This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-11 
entitled 'Office of Personnel Management: Opportunities Exist to Build 
on Recent Progress in Internal Human Capital Capacity' which was 
released on November 1, 2007. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
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. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

October 2007: 

office of personnel management: 

Opportunities Exist to Build on Recent Progress in Internal Human 
Capital Capacity: 

Office of Personnel Management: 

GAO-08-11: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-11, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Given the importance of the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) role 
in managing the nation’s federal workforce, GAO assessed OPM’s internal 
capacity for human capital management. This report—the third in the 
series—extends prior work and (1) looks at the extent to which OPM has 
addressed key internal human capital management issues identified by 
examining employee responses to the 2004 and 2006 Federal Human Capital 
Survey (FHCS) and (2) has strategies in place to ensure it has the 
mission critical talent it needs to meet current and future strategic 
goals. To address our objectives, GAO analyzed 2004 and 2006 FHCS 
results, summaries of OPM employee focus groups, and analyzed OPM 
strategic and human capital planning documents. 

What GAO Found: 

OPM has taken positive actions to address specific concerns raised by 
employees and managers in the 2004 and 2006 FHCS responses. OPM 
conducted employee focus groups to understand factors contributing to 
the low 2004 survey scores and took actions, such as trying to improve 
communication throughout the agency. The 2006 survey results showed 
improvement in the area of leadership, with mixed results in the 
performance culture and accountability area, and continued concern in 
the talent management area. Without the responses from the 
investigative service employees who transferred from the Department of 
Defense in early 2005, OPM’s 2006 FHCS results would have been, in many 
cases, significantly more positive than in 2004. The perceptions of the 
investigative service employees, however, will need continued 
attention. 

Figure: OPM's FHCS Ranking out of 36 Agencies: 

This figure is a chart showing OPM's FHCS ranking out of 36 agencies. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO presentation of OPM information. 

[End of figure] 

OPM has strategies in place, such as workforce and succession 
management plans, that are aligned with selected leading practices 
relevant to the agency’s capacity to fulfill its strategic goals. For 
example, OPM’s top leadership is involved in these efforts, and the 
agency has assessed gaps in numbers and competencies and created gap 
closure plans for its mission critical and leadership workforce. 

OPM lacks, however, a well-documented agencywide evaluation process of 
some of its workforce planning efforts. In particular, OPM’s 
implementation of division-level training plans could make it difficult 
for the agency to identify and address reasons for shortfalls in 
meeting its talent management goals. In a relatively short time, there 
will also be a Presidential transition, and well-documented processes 
can help to ensure a seamless transition that builds on the current 
momentum.        


What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Director of OPM institute a documented process 
to ensure an agencywide perspective on workforce and succession 
efforts, including funding, implementation, and evaluation. In 
commenting on the report, the Director of OPM agreed with our 
recommendation, adding that the insights and recommendation provided in 
the report will be useful in shaping both ongoing and planned human 
capital initiatives within OPM. 

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on [hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-11]. For more 
information, contact J. Christopher Mihm at (202) 512-6806 or 
mihmj@gao.gov 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

OPM 2006 Survey Results Show Improvement in Employees' Perceptions of 
Leadership: Challenges Exist in Talent Management and Perceptions of 
DOD Investigative Service Transfers: 

OPM's Workforce and Succession Plans Align with Selected Leading 
Practices, but the Agency Lacks a Well-Documented Process of Evaluation 
of Some of These Efforts: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Selected Survey Questions and Data on the Federal Human 
Capital Survey: 

Appendix III: OPM Succession Planning Position Profile--Annotated with 
Instructions: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: OPM's FHCS Ranking out of 36 Agencies: 

Figure 2: OPM's Organizational Structure: 

Figure 3: OPM Responses to Selected Leadership Questions in 2004 and 
2006: 

Figure 4: OPM and Rest of Government Responses to Managers 
Communicating the Goals and Priorities of the Organization in 2004 and 
2006: 

Figure 5: OPM Responses to Selected Performance Culture and 
Accountability Questions for 2004 and 2006: 

Figure 6: OPM and Rest of Government Responses to Selected Performance 
Culture and Accountability Questions in 2006: 

Figure 7: OPM Responses to Selected Talent Management Questions for 
2004 and 2006: 

Figure 8: OPM and Rest of Government Responses to Selected Talent 
Management Questions in 2006: 

Figure 9: Sequence of Selected 2004 and 2006 FHCS Actions Taken by OPM: 

Figure 10: OPM's Workforce Planning for Mission Critical Occupations: 

Figure 11: OPM's Succession Management Planning: 

Figure 12: OPM's Workforce Planning for Leadership Incumbents: 

Abbreviations: 

CHCMS:Center for Human Capital Management Services: 

CHCO: Chief Human Capital Officer: 

CIO: Chief Information Officer: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

DSS: Defense Security Services: 

EEO: equal employment opportunity: 

EHRI: Enterprise Human Resources Initiative: 

ERB: executive resources board: 

FHCS: Federal Human Capital Survey: 

FISD: Federal Investigative Services Division: 

GS: General Schedule: 

HCAAF: Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework: 

HCLMSA: Human Capital Leadership and Merit System Accountability: 

HC Plan: A Plan for the Strategic Management of OPM's Human Capital: 

HR: human resources: 

HRLOB: Human Resources Line of Business: 

HRM: human resources management: 

HRPS: Human Resources Products and Services: 

IDP: individual development plan: 

MCAT: Management Competency Assessment Tool: 

MCO: mission critical occupation: 

MSD: Management Services Division: 

OCFO: Office of the Chief Financial Officer: 

OPM: Office of Personnel Management: 

PMA: President's Management Agenda: 

SES: Senior Executive Service: 

SHRP: Strategic Human Resources Policy: 

TAG: training advisory group: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

October 31, 2007: 

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Susan M. Collins: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable George V. Voinovich: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal 
Workforce, and the District of Columbia: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has a vital role to play in 
ensuring agencies are making strategic human capital management a 
priority. In addition, OPM has an important operational responsibility 
to work with federal departments and agencies to ensure that human 
capital reforms, such as performance management systems, are providing 
employees with fair and transparent results and meaningful 
opportunities to enhance communication and improve individual and 
organizational performance. These strategic and operational human 
capital management challenges also exist within OPM, and as OPM's role 
in the federal government continues to evolve, its workforce must be 
structured to tackle these challenges. 

We have previously reported that OPM has made commendable efforts 
toward transforming itself to being a more effective leader of 
governmentwide human capital reform, but that it can build upon that 
progress by addressing challenges that remain.[Footnote 1] For example, 
OPM's own workforce, through the Federal Human Capital Survey (FHCS), 
has expressed concerns about the agency's ability to recruit and 
develop employees with the skills necessary to achieve its mission 
objectives. Further, the executive branch agencies have pointed to 
problems in receiving timely and accurate human capital guidance and 
advice from OPM. In addition, OPM has undergone significant changes in 
the last few years including the expansion of its agency functions in 
the area of personnel security investigations. In early 2005, the 
agency's workforce grew by approximately 40 percent when more than 
1,500 security clearance employees transferred from Defense Security 
Services (DSS), a Department of Defense (DOD) agency, to the OPM 
investigative services division. 

Given the importance of OPM's key role and these challenges, you asked 
us to assess the extent to which OPM has the capacity to lead and 
implement governmentwide human capital reform. In addition to the June 
2006 testimony on OPM's internal capacity for leading human capital 
reform,[Footnote 2] we issued a report in January 2007 that 
specifically identified lessons that could be learned from OPM's 
efforts to lead and implement the senior executive performance-based 
pay system and other human capital initiatives that can be applied to 
ongoing and future human capital reform efforts.[Footnote 3] For this 
report, the third in the series, we determined the extent to which OPM 
(1) has addressed key internal human capital management issues 
identified by examining employee responses to the 2004 and 2006 FHCS, 
and (2) has strategies in place to ensure it has the mission critical 
talent it needs to meet current and future strategic goals. 

To address our first objective, we analyzed OPM's 2004 and 2006 FHCS 
results related to key issues of leadership, performance culture and 
accountability, and talent management to determine whether OPM has made 
progress in addressing areas of concern from the 2004 survey. We also 
analyzed OPM's 2006 survey results to identify any new challenges to 
OPM's strategic human capital management. To address our second 
objective, we reviewed OPM's strategic and human capital planning 
documents and analyzed the extent to which OPM adheres to selected 
strategic workforce planning practices and principles relevant to OPM's 
capacity to fulfill its strategic goals. For example, we reviewed OPM's 
analyses identifying critical skills and competencies and related gaps 
and determined the extent to which they aligned with OPM's strategic 
and operational plan. We focused primarily on examining Senior 
Executive Service (SES) positions and positions from the two OPM 
divisions with the most responsibility for working with federal 
departments and agencies to assist them with their human capital 
efforts: the Strategic Human Resources Policy (SHRP) and the Human 
Capital Leadership and Merit System Accountability (HCLMSA) divisions. 
We also had discussions with and obtained other pertinent documentation 
from officials at OPM at their headquarters in Washington, D.C. In 
addition, we reviewed academic literature and prior GAO reports about 
succession and workforce planning. 

We conducted our review in Washington, D.C., from December 2006 through 
August 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Detailed information on our scope and methodology appears in 
appendix I. 

Results in Brief: 

OPM's 2006 FHCS results, including the DOD investigative service 
transfers, showed strong improvement in OPM employees' perceptions of 
leadership, mixed results in the performance culture and accountability 
area, and a continuing concern in the area of talent management. For 
example, there was an 8 percentage point increase from 2004 to 2006 in 
response to "my organization's leaders maintain high standards of 
honesty and integrity," while in the area of talent management, OPM 
declined 5 percentage points from 2004 to 2006 in response to employees 
reporting satisfaction with the training they received. As illustrated 
in figure 1, however, without the responses from the DOD investigative 
service transfers, OPM's 2006 FHCS ranking would have been 
substantially higher than its 2004 ranking. 

Figure 1: OPM's FHCS Ranking out of 36 Agencies: 

This figure is a chart showing OPM's FHCS ranking out of 36 agencies. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO presentation of OPM information. 

[End of figure] 

The less positive[Footnote 4] responses of the DOD investigative 
service transfers on key questions point to areas where OPM will need 
to continue to focus its attention. For example, without DOD transfers, 
the OPM 2006 response to "I have a high level of respect for my 
organization's senior leaders" would have been 14 percentage points 
higher than 2004 results for the same question. OPM conducted a series 
of employee focus groups to understand factors contributing to its low 
scores on the 2004 FHCS and to gather employee ideas for addressing top 
priority improvement areas. The agency then developed action plans and 
took various steps in response to the employee focus groups, such as 
conducting Web casts from the Director and generating e-mail 
communications on internal organizational changes. Across the agency, 
in response to the 2006 survey results, OPM reviewed and updated the 
first set of action plans by incorporating changes as needed to address 
areas of new and continuing concern to OPM employees. 

OPM's workforce and succession plans are consistent with selected 
leading practices and principles relevant to its capacity to fulfill 
its strategic goals. The agency lacks, however, a well-documented 
process for agencywide evaluation of some of its workforce planning 
implementation efforts, particularly training and development. OPM's 
leadership is involved in the organization's succession and workforce 
planning through its executive resources board (ERB), which serves as 
the advisory and review body for all major leadership management 
policies and programs. In addition, OPM has assessed gaps in numbers 
and competencies and created gap closure plans for its mission critical 
and leadership workforce, with competency assessments showing overall 
improvement with few remaining deficiencies. By operating at the 
division level without a well-documented agencywide evaluation process, 
however, OPM's top leadership may be missing opportunities to identify, 
and address, weaknesses in its workforce planning and succession 
efforts. For example, it was not evident that OPM can identify whether 
it is optimizing its investment in training and development by making 
the appropriate level of investment and prioritizing funding across 
divisions so that it addresses the most important needs first. In 
addition, in a relatively short time, there will be a Presidential 
transition, and well-documented processes can help to ensure a seamless 
transition that can build on the current momentum. 

This report contains a recommendation to the Director of OPM to 
institute a documented process for its top leadership to monitor 
workforce and succession efforts carried out at the division level, to 
help ensure an agencywide perspective on workforce and succession 
funding, implementation, and evaluation. 

In its written comments on a draft of this report, the Director of OPM 
agreed with our recommendation, adding that the insights and 
recommendation provided in the report will be useful in shaping both 
ongoing and planned human capital management initiatives within OPM. 

Background: 

OPM manages the federal government's human capital and is responsible 
for helping agencies shape their human capital management systems and 
holding them accountable for effective human capital management 
practices. Title 5 of the U.S. Code, which provides for the effective 
management of the civil service, describes OPM's mission and 
responsibilities. OPM is also responsible for administering retirement, 
health benefits, and other insurance services to government employees, 
annuitants, and beneficiaries. 

During the past several years, OPM has undergone significant changes. 
The entire agency was restructured in fiscal year 2003, which included 
steps such as eliminating redundant operations and organizational 
layers. As mentioned previously, in early 2005, OPM's workforce 
expanded by approximately 40 percent when more than 1,500 security 
clearance employees transferred from DSS. Several months later, OPM 
experienced a change in top leadership, with the appointment of a new 
agency director in May 2005. In addition to making organizational 
changes, OPM has recast a number of its mission objectives. As we 
previously reported, OPM is continuing to transform itself from less of 
a rulemaker, enforcer, and independent agent to more of a consultant, 
toolmaker, and strategic partner in leading and supporting executive 
branch agencies' human capital management systems.[Footnote 5] OPM has 
also played a role in the design and implementation of new human 
capital systems at the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense and 
has exerted greater human capital leadership through its Human Capital 
Scorecard of the President's Management Agenda (PMA). 

OPM is responsible for helping other federal departments and agencies 
with strategic human capital management, while serving as a model for 
managing its own workforce. SHRP and HCLMSA are the two OPM divisions 
with the most responsibility for working with federal departments and 
agencies to assist them with making their human capital efforts more 
effective. SHRP designs, develops, and implements human capital 
policies and programs. SHRP's objective is to make sure federal 
agencies understand human capital policy and correctly apply it. For 
example, SHRP counsels agencies on how to apply policy to their 
performance appraisal, employee development, labor-management 
relations, information technology, and workforce planning programs. 
HCLMSA serves as the strategic leader of the governmentwide effort to 
transform human capital management so that agencies are held 
accountable for managing their workforces effectively, efficiently, and 
in accordance with merit principles. This division provides advice and 
assistance in all areas of staffing and human capital management, such 
as workforce restructuring and assistance in recruiting. While SHRP 
focuses on developing human capital policy, HCLMSA's responsibilities 
deal primarily with the implementation of that policy. The Management 
Services Division (MSD), headed by the senior executive who also serves 
as the agency's Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO), is responsible for 
providing human capital management services to the agency. MSD houses 
the Center for Human Capital Management Services (CHCMS), which is 
responsible for coordinating much of OPM's internal strategic human 
capital planning, including workforce and leadership succession 
management efforts. This group is also responsible for supporting the 
agency in recruitment, hiring, and other day-to-day human capital 
management activities. Figure 2 shows OPM's organizational structure. 

Figure 2: OPM's Organizational Structure: 

This figure is a chart showing OPM's organizational structure. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: OPM. 

[End of figure] 

One of OPM's efforts has been to conduct the FHCS biennially to measure 
employees' perceptions on whether conditions characterizing successful 
organizations are present in their agencies. OPM uses the FHCS in the 
Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework (HCAAF) as one 
source of information for evaluating agency success in creating a 
better working environment for their employees.[Footnote 6] OPM 
analyzes the FHCS results for itself and each agency with the four 
indices of the HCAAF: Leadership and Knowledge Management, Results- 
Oriented Performance Culture, Talent Management, and Job Satisfaction. 
A performance agreement at OPM showed the agency had a goal of being in 
the top half of agencies surveyed for 2006 and being in the top 5 of 
government rankings for 2008. The FHCS data are also used to rank 
agencies and subcomponents on a "Best Places to Work" index score, 
which measures employee satisfaction. The Partnership for Public 
Service and the Institute for Study of Public Policy Implementation 
produce the best places to work rankings.[Footnote 7] More than 220,000 
federal employees responded to the most recent survey in 2006, with a 
governmentwide response rate of 57 percent. The survey participation 
rate within OPM was 80 percent. 

In 2006 testimony, we reported that OPM's 2004 survey results could be 
summarized as reflecting employees' concerns about perceptions of 
leadership; talent management; customer focus, communication, and 
collaboration; and performance culture and accountability.[Footnote 8] 
We identified these four key areas as critical for human capital 
development in order for OPM to continue to transform itself into a 
more effective leader of governmentwide human capital reform. The areas 
differ slightly from the four HCAAF indices and represent a somewhat 
different grouping of survey items than the indices. For example, we 
included three questions that were asked relating to talent management: 
(1) the skill level in my work unit has improved over the past year; 
(2) I have sufficient resources to get my job done; and (3) 
supervisors/team leaders provide employees with constructive 
suggestions to improve their job performance. For this report, we did 
not include customer focus, communication, and collaboration because 
the number of survey items we included in that area decreased to one 
question from 2004 to 2006, making the data no longer significant. 

OPM 2006 Survey Results Show Improvement in Employees' Perceptions of 
Leadership: Challenges Exist in Talent Management and Perceptions of 
DOD Investigative Service Transfers: 

Compared to its 2004 results, OPM's 2006 FHCS results indicate strong 
improvement in employee perceptions on key questions relating to 
leadership, mixed results in performance culture and accountability, 
and continuing challenges in talent management. Additionally, OPM's 
2006 survey results show that the investigative service transfers from 
DOD, who joined the agency in 2005, were less positive than the rest of 
OPM's 2006 responses and negatively affected OPM's overall results. As 
a response to a decrease in positive 2004 FHCS responses within OPM, 
the agency used survey results and focus groups to develop action plans 
to address areas of employee concerns. In response to the 2006 survey 
results, OPM reviewed and updated the first set of action plans by 
incorporating changes as needed to address areas of concern to OPM 
employees. 

OPM's 2006 FHCS Leadership Responses Show Strong Improvement: 

Top leadership in agencies across the federal government must provide 
the committed attention needed to address human capital and related 
organizational transformation issues. In 2006, OPM experienced a 
positive increase in employee perceptions of questions relating to 
leadership compared to 2004 FHCS responses. Four questions out of the 
top 10 questions having the largest increase in positive responses from 
2004 to 2006 were related to leadership. For example, there was an 8 
percentage point increase for both "satisfaction with information 
received from management" and "my organization's leaders maintain high 
standards of honesty and integrity," as displayed in figure 3.[Footnote 
9] 

Figure 3: OPM Responses to Selected Leadership Questions in 2004 and 
2006: 

This figure is a bar chart showing OPM responses to selected leadership 
questions in 2004 and 2006. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of OPM data. 

[End of figure] 

The positive response increase for leadership questions from 2004 to 
2006 represents a major improvement for the agency and a decreasing gap 
between OPM and the rest of government. OPM was significantly higher 
than the rest of government on three of eight leadership questions. For 
example, on the question "Managers communicate the goals and priorities 
of the organization," OPM was 11 percentage points higher than the rest 
of government and 15 percentage points higher than OPM's 2004 results, 
as shown in figure 4[Footnote 10]. Additionally, on the HCAAF index for 
Leadership and Knowledge Management, OPM's ranking improved from 28th 
in 2004 to 19th in 2006, out of 36 ranked agencies. 

Figure 4: OPM and Rest of Government Responses to Managers 
Communicating the Goals and Priorities of the Organization in 2004 and 
2006: 

This figure is a chart showing OPM and the rest of government responses 
to managers communicating the goals and priorities of the organization 
on 2004 and 2006. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of OPM data. 

[End of figure] 

For questions relating to leadership, however, OPM's 2006 results 
continue to show a larger gap between SES and General Schedule (GS)- 
level employees than the difference found in the rest of government 
results. We reported previously that OPM's 2004 FHCS results and the 
follow-up focus group discussions implied that information did not 
cascade effectively from the top leadership throughout the 
organization, and we identified a gap in perception between OPM's SES 
and GS-level employees, particularly relating to questions on 
leadership.[Footnote 11] In 2006, this gap persists between SES and GS- 
level employees. For example, in both 2004 and 2006 OPM's SES responses 
were substantially more positive than non-SES responses for the 
statement "I have a high level of respect for my organization's senior 
leaders." While OPM has taken steps to address the lack of overall and 
cross-divisional communication and issues related to employee views of 
senior management, this gap between SES and GS-level response remains a 
challenge. 

Finally, the significant leadership changes that occurred at OPM since 
the 2004 FHCS survey may have affected the perspectives of employees 
regarding leadership questions. A new director began a term at the 
agency in May 2005 and, according to OPM, about half of the senior 
leadership started after OPM administered the 2004 survey. 
Additionally, actions taken beginning in May 2006 in response to the 
2004 survey results, such as Web casts and e-mail communications from 
the Director regarding internal changes, were intended to lead to 
positive 2006 FHCS responses to leadership questions. 

2006 FHCS Performance Culture and Accountability Responses Show Mixed 
Results: 

Effective performance management systems can drive organizational 
transformation by encouraging individuals to focus on their roles and 
responsibilities to help achieve organizational outcomes. We reported 
in 2006 that OPM's executive performance management system aligns the 
performance expectations of OPM's top leaders with the goals of the 
organization.[Footnote 12] In addition, we reported that OPM could 
build upon its positive results for some of its performance-related 
questions to address performance culture concerns, one of the three 
areas examined in the focus groups. Similar to the 2004 results, OPM's 
2006 results relating to performance culture and accountability showed 
some mixed areas of strength that could be maximized and areas of 
weakness to be addressed. 

Of the 12 questions we identified as relating to performance culture 
and accountability, OPM's results for three questions in 2006 
demonstrated substantial improvement compared to 2004 results and two 
questions dropped significantly from 2004 to 2006. Figure 5 shows the 
questions that substantially improved. OPM's highest positive increase 
from 2004 to 2006 was a 17 percentage point increase in response to 
"managers review and evaluate the organization's progress toward 
meeting its goals and objectives." OPM also saw a more positive 
response to "I am held accountable for achieving results." Questions 
that dropped significantly involved employees feeling encouraged to 
come up with new and better ways of doing things and performance 
appraisals being a fair reflection of performance. 

Figure 5: OPM Responses to Selected Performance Culture and 
Accountability Questions for 2004 and 2006: 

This figure is a chart showing OPM responses to selected performance 
culture and accountability questions for 2004 and 2006. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of OMP data. 

[End of figure] 

On the performance accountability questions that saw a large positive 
increase at OPM from 2004 to 2006, OPM was significantly higher than 
the rest of government. In addition, OPM's ranking on the HCAAF index 
for Performance Culture increased from 29th in 2004 to 25th in 2006. 
OPM, however, remains among the bottom half of the 36th ranked agencies 
in this area. Of the performance culture and accountability questions, 
OPM responded significantly lower than the rest of government on five 
questions. Two of these questions dealt with creativity and innovation 
in the workplace, as displayed in figure 6. These mixed results 
indicate that while OPM has seen and can build upon the positive 
increases on some performance culture and accountability questions, 
room for improvement still exists in this area at the agency. 

Figure 6: OPM and Rest of Government Responses to Selected Performance 
Culture and Accountability Questions in 2006: 

The figure is a chart showing OPM and rest of government responses to 
selected performance culture and accountability questions in 2006. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of OPM data. 

[End of figure] 

2006 FHCS Talent Management Responses Show Challenges Persist: 

OPM's 2006 FHCS responses indicate that talent management concerns 
continue among employees at the agency. Of the nine questions we 
identified as relating to talent management, OPM showed a decline on 
seven questions from 2004 to 2006. The largest decline from 2004 to 
2006 was a 5 percentage point drop from 48 to 43 percent of OPM 
employees reporting satisfaction with the training received for their 
present job. Figure 7 shows the decline in two talent-management 
related questions. Training was a specific area of concern for OPM's 
SES, who reported an 8 percentage point decrease in satisfaction with 
their training and a 13 percentage point decrease in support for "the 
skills in my work unit have improved in the past year." We have 
previously highlighted talent management as an area of concern and 
noted that OPM's ability to lead and oversee human capital management 
could be affected by its internal capacity and ability to maintain an 
effective leadership team, as well as an effective workforce.[Footnote 
13] 

Figure 7: OPM Responses to Selected Talent Management Questions for 
2004 and 2006: 

This is a figure showing OPM responses to selected talent management 
questions for 2004 and 2006. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of OPM data. 

[End of figure] 

In addition, in the 2006 survey, OPM was significantly lower than the 
rest of government on five of the nine questions we identified as 
relating to talent management. For example, OPM was 11 percentage 
points lower than the rest of government for "the workforce has the job-
relevant knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish organizational 
goals." Additionally, only 39 percent of OPM employees said that their 
training needs were assessed, compared to 51 percent of the rest of 
government, as displayed in figure 8. Further, OPM's ranking decreased 
from 28th to 31st out of 36 agencies on the HCAAF index for Talent 
Management in 2006. 

Figure 8: OPM and Rest of Government Responses to Selected Talent 
Management Questions in 2006: 

This figure is a chart showing OPM and rest of government responses to 
selected talent management questions in 2006. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of OPM data. 

[End of figure] 

DOD Investigative Service Transfers' Survey Results Show Need for 
Special Attention to Those Employees: 

Without DOD transfers, results for just under half of the 2006 survey 
questions relating to leadership, performance culture and 
accountability, and talent management would have been higher by 5 
percentage points or more. In fact, all but 1of the 29 questions 
relating to leadership, performance culture and accountability, and 
talent management that we identified would have been more positive 
without DOD transfers. Moreover, OPM reported those employees who 
participated in both the 2004 and 2006 surveys rated the agency higher 
on almost every item on the survey in 2006. OPM's FHCS agency ranking 
would have increased dramatically from 26th to 11th place without the 
DOD transfers. OPM would have seen the greatest increase in those 
questions relating to leadership, with six of the eight questions we 
identified as relating to leadership having a 14 to 16 percentage point 
increase from 2004 to 2006. For example, without DOD transfers, OPM 
2006 response to "I have a high level of respect for my organization's 
senior leaders" would have been 14 percentage points higher than 2004 
results. The question that would not have been more positive addressed 
talent management, suggesting that talent management is a salient issue 
for OPM, regardless of the transfers. In addition, DOD transfers gave 
more neutral responses on several questions, particularly those 
relating to performance culture and accountability and equal employment 
issues, indicating a lack of perspective rather than a negative 
response. Given that the DOD transfers had more neutral responses to 
these questions, this suggests that OPM may have an opportunity to help 
shape the perspectives of its new transfers on these issues. Selected 
survey questions and data from the 2004 and 2006 surveys appear in 
appendix II. 

OPM Addressed Human Capital Issues through 2004 and 2006 FHCS Action 
Plans: 

Figure 9 shows a sequence of selected actions OPM took regarding the 
2004 and 2006 FHCS and the accompanying internal OPM action plans. 

Figure 9: Sequence of Selected 2004 and 2006 FHCS Actions Taken by OPM: 

This figure is a timeline showing a sequence of selected 2004 and 2006 
FHCS actions taken by OPM. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO presentation of OPM information. 

[End of figure] 

To address a decrease in positive responses to the 2004 FHCS, OPM hired 
a contractor to conduct a series of OPM employee focus groups. The 
purpose of the groups was to understand the factors contributing to the 
2004 responses and report employee ideas for addressing top priority 
improvement areas. Employees were randomly selected to participate in 
33 focus groups with participants from all major divisions, 
headquarters and the field, employees and supervisors, and major 
installations. The results of the 2004 FHCS and the responses of the 
focus groups showed that OPM employees were most concerned with 
leadership and leadership's ability to deal with staff about policies 
and performance. Employees preferred OPM to have more open 
communication to address inadequate planning and excessive supervision. 
Employees identified additional problem areas for OPM including lack of 
management support, inadequate training for supervisors and managers on 
performance culture and accountability, and lack of senior executive 
interest in and respect for employees. 

OPM required each division to develop specific action plans to address 
the critical issues raised by employees in both the survey results and 
the focus groups. In December 2005 and January 2006, the CHCMS met with 
each associate director and their management team to present their 
individual results and discuss the next steps in the process. OPM also 
held a half-day planning meeting with a cross-section of OPM divisions 
and office representatives to develop an OPM-wide action plan. As an 
example of activities based on the 2004 survey action plans, OPM has 
attempted to improve communication throughout the agency by initiating 
visits to its field locations, creating an e-mail mail box where 
employees can make suggestions on more efficient and effective ways of 
doing business, and holding employee meetings. Additionally, to address 
employee concerns about communication with senior leaders, OPM 
established brown bag lunches with the Director and a process in all 
divisions to solicit employee input on various initiatives and set 
aside "open door" time for employees to speak with their managers. 

After release of the results of the 2006 FHCS, OPM reviewed and updated 
the first set of action plans responding to the 2004 survey by 
incorporating changes as needed to address new and continuing areas of 
concern to OPM employees. OPM's analysis of the data included (1) 
comparisons between responses in 2004 and 2006 agencywide and 
governmentwide, (2) comparisons of results by organizational 
components, (3) a review of responses between headquarters and field 
locations, and (4) a review of the responses comparing supervisory and 
nonsupervisory employees. OPM believed responses to eight questions on 
the 2006 FHCS improved based on their previous actions for issue areas 
dealing with leadership. OPM identified that the areas reflecting the 
lowest positive response rates centered in large part around 
performance culture areas; for example, promotions based on merit, 
employee empowerment, and awards. OPM also found that the responses 
from the field employees were lower than the responses from 
headquarters employees, where some questions had significant 
differences ranging from 10 to 20 percentage points lower. 

In response to the survey results, OPM updated five actions from the 
action plans responding to the 2004 survey and developed five new 
actions for the action plans responding to the 2006 survey. In terms of 
leadership, OPM carried over two actions from the first set of action 
plans because of the positive response from employees: using OPM's 
Intranet for up-to-date information sharing throughout the organization 
and using the Director's formal and informal communication methods, 
such as brown bag meetings, field site visits, and Web casts. One area 
of concern for employees of OPM was employee empowerment. To address 
this issue, OPM indicated that it would continue to work on delegating 
authorities to the lowest appropriate level and involving employees in 
decisions to increase internal approval and coordination to streamline 
organizational processes. In addition, in OPM's recently developed 
action plans, 5 out of 10 actions will address talent management. For 
example, OPM will be implementing the core curriculum for supervisory 
training that was developed because of the first set of action plans. 
OPM officials said the supervisory training program was funded in May 
2007 and implementation started in July 2007. Additionally, OPM 
developed four new actions to deal with training and development: (1) 
administering performance management training for all employees, (2) 
developing individual development plans (IDP), (3) creating electronic 
access to training opportunities, and (4) implementing an internal 
rotation professional development program. 

Each division and office analyzed their organization-specific results 
to reflect the 2006 responses of their employees in order to update 
their previous action plans. SHRP, for example, had each of its center 
leaders meet with employees to discuss the survey results and held a 
divisional town hall meeting to talk about the results and answer any 
questions the employees had. HCLMSA used a new interactive 
communication tool to involve employees and management in resolving 
issues and capitalizing on strengths identified by the 2006 FHCS 
results. HCLMSA focused on 38 questions where the positive results were 
less than 65 percent; from these questions, 3 to 5 questions were 
consensually determined as key discussion areas and included in the 
division's current action plans. OPM also plans to develop 
communications plans to ensure field locations receive the same 
information as headquarters on a timely basis.[Footnote 14] 

The investigative services division, which includes the DOD transfer 
employees, also developed action plans in response to the 2006 FHCS. 
For example, in response to employees' concerns with their personal 
work experience, through early September 2007, 428 Federal 
Investigative Service Division (FISD) employees had participated in 
detail assignments within FISD, assignments outside of FISD but within 
OPM, and assignments to other agencies to gain additional program 
knowledge. OPM will conduct an agencywide employee survey in October 
2007, and OPM officials said they believe these survey results will 
show significant improvement for FISD. 

After OPM assessed the survey results and the Director approved the 
action plans, the agency notified its employees about how it will 
address the responses and will post information on OPM's Intranet with 
continual progress updates. Additionally, CHCMS officials said they 
will monitor the action plans quarterly and report findings to the 
Director in an effort to build a positive and productive work climate 
where all employees and managers feel valued and appreciated. 

OPM's Workforce and Succession Plans Align with Selected Leading 
Practices, but the Agency Lacks a Well-Documented Process of Evaluation 
of Some of These Efforts: 

OPM's workforce and succession plans are consistent with selected 
strategic workforce planning practices and principles relevant to OPM's 
capacity to fulfill its strategic goals. OPM's top leadership is 
engaged in workforce and succession planning efforts, and OPM has 
assessed competency gaps and created gap closure plans for its mission 
critical and leadership workforce. The agency, however, operates some 
of these division-level efforts without a well-documented process for 
evaluation agencywide. For example, it was not evident how OPM is able 
to identify the appropriate level of investment in training and 
development and to prioritize funding so that it addresses the most 
important training needs first. 

OPM's Top Leaders are Involved in Workforce and Succession Planning: 

We have previously reported that efforts to address important 
organizational issues, such as strategic workforce planning, are most 
likely to succeed if agencies' top program and human capital leaders 
set the overall direction, pace, tone, and goals from the beginning of 
the effort.[Footnote 15] We have also noted that effective succession 
planning and management programs have the support and commitment of 
their organizations' top leadership, and that the demonstrated 
commitment of top leaders is perhaps the single most important element 
of successful management. In particular, reinforcing leadership support 
by assigning responsibility for succession efforts, and holding 
executives accountable for succession planning in performance plans, 
are effective strategies for ensuring the active participation of 
leadership. 

One of OPM's vehicles for involving top leadership in its workforce and 
succession planning efforts is its ERB. Chaired by OPM's Chief of 
Staff, the ERB serves as the advisory and review body for all major 
leadership management policies and programs related to the SES 
specifically, and management and leadership in general. Among other 
responsibilities, the ERB is charged with executive/leadership 
succession planning and workforce planning; executive/leadership 
staffing management; and executive, managerial, and leadership 
development management. ERB membership consists of all of OPM's 
associate directors, including the associate director who also serves 
as the agency's CHCO, along with the chief financial officer, the 
general counsel, and the deputy associate director for CHCMS. The ERB 
meets weekly and provides CHCMS, OPM's internal human resources 
management group, with direction on key workforce and succession 
planning decisions, among other things. 

According to a CHCMS official, the ERB helps to set the direction for 
the agency's succession planning and workforce planning efforts. At 
least annually, the ERB meets with CHCMS staff and division management 
to review all of the succession planning position profile sheets, 
templates that the agency uses to try to capture the leadership skills 
needed for it to meet its strategic and operational goals and 
objectives both currently and in the future. The ERB looks at the 
description of potential successors identified and, according to the 
CHCMS official, will sometimes override the supervisor's position 
profile assessments based on their "big-picture" knowledge of 
agencywide human capital resources. The ERB also works with CHCMS to 
identify opportunities for economies of scale in addressing training 
and development needs that cut across divisions. For example, CHCMS and 
the ERB jointly proposed the establishment of a new supervisory 
training curriculum for all OPM managers and supervisors. This 
curriculum intends to address several agencywide training and 
development needs, such as strengthening performance management skills, 
closing leadership competency gaps, and addressing issues that emerged 
in the 2004 FHCS results. As a result, the Director of OPM approved 
funding for this agencywide initiative, which OPM is now implementing 
as part of the action plans to address the 2006 FHCS results. 

In addition to leveraging the ERB to engage its leadership with 
workforce and succession planning, OPM also made explicit its CHCO's 
accountability for succession planning. In the CHCO's 2006 Performance 
Agreement, OPM charged the CHCO with the responsibility of having 
agencywide, written succession plans in place by October 2006. OPM also 
held other members of OPM's executive management team accountable via 
their 2006 performance agreements for general workforce and succession 
planning efforts. In his 2007 executive performance agreement, the CHCO 
is accountable for implementing leadership and succession-related 
training and development initiatives. For example, the CHCO is 
responsible for implementing the supervisory training for all managers 
described above. This training curriculum includes courses intended to 
address leadership competencies, which include performance management 
and interpersonal skills training. 

OPM Has Aligned Its Workforce and Succession Plans with Its Strategic 
Goals: 

According to OPM's HCAAF standards, an agency should align its human 
capital management strategies, including workforce planning, with its 
mission, goals, and organizational objectives and integrate them into 
its strategic plans, performance plans, and budgets. We have similarly 
reported that it is critically important to align an organization's 
human capital program with its current and emerging mission and 
programmatic goals.[Footnote 16] In its most recently published A Plan 
for the Strategic Management of OPM's Human Capital (HC Plan), OPM 
links its human capital planning to its current 5-year, agencywide 
Strategic and Operational Plan.[Footnote 17] The HC Plan explicitly 
notes the relationship between OPM's agencywide mission and its 
workforce, recognizing that OPM's overall success in achieving its 
mission objectives is dependent on a strategic focus on its own talent 
and human capital needs. 

OPM charges each of its divisions with linking their workforce analysis 
and competency needs to their business initiatives. For example, the 
SHRP division has designated the design of a modern compensation system 
as a key business initiative. Accordingly, SHRP identifies (1) 
activities related to the initiative (working with internal and 
external stakeholders, drafting and implementing legislation, etc.); 
(2) the occupations that constitute its mission critical workforce (HR 
policy specialist, actuary, etc); (3) the number of mission critical 
staff needed; and (4) the general and technical competencies that are 
important for its mission critical workforce (oral communication, 
creative thinking, problem solving, etc.) Each of OPM's divisions 
contribute a similar written section to the agencywide HC Plan to 
represent how OPM links the identification of its mission critical 
occupations and key competencies to its business initiatives. The 
diagram in figure 10 depicts the steps in OPM's workforce planning 
process. 

Figure 10: OPM's Workforce Planning for Mission Critical Occupations: 

This figure is a chart showing OPM's workforce planning for mission 
critical occupations. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of OPM information. 

[End of figure] 

OPM's Corporate Leadership Succession Management Plan describes that 
the key goal of its succession plan is to ensure the availability of 
diverse individuals with the necessary competencies to fill key 
leadership positions so the agency can meet its short-and long-term 
goals, regardless of turnover. The succession plan also notes that the 
agency needs leaders with a mix of specific skills in order to meet the 
goals and objectives laid out in its 5-year Strategic and Operational 
Plan. Similar in its approach to workforce planning, OPM charges its 
divisions with the responsibility for carrying out the individual- 
level, position-based elements of its succession planning process. 

The diagram in figure 11 depicts the steps in OPM's succession 
management planning process that focus on analyzing the succession risk 
and developing an internal leadership pipeline for each individual 
leadership position. 

Figure 11: OPM's Succession Management Planning: 

This figure is a chart showing OPM's succession management planning. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO presentation of OPM information. 

[End of figure] 

OPM requires the direct supervisor of each executive, manager, and 
supervisor to complete a succession planning position profile template 
for these employees. (See appendix III for a copy of the succession 
planning position profile template.) The succession planning position 
profile sheets include the supervisor's judgment of risk factors such 
as the likelihood that the incumbent will leave; an identification of 
key general and technical competencies needed for the position; a 
determination of the "readiness" of internal candidates, those that are 
ready immediately, within 1 to 2 years, or within 3 to 5 years; and 
other items. OPM uses these quantitative and qualitative assessments to 
develop succession management objectives, performance goals, and action 
plans to help ensure that OPM has a robust candidate pool to replace 
leadership incumbents as needed. Our review of 93 of approximately 330 
succession planning position profile documents showed that nearly all 
of the sampled documents had been updated within the past 
year.[Footnote 18] Our review also confirmed that all of these included 
an estimation of the prospective successor pool for at least 5 years 
out, with two citing the need to begin developing the candidate 
pipeline at least 10 years in advance. An official in CHCMS explained 
OPM intends that the profile sheets will serve as a built-in mechanism 
requiring management to think about leadership positions and how they 
may need to change. For example, some of the SHRP profile sheets 
illustrate sensitivity to the changing environment in relation to 
future recruitment efforts: "internally and short term, outlook is 
quite positive; however, as agency human resource program 
responsibilities continue to restructure, streamline and consolidate 
into more generalist and consultative roles, the potential candidate 
pool of detail oriented technically proficient staffing experts will 
decline." 

While some aspects of the succession planning position profile sheets 
demonstrate a forward-looking approach to development and recruitment 
efforts, the extent to which OPM is identifying key competencies for 
leadership positions based on anticipated long-term changes in mission 
and objectives is not evident. In reviewing OPM's instructions for 
completing the position profile sheets, we found no guidance stating 
that supervisors are to identify key competencies for these leadership 
positions according to current and anticipated future requirements. 

OPM Has Assessed Gaps in Numbers and Competencies and Created Gap 
Closure Plans for Its Mission Critical and Leadership Workforce: 

We have previously reported that an agency needs to define the critical 
skills and competencies that it will require in the future to meet its 
strategic program goals and then develop strategies to address gaps and 
human capital conditions in critical skills and competencies.[Footnote 
19] With regard to leadership positions, it is important to emphasize 
developmental or "stretch" assignments for high-potential employees in 
addition to formal training, in order to strengthen skills and 
competencies and broaden experience. Consistent with these workforce 
and succession planning principles, OPM has undertaken a number of 
workforce assessments and has developed gap closure plans, which 
include a mix of training and developmental assignments, to address 
current and projected deficiencies in mission critical and leadership 
positions. 

Competency Assessments Conducted: 

According to its current HC Plan, as of June 2006, 62 percent of OPM's 
5,194 employees were in mission critical occupations.[Footnote 20] OPM 
has several division-level and centralized strategies to assess the 
competencies of its mission critical occupations. OPM conducted 
agencywide skills assessments in 2001 and 2003 and more recent 
assessments in targeted mission critical occupations such as 
information technology and human resources management (HRM). 

In 2006, HCLMSA focused competency assessment and gap closure efforts 
on the mission critical occupation of accountability auditor. During 
the same year, CHCMS conducted a competency assessment of its HRM 
specialists, using a competency model developed by the CHCO Council in 
cooperation with OPM.[Footnote 21] In the fourth quarter of fiscal year 
2006, SHRP, HCLMSA, and the Human Resources Products and Services 
(HRPS) divisions assessed their human resources specialists. OPM 
reassessed these specialists using the CHCO Council HRM competency 
model in May 2007. All of these assessments looked for gaps in both 
competency levels and numbers of mission critical incumbents. 

To determine the competency levels for both its current and prospective 
leadership, OPM looks at both individual leadership positions and 
general leadership skills. As described in figure 11, in looking ahead 
to its future leadership, OPM uses qualitative data to assess potential 
gaps in its leadership pipeline, using the succession planning position 
profiles. As part of this individual, position-based planning process, 
the direct supervisor of every subordinate executive, manager, and 
supervisor describes the key competencies needed for a particular 
position and the number of potential internal successors for the 
leadership position, and produces an estimate of when these candidates 
will be ready to assume the leadership responsibilities in question. 
The supervisor describes the training and development opportunities 
needed to address any gaps and to prepare the pool of prospective 
candidates to assume the leadership position. From these individual 
analyses, OPM derives a measure it refers to as a "bench-strength 
index," which counts the number of internal candidates that are ready 
to replace a single incumbent, when it becomes necessary. 

In addition to assessing its in-house leadership pipeline and external 
prospects for each individual leadership position, OPM looks at the 
competency levels of its current leadership corps. Figure 12 depicts 
the steps in OPM's workforce planning process that focus on assessing 
the competencies of the agency's current leadership incumbents and 
developing and implementing plans to close gaps as needed. 

Figure 12: OPM's Workforce Planning for Leadership Incumbents: 

This figure is a chart showing OPM's workforce planning for leadership 
incumbents. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of OPM information. 

[End of figure] 

The agency most recently conducted a formal competency assessment of 
its 376 incumbent leaders in fiscal year 2006, using an online survey 
completed by the supervisors of all subordinate executives, managers, 
and supervisors. OPM uses these data to make a determination of the 
extent to which its current leadership cadre meets the desired 
proficiency levels for competencies required in their positions. In 
early 2007, OPM launched the Management Competency Assessment Tool 
(MCAT), a governmentwide, Web-based instrument for assessing the skill 
levels of managers, supervisors, team leaders, and others in key 
leadership and performance management competencies. OPM has been using 
the MCAT internally for its agencywide leadership competency 
assessments. The agency used this tool to conduct a reassessment of 
skills gaps among these 376 leadership positions in July 2007. 

Competency Assessments Show Overall Improvement with Some Gaps 
Remaining: 

Based on the results of agencywide skills assessments conducted in 2001 
and 2003, OPM reports that it has made at least some improvement to 
employee proficiency levels in 96 percent of its mission critical 
competencies, and has eliminated gaps in 64 percent of these 
competencies. OPM's current HC Plan includes an initiative to conduct 
an agencywide skills reassessment to continue to monitor its gap 
closure progress. 

Regarding its organizational leadership cadre, OPM recently reported 
positive results. The only priority competency gap common across 
supervisory, managerial, and executive leadership positions was in the 
area of interpersonal skills, which are critical to the agency's 
increased focus on performance management, consultancy, and other 
strategic initiatives. OPM has also calculated turnover risk and 
overall succession risk for leadership positions based on information 
captured in the succession planning position profile sheets. These 
indicate that while 30 percent of the current leadership is at high 
risk for turnover, only 3 percent are high risk for overall succession 
purposes, since the expectation is that OPM can identify suitable 
candidates from within or outside the agency. In terms of its 
leadership candidate pipeline, the succession planning position profile 
sheets indicated that as of August 2006, all but 11 of the 376 
leadership positions met OPM's bench-strength goal of having a minimum 
2:1 ratio of ready-now candidates for each incumbent. More recently, an 
OPM official confirmed that the agency had reduced this number even 
further, with only 8 positions considered by the agency to be at high- 
risk for succession management purposes due to weak bench strength. 

On the division level, OPM's most recent competency assessment and gap 
analysis completed in 2006 for employees in the GS-201 HR specialist 
mission critical occupation in SHRP and HRPS identified few gaps among 
employees in this occupational group. Only the competency area of 
knowledge of agency business emerged as a high-priority gap, based on 
factors such as the gap's impact on OPM's ability to accomplish mission 
objectives, size of the gap, and level of difficulty in closing the gap 
through development of internal employees or recruitment from external 
sources. Specifically, OPM set a target to increase by more than double 
the number of HR specialist staff at the advanced proficiency level, 
from 39 to 87. OPM's strategy to accomplish this goal was to provide 
training and developmental opportunities to increase the expertise of 
current staff, while building a pipeline of HR specialists at the 
awareness and basic levels of proficiency from a pool of external 
hires. In May 2007, OPM readministered the competency assessment of the 
SHRP and HRPS GS-201 employees, using the CHCO Council HRM Competency 
Model, to determine the extent to which gap closure efforts over the 
past year resulted in higher competency proficiency levels. The results 
of OPM's assessment indicated that it had surpassed its goals by moving 
the HR specialists to, or beyond, the targeted proficiency levels. 

SHRP's Mission Critical Workforce: 

In addition to its emphasis on the HRM Competency Model as it relates 
to GS-201 series employees, SHRP has reported on all of the elements of 
its mission critical workforce, which include actuaries, statisticians, 
and psychologists, along with HR specialists. In the HC Plan, SHRP 
notes that its mission critical employees exhibit strengths in the 
areas of technical competence, oral communication, and problem solving. 
It describes areas of particular challenge in the fields of creative 
thinking and reasoning. Further, SHRP is looking ahead to identify a 
potential future competency gap in written communication, particularly 
related to writing policy. SHRP plans to address competency gaps in the 
areas of written communication, creative thinking, and reasoning by 
incorporating these competencies into the selection processes for new 
staff and by providing appropriate developmental opportunities to 
current staff. 

In an interview with SHRP's Associate Director about the division's 
mission critical workforce, she noted that recruitment and retention 
for the division would continue to present underlying challenges. She 
said that SHRP would be trying to recruit employees with the same types 
of skills other federal government agencies would increasingly need, 
requiring those with excellent written, analytical, and technical 
abilities as well as capable leaders. Some positions in SHRP are 
particularly difficult to fill with the caliber of talent the division 
needs. For example, the Associate Director explained that it was hard 
to recruit mid-level actuaries and statisticians from outside OPM 
because often these individuals, while possessing adequate technical 
skills, do not know and understand the mission and workings of OPM. In 
addition, recruiting an employee with actuarial skills and management 
experience is very difficult given the salary that individuals with 
those skills can command in the private sector. She did note that SHRP 
does a lot of recruiting based on its mission; individuals want to come 
to OPM to be part of some of the largest human capital programs in the 
world. In terms of retention, the Associate Director said that the SHRP 
division loses a number of employees to other federal agencies because 
these agencies view the division's employees as potential assets to 
their human capital offices. For example, she said the division's 
classification employees along with those in employee and labor 
relations are highly sought after. She noted that she makes limited use 
of recruitment and retention bonuses because of funding issues, but she 
finds the intern hiring flexibilities useful. 

HCLMSA's Mission Critical Workforce: 

OPM has also been focusing on competency assessments and gap closure 
strategies for its HCLMSA division GS-201 HR specialists, who serve as 
human capital officers and other HR specialists, directly supporting 
the PMA human capital initiative.[Footnote 22] Based on external 
stakeholder input, as well as through internal assessments, HCLMSA 
chose to set a higher proficiency level target for its HR specialists 
in the areas of technical competence and client engagement. For 
example, we have noted that, based on interviews with the federal 
workforce community, OPM needed a greater emphasis on providing 
consultative and technical expertise to its agency customers.[Footnote 
23] HCLMSA's leadership took this type of external feedback into 
consideration when setting the goal to significantly increase the 
percentage of human capital officers and HR specialists who are at 
least at the advanced proficiency level in both the technical 
competence and client engagement competency areas. OPM has recently 
reported that, based on its readministration of the competency 
assessment of HCLMSA's GS-201 employees in June 2007, the division 
surpassed its competency goals in the advanced/expert proficiency 
levels. The division fell short of its goal for the number of HR 
specialists at the intermediate level of proficiency, which OPM 
attributes to an overall attrition in the number of HR specialists. 
Although OPM was able to replace the three human capital officers that 
left during the reporting year, it could only recruit one HR specialist 
to replace the four that left. As of June 2007, this represented a net 
loss of three employees with an overall HCLMSA staff reduction of 6 
percent. 

In the HC Plan, HCLMSA also describes additional initiatives and 
actions related to its mission critical workforce planning. It noted 
that recruitment, training, and development efforts have reduced 
competency gaps that existed in 2004 and described the establishment of 
a training advisory group (TAG) in fiscal year 2005 made up of members 
who represent each mission critical role in HCLMSA. In 2007 and beyond, 
HCLMSA, with TAG's assistance, plans to continue to provide staff 
development opportunities to ensure employees in mission critical roles 
possess all the strategic competencies needed to achieve goals and 
accomplish the mission. 

In an interview on HCLMSA's mission critical workforce, the division's 
Associate Director said the biggest recruitment challenge for HCLMSA is 
finding the right people with the right skills, and the most important 
aspect of retention is maintaining a positive organizational culture. 
He said the HCLMSA division is organized into two almost completely 
separate functions--human capital management and merit systems 
accountability--which require somewhat different skills. He explained 
that the human capital side of HCLMSA faces a conundrum because the 
division loses employees to other agencies, which is good for the 
larger federal human capital community, but difficult for the division. 
On the other hand, he said that because HCLMSA's human capital focus is 
not as technical as the compliance side, when he needs to recruit 
employees, he is able to successfully hire individuals from the private 
sector. The Associate Director said that he sees recruitment as an 
ongoing process, and he believes that an important part of his job is 
to always be recruiting for current or future positions. In terms of 
retention, he noted that a critical component of retention is having a 
good organizational culture, which often depends on better 
communication. 

Gap Closure Plans: 

OPM has a number of gap closure plans in place. For example, to 
specifically address the leadership competency gap in the area of 
interpersonal skills, OPM has instituted a requirement that each 
supervisor, manager, and executive work with their supervisor to 
develop a supervisory training plan. Each individual plan identifies 
mandatory and elective training reflecting the specific needs of the 
individual and addressing any gaps in the target area of interpersonal 
skills. To support the goal of closing the interpersonal skills gap, 
OPM has developed an agencywide supervisory training curriculum that 
includes a mix of classroom and Web-based course such as "Interpersonal 
Skills," "Front Line Leadership," and "Dealing with Poor Performers." 
In addition to agencywide and division-level gap closure plans, the 
position-based succession planning position profiles for each 
executive, manager, and supervisor include an action plan to prepare 
the pool of potential internal successors. Plans may include training, 
professional conferences, developmental assignments, and other 
opportunities. OPM officials said that any profile that indicates that 
a corporate leadership position is at high risk for succession 
management requires an aggressive plan of action to address how the 
agency will reduce the risk rating. 

In addition, OPM recently implemented a pilot program for closing 
potential succession gaps. In early spring of 2007, it launched a 
knowledge transfer pilot in its Office of the Chief Financial Officer 
(OCFO) to formalize the process for capturing institutional knowledge. 
According to OPM, knowledge transfer is a way to capture critical 
information necessary to perform program responsibilities and ensure 
that knowledge is not lost due to personnel changes, such as 
retirements, new work assignments, or temporary absences. The pilot 
process begins with an advance set of questions sent to an interviewee, 
followed by a structured interview on topics such as duties performed 
by the incumbent, the incumbent's internal and external contacts, 
statutory requirements of the work, and required training and skills 
needed. The goal of the interview is to be able to provide the 
incumbent's current supervisor and successor with information necessary 
to continue to carry out work activities. The OCFO is also working on 
incorporating into the pilot a database to track where incumbents' 
important electronic and paper files and records are located. According 
to an OCFO official, while OPM is still evaluating the pilot, it has 
been well received and it is likely that it will be expanded in the 
future. 

OPM Lacks a Well-Documented Process of Evaluation for Some of Its 
Workforce and Succession Planning Efforts, Particularly Its Investment 
in Training and Development: 

We have reported on the importance of evaluating the contribution that 
workforce plans make to strategic results in order to measure the 
effectiveness of an agency's workforce plan and to help ensure that the 
strategies work as intended.[Footnote 24] This involves two activities: 
determining (1) how well the agency implemented its workforce plan and 
(2) the contribution that the implementation made toward achieving 
programmatic goals. For example, a workforce plan can include measures 
that indicate whether the agency executed its hiring, training, or 
retention strategies as intended and achieved the goals for these 
strategies, and how these initiatives changed the workforce's skills 
and competencies. With regard to training and development, which are 
key to each of the OPM gap closure plans we reviewed, we have reported 
that front-end analysis can help ensure that agencies are not 
initiating these efforts in an uncoordinated manner, but rather that 
they are strategically focusing their training efforts on improving 
performance to achieve the agency's goals.[Footnote 25] 

A CHCMS official representing OPM on its workforce and succession 
planning process reported that the agency's plans are largely developed 
at the division level and are periodically evaluated by the ERB and the 
agency director. The official noted that these reviews are informal and 
are not documented or summarized in agency-level status reports. He 
further explained that OPM provides agency-level workforce analysis 
data, such as trends in hiring and turnover, to division heads and 
other top executives at least annually as part of the PMA reporting 
process. In addition, the official noted that, while there is no formal 
process for periodically distributing division-level workforce analysis 
reports, OPM can generate these data on demand and agency leaders and 
division heads can request this information at any time as the need 
arises. However, OPM had difficulty providing us with some of its key 
workforce analysis indicators, which OPM officials explained was 
partially due to technical difficulties with the reporting system. 

Regarding OPM's training and development efforts, in its January 2004 
comments on our report on designing training and development, OPM noted 
that it had increased the role of its CHCO to serve as an advisor to 
the Director on overall employee training and development initiatives 
and programs, as well as the establishment of the agency's training 
budget.[Footnote 26] OPM viewed this move as a strategic approach to 
better position the agency to prioritize its training needs and 
forecast funds to support those needs. OPM has also recognized the 
importance of bringing a perspective to training and development 
activities, particularly with regard to prioritizing among training 
needs and forecasting funds to support those needs. More recently, OPM 
acknowledged the importance of tracking training and development 
investments when it announced a requirement that agencies must begin 
regularly submitting data on the cost and amount of training they 
provide their employees.[Footnote 27] Specifically, OPM now requires 
agencies to report, among other items, the names of employees receiving 
training; the title of the classes; the start and end dates; the 
facility where courses were offered, such as a government agency or 
university; the number of hours; cost; travel costs; and category, such 
as leadership development. An OPM official said that the HCLMSA 
division would monitor data and work with agencies to ensure they are 
using training dollars for succession planning and to fill critical 
skills gaps, as well as to improve performance management. In September 
2006, OPM also issued a guide for collection and management of training 
information that emphasizes that agencies must manage and collect 
training information in support of mission objectives and strategic 
goals and must properly evaluate training to ensure it provides 
meaningful contributions to agency results.[Footnote 28] 

When we asked for management reports or a similar means for OPM's top 
management to track information on training activity, however, CHCMS 
was unable to provide us with this information. OPM's budget office 
provided aggregated annual training expenditures through its accounting 
system, but had no accompanying information on, for example, how many 
employees had received training or the type of training or professional 
development completed. When we requested status reports on training and 
development activity, program completion rates, or other examples of 
indicators of how implementation is progressing, an OPM official 
explained that this was not tracked at the agency level. An OPM 
official explained that while the agency has improved its training and 
development tracking, he anticipates being able to do better in the 
coming year. OPM had expected that its management would be able to use 
the Enterprise Human Resources Initiative (EHRI) data warehouse to 
generate information on training activity and expenditures as early as 
a year ago. While CHCMS had begun tracking training instances for OPM 
employees in its human resources data system by December 2006, OPM was 
dependent on the General Services Administration to build the interface 
to allow transmission of those data to the EHRI data warehouse. The 
interface to allow transmission of the data to EHRI was completed in 
July 2007. 

In addition to gathering data on measures such as participant number 
and program costs, we have reported that agencies also need credible 
information to evaluate how training and development programs affect 
organizational capacity. Agencies should work toward demonstrating 
their training and development programs' value in providing future 
talent by identifying outcome-oriented measures and evaluating the 
extent to which these programs enhance their organizations' 
capacity.[Footnote 29] 

In terms of OPM's allocation of training resources, an OPM budget 
official explained that as a rule of thumb, the agency budgets no more 
than 2 percent of its salary and benefit levels, and that more 
recently, it has held training expenditures to less than 1 percent. He 
further explained that a reallocation of internal funds to OPM's 
retirement systems modernization project resulted in a 5 percent 
decline of agencywide spending on discretionary activities, leaving a 
25 percent cut to the less than 1 percent allocation for fiscal year 
2007 training activities. In addition to other reductions within the 
agency, OPM may make similar cuts to the fiscal year 2008 training 
budget. Although a CHCMS official told us that OPM is increasing its 
use of in-house training and development opportunities such as job 
shadowing and mentoring programs, which he believes can be more 
effective than outside training, we were unable to ascertain OPM's full 
investment in internal training and development programs since the 
budget tracking information does not include indirect costs. As we 
mentioned previously, however, survey results show that OPM employees 
are not satisfied with their training and addressing this concern is a 
focus of OPM's 2006 FHCS action plans. An OPM budget official noted 
that the agency is moving to a strategic budget process. Beginning with 
the fiscal year 2009 budget, OPM is requiring that internal budget 
requests, such as those for training and development and other 
succession management activities, be linked explicitly to OPM's 
agencywide strategic objectives. 

It is also not evident how OPM is able to identify the appropriate 
level of investment in training and development and to optimize funding 
so that it addresses the most important needs first with its 
individual, position-based succession planning. The direct supervisor 
of the incumbent executive, manager, or supervisor completes the 
individual action plans for the training and development of the 
successor candidate pool. Although the ERB provides oversight for this 
process, an OPM official explained that division-level management is 
responsible for making decisions concerning if and how to invest 
resources across most of the training and development needs identified 
in the position profile sheets. 

Conclusions: 

OPM is making progress in addressing issues indicated by the employee 
responses to both the 2004 and 2006 FHCS, with initiatives underway to 
attempt to build a positive and productive work climate in the agency. 
During the past year, OPM has taken positive actions to address 
specific concerns raised by employees and managers in the surveys, such 
as placing more emphasis on information sharing with employees at all 
levels on the strategic goals and objectives of the agency. This should 
help employees and managers enhance individual and organizational 
performance. It is also important to acknowledge that OPM's 2006 FHCS 
results, without the DOD investigative service transfers, would have 
been, in many cases, significantly more positive than in 2004. The 
responses from the investigative services division, however, are an 
area of concern that OPM will need to continue to focus attention on. 

OPM also has strategic workforce and succession management plans in 
place that adhere to selected leading practices, and the agency has 
undertaken several initiatives to address human capital problems 
identified and to build on recognized strengths. As previously noted, 
OPM has implemented an innovative knowledge transfer pilot and is 
launching an agencywide individual development plan program, a 
professional development program, and supervisory training plans that 
include a curriculum intended to improve interpersonal skills, 
performance management, and other key competencies needed for a 
successful management environment. With its new approach to strategic 
budgeting for fiscal year 2009, OPM is also making strides in linking 
budget and program implementation information to its strategic goals, 
to aid its management in making decisions on workforce and succession 
management investments. OPM's CHCMS division also expects to monitor 
training implementation and expenditures more closely as it expands its 
use of the EHRI system in the coming year. 

Even though OPM has acknowledged the importance of an agencywide 
perspective on workforce and succession planning and implementation 
with the establishment of the ERB and by pointing to an increased role 
for its CHCO, the agency has not documented well the coordination of 
some of these division-level activities. In a relatively short time 
there will be a Presidential transition, and well-documented processes 
can help to ensure a seamless transition that builds on the current 
momentum. Without a well-documented process in place for OPM's top 
leadership to review and monitor progress made at the division level, 
there is also a risk that the agencywide approach to strategic human 
capital management could be diminished. For example, OPM lacks 
information on direct and indirect costs of its training and 
development programs. Because these actions are essential to OPM's gap 
closure strategy for its mission critical workforce and succession 
management efforts, it is vital to the success of these efforts that 
the agency invests in training and development wisely. Without an 
agencywide view of how training investments relate to the agency's 
overall mission and strategic objectives, OPM may have difficulty 
understanding reasons for shortfalls in meeting its talent management 
goals and cannot effectively make a business case for prioritizing one 
set of training activities over another, which is increasingly 
important given tightening budget constraints. 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

To help OPM continue down its path of improvement with regard to 
internal capacity for strategic human capital management, we recommend 
that the Director of OPM institute a documented process for OPM's top 
leadership to monitor workforce and succession efforts carried out at 
the division level, to help ensure an agencywide perspective on 
workforce and succession funding, implementation, and evaluation. For 
example, OPM could document and report on how training and development 
budget requests are reviewed by agency's corporate leaders--such as the 
Chief Human Capital Officer or other decision makers in a position to 
identify the appropriate level of investment in training and 
development efforts across divisions--so that funding is prioritized 
according to the greatest needs relative to the agency's overall 
mission and objectives. 

Agency Comments: 

In written comments on a draft of this report, reprinted in appendix 
IV, the Director of OPM agreed with our recommendation and acknowledged 
that its work must sustain and build upon its current momentum in 
addressing strategic and operational human capital challenges. The 
Director also noted that the insights and recommendation provided in 
the report will be useful in shaping both ongoing and planned human 
capital management initiatives within the agency. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Director of OPM and 
appropriate congressional committees. We will also provide copies to 
others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no 
charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, 
please contact me at (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov. Contact points 
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 
found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

J. Christopher Mihm: 

Managing Director, Strategic Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

The objectives of our review were to: 

* determine the extent to which the Office of Personnel Management 
(OPM) has addressed key internal human capital management issues 
identified by examining employee responses to the 2004 and 2006 Federal 
Human Capital Surveys (FHCS) and: 

* determine the extent to which OPM has strategies in place to ensure 
it has the mission critical talent it needs to meet current and future 
strategic goals. 

To address these objectives, we analyzed OPM's 2004 and 2006 FHCS 
results and summaries of its 2005 focus groups related to the key areas 
of leadership, performance culture and accountability, and talent 
management to determine whether OPM has made progress in addressing 
areas of concern from the 2004 survey. We identified these key areas as 
critical for human capital development in order for OPM to continue to 
transform itself to being a more effective leader of governmentwide 
human capital reform. The areas differ slightly from the four Human 
Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework (HCAAF) indices and 
represent a somewhat different grouping of survey items than the 
indices. We also analyzed OPM's 2006 survey results to identify any new 
challenges to OPM's strategic human capital management. In analyzing 
the data, we performed significance tests with corrections for 
multiple, simultaneous comparisons. Not all comparisons of 2004 and 
2006 results were made because some questions were dropped from the 
2004 survey and not included in the 2006 survey. We combined responses 
(for example, strongly agree and agree) to calculate the overall 
positive response of OPM employees, and we combined responses (for 
example, strongly disagree and disagree) to calculate the overall 
negative response of OPM employees. After an examination of documents 
detailing the survey methodology, we found the survey data to be 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

To address our second objective, we obtained key strategic and human 
capital planning documents and analyzed the extent to which OPM adheres 
to selected strategic workforce planning practices and principles 
relevant to OPM's capacity to fulfill its strategic goals. We focused 
primarily on examining Senior Executive Service (SES) positions and 
positions from the two OPM divisions with the most responsibility for 
working with federal departments and agencies to assist them 
effectively with their human capital efforts: the Strategic Human 
Resources Policy (SHRP) and the Human Capital Leadership and Merit 
System Accountability (HCLMSA) divisions. We obtained and analyzed 
strategic, human capital, workforce, succession, and training and 
development plans along with executive performance contracts. We 
reviewed individual succession planning position profile sheets for all 
supervisors, managers, and executives in SHRP and HCLMSA, along with 
all career SES incumbents throughout the agency except those from the 
Office of the Inspector General. 

We also had discussions with and obtained other pertinent documentation 
from OPM officials at their headquarters in Washington, D.C. We 
conducted interviews with key officials at OPM to discuss workforce 
planning and succession planning, and we met with the associate 
directors of SHRP and HCLMSA. In addition, we reviewed OPM's own 
guidance to executive branch agencies such as the HCAAF, along with 
prior GAO work on leading practices in succession and workforce 
planning. The scope of our work did not include independent evaluation 
or verification of the effectiveness of the workforce and succession 
management planning used at OPM, including any performance results that 
OPM attributed to specific practices or aspects of its action plans. 

We conducted our review in Washington, D.C., from December 2006 through 
August 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Selected Survey Questions and Data on the Federal Human 
Capital Survey: 

Table: Selected Survey Questions and Data on the Federal Human Capital 
Survey: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of OPM data. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: OPM Succession Planning Position Profile--Annotated with 
Instructions: 

Figure: OPM Succession Planning Position Profile--Annotated with 
Instructions: 

This figure is a copy of OPM succession planning position profile with 
annotated instructions. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: OPM. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management: 

United States Office Of Personnel Management: 
Washington, DC 20415: 

October 24, 2007: 

The Honorable David Walker: 
Comptroller General: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Walker: 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments in response to the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) draft report entitled Office of 
Personnel Management: Opportunities Exist to Build on Recent Progress 
in Internal Human Capital Capacity (GAO-08-11). 

As reflected in the report, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management 
(OPM) has invested considerable effort in developing and executing 
strategies that help ensure the Agency has the talent needed to meet 
our current and future strategic goals, and those efforts are paying 
off. The advancements we have made in the areas of workforce planning, 
succession planning, alignment of our human capital to mission and 
goals, competency analysis and gap closure, and addressing employee 
concerns raised in the Federal Human Capital Survey results, have 
materially contributed to the Agency's ability to acquire and sustain 
the human capital capacity necessary to deliver our important mission. 

While our progress and accomplishments to date are noteworthy, we 
acknowledge that our work must be ongoing and we must sustain and build 
upon our current momentum in addressing strategic and operational human 
capital challenges. We appreciate the insights and recommendations 
provided in the report, as these will be useful in shaping both ongoing 
and planned human capital management initiatives within the Agency. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Linda M. Springer: 

Director: 

Our mission is to ensure the Federal Government has an effective 
civilian workforce. [hyperlink, http://www.usajobs.gov] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

J. Christopher Mihm, (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report 
were William Doherty, Assistant Director; Ami Ballenger; Laura Miller 
Craig; Judith Kordahl; and Katherine Hudson Walker. In addition, 
Barbara Hills; Donna Miller; Beverly Ross; and John Smale provided key 
assistance. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, Office of Personnel Management: OPM Is Taking Steps to 
Strengthen Its Internal Capacity for Leading Human Capital Reform, GAO-
06-861T (Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2006). 

[2] GAO-06-861T. 

[3] GAO, Office of Personnel Management: Key Lessons Learned to Date 
for Strengthening Capacity to Lead and Implement Human Capital Reforms, 
GAO-07-90 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 19, 2007). 

[4] A positive response is calculated by combining the top two response 
categories, e.g., strongly agree and agree, and a negative response is 
calculated by combining the bottom two response categories, e.g., 
strongly disagree and disagree. 

[5] GAO-06-861T. 

[6] The HCAAF is a framework that OPM has developed to help agencies 
develop and implement effective human capital management systems and 
improve their human capital management practices. The HCAAF fuses 
strategic human capital management to merit system principles and other 
civil service laws, rules, and regulations. 

[7] The Partnership for Public Service and the Institute for Study of 
Public Policy Implementation created a statistical model to transform 
raw FHCS data into specific measures of workplace satisfaction. 

[8] GAO-06-861T. 

[9] The differences calculated before rounding may not match figure 3 
differences. 

[10] The differences calculated before rounding may not match figure 4 
differences. 

[11] GAO-06-861T. 

[12] GAO-06-861T. 

[13] GAO-06-861T. 

[14] The largest field population is in the investigative services 
division. 

[15] GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic 
Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003). 

[16] GAO-04-39. 

[17] OPM's current A Plan for the Strategic Management of OPM's Human 
Capital covers the fiscal years 2006-2007; the Strategic and 
Operational Plan covers 2006-2010; and its most recently published 
Corporate Leadership Succession Management Plan is dated August 2006. 

[18] An OPM official said the 93 profile sheets represent the career 
SES positions from all divisions, except the Office of the Director, 
and the supervisors and managers from HCLMSA and SHRP. 

[19] GAO-04-39. 

[20] According to OPM's HC Plan, mission critical occupations directly 
and substantially impact mission attainment (as defined in OPM's 
strategic and operational goals) and: (1) are difficult to fill, and/or 
require specialized knowledge/skills; (2) have a recognized need for a 
knowledge transfer management plan and/or succession plan; and (3) 
merit targeted resources for recruitment, retention, and knowledge 
management. 

[21] The work of HRM specialists ranges across policy development, 
consultation, and agency outreach, and operational recruitment and 
staffing activities. 

[22] Human capital officers serve as OPM liaisons to each executive 
branch agency. 

[23] GAO-06-861T. 

[24] GAO-04-39. 

[25] GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and 
Development Efforts in the Federal Government, GAO-03-893G (Washington, 
D.C.: July 2003). 

[26] GAO, Human Capital: Selected Agencies' Experiences and Lessons 
Learned in Designing Training and Development Programs, GAO-04-291 
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2004). 

[27] 71 Fed. Reg. 28545, May 17, 2006. 

[28] Office of Personnel Management, Guide for Collection and 
Management of Training Information (Washington, D.C.: September 2006). 

[29] GAO, Human Capital: Selected Agencies Have Opportunities to 
Enhance Existing Succession Planning and Management Efforts, GAO-05-585 
(Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2005). 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

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. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, DC 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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Susan Becker, Acting Manager, BeckerS@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548: