S. General Accounting Office, Executive Guide: Creating Value 

Through World-class Financial Management, GAO/AIMD-00-134 (Washington, 

D.C.: April 2000).



[35] U.S. General Accounting Office, Maximizing the Success of Chief 

Information Officers: Learning From Leading Organizations, GAO-01-

376G, (Washington, D.C.: February 2001).



[36] AOC has budgeted $13 million for IT systems in fiscal year 2003.



[37] GAO-01-376G.



[38] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology Investment 

Management: A Framework for Assessing and Improving Process Maturity, 

Version 1, GAO/AIMD-10.1.23 (Washington, D.C.: May 2000).



[39] These categories are as follows: Infrastructure--IT systems, 

including networks and personal computers, that have an IT cost focus 

and are necessary for daily operation and maintenance; Utility--IT 

systems, including payroll and billing, that do not have a business 

focus, but are mission-critical; Enhancement-IT systems that have a 

business focus, such as supply chain management; and Frontier-IT 

systems, including e-commerce and customer tracking, that improve 

business performance.



[40] The Information Technology Standards and Architecture Committee 

currently sets IT policy relating to software and hardware standards 

and reviews agencywide IT projects for conformance with architecture 

standards.



[41] Chief Information Officers Council, A Practical Guide to Federal 

Enterprise Architecture, version 1.0 (Washington, D.C.: February 2001).



[42] Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, Software 

Acquisition Capability Maturity Model, version 1.03, (March 2002), and 

Software Capability Maturity Model, version 1.1 (February 1993).



[43] U.S. General Accounting Office, Executive Guide: Information 

Security Management, Learning From Leading Organizations, GAO/AIMD-98-

68 (Washington, D.C.: May 1998), and Information Security Risk 

Assessment: Practices of Leading Organizations, A Supplement to GAO’s 

May 1998 Executive Guide on Information Security Management, GAO/AIMD-

00-33 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999).



[44] GAO/AIMD-10.1.23.



[45] Chief Information Officers Council, A Practical Guide to Federal 

Enterprise Architecture, version 1.0 (Washington, D.C.: February 2001).



[46] GAO/AIMD-98-68.



[47] DuPont Safety Resources is a part of DuPont’s Safety and 

Protection business segment, which provides consulting and training 

services on worker safety, contractor safety, ergonomics, and asset 

effectiveness to public and private sector customers.



[48] OSHA was established under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 

of 1970 to “Assure so far as possible every working man and woman in 

the Nation safe and healthful working conditions.” This mandate 

involves the application of a set of tools by OSHA (e.g., standards 

development, enforcement, and compliance assistance), which enable 

employers to maintain safe and healthful workplaces.



[49] According to the PHS, it is one of the nation’s seven uniformed 

services and consists of approximately 6,000 officers, who serve under 

the leadership of the U.S. Surgeon General. Its mission is to provide 

highly trained and mobile health professionals who carry out programs 

to promote the health of the nation, understand and prevent disease and 

injury, assure safe and effective drugs and medical devices, deliver 

health services to federal beneficiaries, and furnish health expertise 

in times of war or other national or international emergencies. 



[50] An OSHA recordable is any work-related injury or illness that 

results in death, loss of consciousness, days away from work, 

restricted work activity or transfer, or medical treatment beyond first 

aid.



[51] A file that serves as a reminder and is arranged to bring matters 

to timely attention. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th 

Edition (Springfield, MA), 1977.



[52] Memorandum of Understanding Between the Office of the Architect of 

the Capitol and the Office of the Attending Physician, signed December, 

1998, effective date: January 4, 1999.



[53] OAP was established in 1928 and employs about 37 staff, 17 of whom 

are nurses employed by AOC. OAP also treats justices of the Supreme 

Court and maintains a liaison with military and civilian hospitals to 

facilitate necessary referrals of patients requiring hospitalization.



[54] Medical surveillance examinations are required by OSHA for 

employees whose jobs expose them to known hazards, such as arsenic or 

benzene. These examinations are conducted at scheduled intervals, that 

is, yearly, in order to detect health problems in exposed employees 

early enough to prevent or limit the progression of a work-related 

disease by limiting further exposure and by offering timely medical 

intervention.



[55] The manuals include the AOC Project Managers Manual, which defines 

the roles and responsibilities of the project manager (Final, October 

2002); the A/E Design Manual, which defines the requirements and 

deliverables from architectural and engineering consultants hired by 

AOC (Final, July 2002); the PIC User Guide, which details how project-

related information should be entered into the Project Information 

Center system (Interim, November 2001); and the AOC Design Standards, 

which defines design practice and quality levels for facilities 

constructed for AOC (Draft, October 2002).



[56] The five projects undergoing review are the Rayburn House Office 

Building Sprinkler/Telecom project, the Cannon House Office Building 

Garage Repairs project, the Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Infrastructure Modernization project, the Fort Meade Book Storage 

Facility Module I project, and the Relocation of the House Page 

Dormitory project.



[57] S. Rep. No. 107-37 at 29 (2001).



[58] National Research Council, Stewardship of Federal Facilities: A 

Proactive Strategy for Managing the Nation’s Public Assets (Washington, 

D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998), p. 43.



[59] National Research Council, Stewardship of Federal Facilities: A 

Proactive Strategy for Managing the Nations’s Public Assets 

(Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998), p. 96.



[60] S. Rep. No. 107-37 at 28 (2001).



[61] GAO-02-632T.



[62] AOC, Office of the Assistant Architect, Proposed Reorganization, 

June 6, 2002.



[63] S. Rep. No. 107-37 at 10 (2001).



[64] We do not know and cannot assess differences that might exist 

between the views of those invited participants who chose not to attend 

the session and those who did.



GAO’s Mission:



The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 

exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 

of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 

of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 

analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 

informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to 

good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability.



Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:



The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 

abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 

expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 

engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 

can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 

graphics.



Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its 

Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 

files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 

released products” under the GAO Reports heading.



Order by Mail or Phone:



The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 

each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 

of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders should be sent to:



U.S. General Accounting Office



441 G Street NW,



Room LM Washington,



D.C. 20548:



To order by Phone: 	



	Voice: (202) 512-6000:



	TDD: (202) 512-2537:



	Fax: (202) 512-6061:



To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:



Contact:



Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov



Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:



Public Affairs:



Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.



General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.



20548: