Accessibility Skip to Top Navigation Skip to Main Content Home  |  Change Text Size  |  Contact IRS  |  About IRS  |  Site Map  |  Español  |  Help  

Part 6. Human Resources Management

Chapter 273. Merit System Assessment

Section 1. Policies, Responsibilities and Guidance

6.273.1  Policies, Responsibilities and Guidance

6.273.1.1  (06-01-2002)
Overview

  1. The Merit System Assessment (MSA) Program was established to ensure fairness and equality for employees in Servicewide employment practices and decisions and adherence to Human Resources (HR) laws and regulations that strengthen the concept of merit. The MSA Program monitors and evaluates Servicewide trends and conditions in all HR functions and is applicable to all HR activities throughout the Service. The MSA Program measures Human Resources Management (HRM) performance as it relates to the Service’s strategic mission and objectives.

  2. Failure of the IRS to meet regulatory compliance could result in adjustments and revocations in HRM delegated authorities by the Department of the Treasury or the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

  3. As the Strategic Human Resources (SHR) organization’s independent assessment program, MSA is responsible for all assessment activities that OPM requires of every Federal agency.

6.273.1.2  (06-01-2002)
Types and Elements of a Merit System Assessment

  1. MSA conducts two types of assessments based on corporate needs and customer requests: Personnel Office and Transactional Processing Center (PO/TPC) Self-Assessment and Merit System Assessment.

  2. The PO/TPC Self-Assessment is customer generated with the final report remaining with the customer. The PO/TPC Flowchart (Exhibit 6.273.1-1) illustrates a self-assessment initiated by the Personnel Office or the Transactional Processing Center. The flowchart details key components and assessment methodology for the self-assessment.

  3. The Merit System Assessment is Human Resources Policy Council (HRPC) or Chief Human Resource Officer (CHRO) generated with the final report being submitted to the HRPC or the CHRO as appropriate. The HRPC/CHRO Flowchart (Exhibit 6.273.1-2) illustrates a Merit System Assessment initiated by the HRPC or the CHRO. The flowchart details key components and assessment methodology for a Merit System Assessment conducted by the MSA Team.

  4. The MSA Charter (Exhibit 6.273.1-3) sets the stage for an assessment and serves as a proposal to the HRPC leadership team to seek their support for the assessment. Each assessment will include a detailed Project Charter outlining the purpose, scope, criteria, process, participation, budget, resources, duration, communication, external support, and approval chain for the assessment.

  5. Using Project Management software, a Plan-of-Action and Milestones (POAM) will be developed for every assessment to review the project activities and compare the project progress to the POAM.

  6. Assessment results will be used to share best practices, confirm strengths, and implement improvement opportunities across the Service.

  7. Data analysis of specific IRS organizations or IRS-wide conditions is completed in order to identify potential negative trends or problematic areas such as pay, benefits, and selection.

  8. MSA and Agency-Wide Shared Services (AWSS) will collaborate on HRM assessment topics to avoid unnecessary duplication of assessment effort. This will ensure optimal utilization of resource allocations and timely customer-driven products and services.

  9. Business units will augment, as appropriate, the MSA Team with full or part-time representatives for the duration of the particular program or process under review.

  10. The MSA Framework (Exhibit 6.273.1-4) combines the Merit System Principles (MSP) and the President’s Quality Award (PQA) Program/Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Criteria (MBNQA) into a systematic approach that measures HRM accountability as well as profiles, compares, and measures HRM performance. Specific measurement criteria are customized for each of the nine MSP.

6.273.1.3  (06-01-2002)
References

  1. The MSA Program policy and authority originates from:

    • 5 U.S.C. 302, Delegation of Authority, establishes authority for agencies to take final action on matters pertaining to the employment, direction, and general administration of personnel within an agency.

    • 5 U.S.C. 305, Systemic Agency Review of Operations, prescribes that each agency review systematically the operations of each of its activities, functions, or organization units on a continuing basis.

    • 5 U.S.C. 1104, Delegation of Authority for Personnel Management, establishes authority for OPM to delegate any function vested in the OPM Director to the heads of agencies, who in turn may delegate to "subordinate officials the authority to take final action on matters pertaining to the employment, direction, and general administration of personnel under his agency."

    • 5 U.S.C. 2301, Merit System Principles, outlines the nine Merit System Principles. The Merit System Principles are the guiding principles for managing human resources and are the expected outcomes of good management. The Merit System Principles are the fundamental undergirding of the entire HRM system and are described as the core values that should be expressed in every human resources decision made.

    • 5 U.S.C. 2302, Prohibited Personnel Practices, outlines the twelve Prohibited Personnel Practices. The Prohibited Personnel Practices are those actions that should never occur in HRM and are the results of poor management practices.

    • 5 U.S.C. 3301, Examination, Selection and Placement, establishes authority for the examination, selection, and placement of Federal employees.

    • 5 U.S.C. 3302, Competitive Service Rules, establishes rules for governing the competitive service.

    • Executive Order 12107, December 28, 1978, Civil Service Commission and Labor-Management in the Federal Service, establishes the Office of Personnel Management, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Office of Special Counsel, and the Federal Labor Relations Authority.

    • Executive Order 13197, January 18, 2001, Governmentwide Accountability for Merit System Principles; Workforce Information, directs Office of Personnel Management to review Human Resources Management programs and practices, including whether they are consistent with the Merit System Principles.

    • Office of Personnel Management Human Resources Accountability Guide establishes a HR accountability framework and model for creating and maintaining an HRM accountability system within an organization with particular emphasis on HRM goals and measures.

    • United States General Accounting Office (GAO), Human Capital, A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders, GAO/OCG-00-14G, establishes an agency checklist for self-assessment of human capital.

    • Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 (Public Law 103-62) prescribes that agencies develop multi-year strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual performance reports. GPRA serves to enhance the confidence of the American public in its government by improving the effectiveness of its operations and the public accountability of its agencies.

    • President’s Quality Award (PQA) Program/Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Criteria (MBNQA) establish criteria for implementing and assessing processes for optimal organization performance.

6.273.1.4  (06-01-2002)
Definitions

  1. Strategic Human Resources (SHR). The SHR is a Servicewide organization composed of experts in key HR fields. The role of SHR is to set the overall agency strategy for human resources, align that strategy with the IRS mission, and design high performance HR systems that work effectively within and across all business units.

    Note:

    The following definition applies to the term business units throughout this IRM. They include four operating divisions (Wage and Investment, Small Business/Self-Employed, Large and Mid-Size Business, and Tax Exempt and Government Entities); four functional divisions (National Taxpayer Advocate, Appeals, Criminal Investigation, and Communications and Liaison), and two shared services/support divisions (Agency-Wide Shared Services and Modernization and Information Technology Services).

  2. Chief Human Resource Officer (CHRO). The CHRO provides executive leadership and direction of the SHR organization involving all matters relating to the Service’s employees and oversees the design and development of comprehensive, Servicewide HRM programs that contribute to the Service’s strategic goals and mission. The CHRO chairs the HRPC.

  3. Human Resources Policy Council (HRPC). The HRPC is the principal corporate human resources policy-making body. The Council is expected to provide strategic HR advice to the Commissioner and his senior staff as well as Agencywide policy direction and oversight to the business units.

  4. Merit System Assessment (MSA) Team. The MSA Team, which is comprised of permanent and temporary staff assigned to the Office of Merit System Assessment (MSA), Strategic Human Resources (SHR), is responsible for performing all MSA activities on behalf of the IRS.

  5. Human Resources Management (HRM) Accountability. HRM Accountability consists of decisions, activities, and processes that must meet the basic needs and support the work performance of employees. It is a responsibility shared by top management, line managers, and the HR staff for ensuring that employees are used effectively and in accordance with legal requirements.

  6. HRM Accountability Guide. The HRM Accountability Guide developed by OPM and a task force of agency representatives, provides an accountability framework to use in developing agency accountability systems.

  7. Merit System Principles (MSP). The MSP are nine principles reflecting the values of openness, fairness, and equity as found in 5 U.S.C. 2301 (Exhibit 6.273.1-5). The MSP provide guidance for how managers and supervisors should manage HR. The principles are the expressed values that govern the entire Federal HRM System and must be applied in every HR decision made.

  8. Prohibited Personnel Practices (PPP). The PPP are twelve principles quoted in 5 U.S.C. 2302 (Exhibit 6.273.1-6). The PPP are those actions that should never occur and are the results or outcomes of poor management practices.

  9. President’s Quality Award (PQA) Program. The PQA program is closely aligned with the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) criteria. The PQA program outlines an integrated management improvement process for establishing organization performance goals, setting customer service standards, and measuring progress and results in attaining those goals and standards.

6.273.1.5  (06-01-2002)
Key MSA Program Responsibilities

  1. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue ensures all IRS HR activities conform to applicable laws, regulations, and Department of the Treasury and OPM policy.

  2. The Chief Human Resource Officer establishes the Merit System Assessment Program and periodically reviews and improves the Program.

  3. The Human Resource Policy Council provides strategic HR advice to the Commissioner and Senior Staff and Agencywide HR policy direction and oversight to the business units.

  4. The Director, Merit System Assessment, directs and implements all MSA activities on behalf of the IRS.

  5. The Personnel Offices and Transactional Processing Centers support MSA activities as required, implement actions, and provide on-going implementation status to MSA.

6.273.1.6  (06-01-2002)
OPM Reviews and Oversight Activities

  1. OPM is responsible for enforcing civil service laws, rules, and regulations; promoting an efficient civil service; and assuring a systematic application of the merit system principles in all aspects of personnel management. OPM supports agency efforts to improve HRM systems, operations, and merit system accountability through technical assistance, information dissemination, and demonstration projects.

  2. OPM conducts evaluations, investigations, and policy reviews at the installation, headquarters, and Governmentwide levels to assure compliance with civil service laws, rules and regulations, and merit system principles.

  3. IRS officials will coordinate their responses to OPM reports with MSA.

6.273.1.7  (06-01-2002)
MSA Assessment Process

  1. The PQA Program is integrated into the MSA Assessment Process. The PQA criteria provide a structure and a unique assessment logic that is highly structured and systematic. It is rigorous and provides a comprehensive perspective without requiring exhaustive detail.

  2. The assessment process focuses attention on the effectiveness of the methods being used, not on the performance of individuals. In this way, it serves as a powerful vehicle for change and improvement.

  3. A typical assessment examines the efficiency and effectiveness of each of the nine MSP in relation to established performance standards, outputs, or outcomes. Measurement data is analyzed, results are documented, and a rating of "green" , "yellow" , or "red" is applied.

    1. Green — All aspects of the process appear to be functioning adequately and in accordance with goals.

    2. Yellow — Preliminary analysis indicates a minor problem exists and the process may need to be examined if trends persist.

    3. Red — Preliminary analysis indicates a serious need for further examination of the process.

  4. The MSA Process described in 6.273.1.7.1 through 6.273.1.7.3 is a guide for conducting assessments and promoting continuous improvement in the organization. Some of the material (Exhibits 6.273.1-7 through 6.273.1-11, Exhibit 6.273.1-15, and the information in 6.273.1.7.2(1), 6.273.1.7.2(3), 6.273.1.7.2(6), and 6.273.1.7.3(3)) was reprinted from David W. Hutton, From Ba!drige to the Bottom Line, A Road Map for Organizational Change and Improvement (Milwaukee: Quality Press, 2000), with permission from ASQ Quality Press.

6.273.1.7.1  (06-01-2002)
Preparing for the Assessment

  1. Step 1 — The Assessment Process as a Strategy. The PQA criteria provide a powerful tool for understanding how the current management system works. This reveals the connections required between different subsystems and the cause-effect relationship between management methods and organizational performance.

  2. Step 2 — Assessment Process Design.

    1. This process design is illustrated in Exhibit 6.273.1-7.

    2. The comparison between the types of assessments is provided in Exhibit 6.273.1-8.

    3. The advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches are listed in Exhibit 6.273.1-9.

  3. Step 3 — Setting the Stage. Assessment key issues are addressed in Exhibit 6.273.1-10. The major roles and responsibilities of select assessment team members are addressed in Exhibit 6.273.1-11.

6.273.1.7.2  (06-01-2002)
Conducting the Assessment

  1. Step 4 — Engaging the Leaders. For the assessment to be successful, the leadership team must be engaged as full participants in the process.

  2. A sample outline of the briefing contents is provided in Exhibit 6.273.1-12.

  3. If the organization is already familiar with some form of compliance audit, it is natural for employees and managers at all levels to assume that this process is similar. This is not the case, and such reassurance needs to be provided. Some audit vs. assessment warning signals are:

    1. Employees and managers refer to the criterion as "standard" and talk about "compliance" or "conformance."

    2. The scores seem unduly important to people, and the idea keeps recurring that there is a "pass mark."

    3. Employees and managers feel their own performance is being scrutinized, rather than the systems within which they work.

    4. Employees and managers become concerned about the number of opportunities for improvement being identified.

    5. There is a recurring tendency to talk up the strengths and to downplay, minimize, or even conceal problems.

    6. The process is perceived as being "owned" by a third party—and the "auditors," not the organization, determine how the assessment is to be conducted.

    7. Employees and managers seem to be concerned that there will be few choices available at the end regarding what action to take—the report indicates what must be done, rather than providing a framework for deciding what issues to address.

  4. Step 5 — Preparing the Assessment Team. By this time the sponsor and leaders should have made the following key decisions during the leadership training session:

    • Types of people to be assigned to the team.

    • Which leaders are to provide team members from their own divisions.

    • When individuals must be available to start work and the duration of the assignment.

  5. Team training and preparation process requires approximately five days of intense work as illustrated in Exhibit 6.273.1-13.

  6. It is important to be selective and focus on what documentation is really needed. A list of relevant documents and their use include:

    • Strategic plan, operational plan, departmental plan, and policy memoranda are used to examine policy guidance for implementation and examine flow-down of long-term goals into strategies and tactical plans.

    • Personal objectives of the senior leadership team are used to examine alignment of objectives—cross functionally and with the strategic plan.

    • Agenda, minutes, and presentation materials from regular leadership team meetings can be used to gain insight into how the senior leaders operate as a group; information regarding the topics discussed and what information is provided; how decisions are made, communicated, and monitored; how much is strategic vs. tactical vs. operational; and how much is proactive vs. reactive.

    • Employee surveys, analysis, and action plans assist understanding of what the survey covers and how the organization seeks to understand the survey information and to take effective action.

    • Customer surveys, analysis, and action plans serve the same purpose as employee surveys.

    • Reports containing results data, including levels and trends over several years, provide information for evaluating all the results category topics: financial, market, people, customer, and processes.

  7. Step 6 — Data Gathering. Once the assessment team has been trained, the team begins the process of gathering data. This is a vital step in developing a fact-based understanding of what is going on. Data gathering includes:

    • Structured interviews of a cross section of employees at all levels, starting with the leaders.

    • Review of key documents, to complement the information obtained from interviews.

  8. Step 7 — Developing the Assessment Report. The assessment team should determine if they will produce a presentation, a stand-alone report, or both.

  9. The scoring system is an integral part of the criteria and is based upon the evaluation logic: approach x deployment = results. A scoring system and explanation is found in Exhibit 6.273.1-14.

  10. Exhibit 6.273.1-15 provides an example of how to chart individual scores as the team works towards consensus.

  11. Step 8 — Presenting the Assessment Report. The assessment team presents findings (strengths, improvement opportunities, and recommendations) to the appropriate officials.

6.273.1.7.3  (06-01-2002)
Making the Improvements

  1. Step 9 — Developing Improvement Plans. After the assessment report has been presented, the next step is to translate the improvement priorities into action plans. Improvement plans should accomplish a lasting change in the way that something is done, rather than a temporary fix.

  2. Step 10 — Implementation and Follow Through. In order to see the improvement plans through to completion, the organization must have a system to support implementation. One of the keys to successful implementation of any plan is to have a regular, disciplined review process.

  3. Step 11 — Closing the Loop. "Closing the loop" means studying closely the effects of actions so that improvements can be made in the future. The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) is illustrated in Exhibit 6.273.1-16. By closing the loop with the assessment process, leaders can:

    • Verify that the business plans and the improvement plans have been implemented.

    • Study the results these actions produce.

    • Learn from this experience what worked well and what did not.

    • Identify ways to build on what has already been accomplished.

    • Develop plans to achieve further performance gains through incremental improvement or breakthroughs.

Exhibit 6.273.1-1  (06-01-2002)
Personnel Office/Transactional Processing Center (PO/TPC) Flowchart

There is currently no description available for this image. For help with this image, please call the IRS.gov Helpdesk at 1-800-876-1715.
This image is too large to be displayed in the current screen. Please click the link to view the image.
This image is too large to be displayed in the current screen. Please click the link to view the image.

Exhibit 6.273.1-2  (06-01-2002)
Human Resources Policy Council/Chief Human Resource Officer (HRPC/CHRO) Flowchart

This image is too large to be displayed in the current screen. Please click the link to view the image.
This image is too large to be displayed in the current screen. Please click the link to view the image.
This image is too large to be displayed in the current screen. Please click the link to view the image.

Exhibit 6.273.1-3  (06-01-2002)
MSA Sample Charter

This image is too large to be displayed in the current screen. Please click the link to view the image.

Exhibit 6.273.1-4  (06-01-2002)
Merit System Assessment Framework

This image is too large to be displayed in the current screen. Please click the link to view the image.

Exhibit 6.273.1-5  (06-01-2002)
Merit System Principles

As stated in Section 2301(b) of Title 5, United States Code:
(b) Federal personnel management should be implemented consistent with the following merit system principles:

Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an endeavor to achieve a work force from all segments of society, and selection and advancements should be determined solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge, and skills, after fair and open competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity.

All employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel management without regard to political affiliation, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or handicapping condition, and with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional rights.

Equal pay should be provided for work of equal value, with appropriate consideration of both national and local rates paid by employers in the private sector, and appropriate incentives and recognition should be provided for excellence in performance.

All employees should maintain high standards of integrity, conduct, and concern for the public interest.

The Federal work force should be used efficiently and effectively.

Employees should be retained on the basis of the adequacy of their performance, inadequate performance should be corrected, and employees should be separated who cannot or will not improve their performance to meet required standards.

Employees should be provided effective education and training in cases in which such education and training would result in better organizational and individual performance.

Employees should be —

  1. protected against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political purposes, and

  2. prohibited from using their official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or a nomination for election.

Employees should be protected against reprisal for the lawful disclosure of information which the employees reasonably believe evidences —

  1. a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or

  2. mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

Exhibit 6.273.1-6  (06-01-2002)
Prohibited Personnel Practices

As stated in Section 2302 (b) of Title 5, United Sates Code:
(b) Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to such authority —
  (1) discriminate for or against any employee or applicant for employment —
    (a) on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, as prohibited under section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000e-16);
    (b) on the basis of age, as prohibited under sections 12 and 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 USC 631, 633a);
    (c) on the basis of sex, as prohibited under section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 USC 206(d));
    (d) on the basis of handicapping condition, as prohibited under section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC 791); or
    (e) on the basis of marital status or political affiliation, as prohibited under any law, rule, or regulation;
  (2) solicit or consider any recommendation or statement, oral or written, with respect to any individual who requests or is under consideration for any personnel action except as provided under section 3303(f);
  (3) coerce the political activity of any person (including the providing of any political contribution or service), or take any action against any employee or applicant for employment as a reprisal for the refusal of any person to engage in such political activity;
  (4) deceive or willfully obstruct any person with respect to such person’s right to compete for employment;
  (5) influence any person to withdraw from competition for any position for the purpose of improving or injuring the prospects of any other person for employment;
  (6) grant any preference or advantage not authorized by law, rule, or regulation to any employee or applicant for employment (including defining the scope or manner of competition or the requirements for any position) for the purpose of improving or injuring the prospects of any particular person for employment;
  (7) appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position any individual who is a relative (as defined in section 3110(a)(3) of this title) of such employee if such position is in the agency in which such employee is serving as a public official (as defined in section 3110(a)(2) of this title) or over which such employee exercises jurisdiction or control as such an official;
  (8) take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant for employment because of —
    (a) any disclosure of information by an employee or applicant which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences —
      (i) a violation of any law, rule or regulation, or
      (ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety if such a disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law and if such information is not specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs; or
    (b) any disclosure to the Special Counsel, or to the Inspector General of an agency or another employee designated by the head of the agency to receive such disclosures, of information which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences —
      (i) a violation of any law, rule or regulation, or
      (ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety;
  (9) take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, any personnel action against any employee or applicant for employment because of —
    (a) the exercise of any appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule, or regulation;
    (b) testifying for or otherwise lawfully assisting any individual in the exercise of any right referred to in subparagraph (A);
    (c) cooperating with or disclosing information to the Inspector General of an agency, or the Special Counsel, in accordance with applicable provision of law; or
    (d) for refusing to obey an order that would require the individual to violate a law;
  (10) discriminate for or against any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the employee or applicant or the performance of others; except that nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit an agency from taking into account in determining suitability or fitness any conviction of the employee or applicant for any crime under the laws of any State, of the District of Columbia, or of the United States; or
  (11) take or fail to take any other personnel action if the taking of or failure to take such action violates any law, rule, or regulation implementing, or directly concerning, the merit system principles contained in section 2301 of this title.
  (12) knowingly take or fail to take a personnel action or failure to act would violate a statutory or regulatory veterans’ preference requirement.

Exhibit 6.273.1-7  (06-01-2002)
Assessment Process Design

This image is too large to be displayed in the current screen. Please click the link to view the image.

Exhibit 6.273.1-8  (06-01-2002)
Types of Assessments

TYPE ASSESSOR CAPABILITY INDEPENDENCE OF EVALUATION EXTENT OF DATA GATHERING EXTENT OF INTERMEDIATE DOCUMENTATION USE OF CRITERIA (DEPTH)
Mini Internal people with minimal training Self-evaluation only, with facilitator guiding the process but not contributing to the content Little or none: perhaps some pre-work prior to workshop A bullet-point evaluation report produced in real time Minimal depth: high-level criteria headings only
Facilitated Internal people with basic training and some external support Evaluation by internal team with external guidance on the process and the evaluation logic Planned interview process conducted by assessment team A formal feedback report, developed in two steps: drafted during initial team training, then finalized after data gathering is complete Flexible depth: the full criteria are used, "drilling down" more in those areas where there is more substance
Joint Internal team members with basic training, plus one or more experienced external assessors Evaluation by complete team, capturing internal and external perspectives Same as Facilitated Same as Facilitated Same as Facilitated
External Experienced external assessors with some internal support External assessment team separate from internal data gathering team Two-pass process: first pass by internal team to create "application report," second pass by external team to validate A detailed formal "application report" created by the internal team
A formal feedback report created by the external assessment team 		Full depth: the full criteria are used, including all elements

Exhibit 6.273.1-9  (06-01-2002)
Advantages and Disadvantages of Assessment Types

TYPE ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Mini • Quick, inexpensive • Limited depth
  • Simple, accessible • Limited use of data
  • Provided good experiential learning • Limited involvement
  • Can be a starter for more • No external perspective
      • Risk of superficiality, lack of impact
Facilitated • More depth • More effort required
  • More use of data • Limited objectivity, external perspective
  • Less risk • Limited comparisons or insight into best practices used elsewhere
  • Modest cost  
Joint • Greater objectivity and credibility of the report • More effort required
• External comparisons and insights into best practices used elsewhere • Additional time/cost for external assessor(s)
• Greatest learning experience for insiders
• Flexibility regarding depth
External • Greatest objectivity, perspective • Greatest internal effort required
• External comparisons and insights into best practices used elsewhere • More steps, more documentation
• Learning experience for insiders, mainly in creating application report • More elapsed time required
• Most in-depth • Cost of external assessors
• Reliable, comparable scores • Potential loss of ownership and buy-in
• Credibility of an external report    

Exhibit 6.273.1-10  (06-01-2002)
Key Issues

THE KEY ISSUES DESCRIPTION
Purpose • Why are we doing this?
• What specifically should we aim to accomplish?
Scope • What should be the boundaries of an assessment?
Timing • When should it be completed, and when would be the best time to start?
Criteria • What criteria should we use?
Process • What type of assessment process should be used?
• What are potential political, legal, financial and/or technical issues, which may impact the assessment?
Participation • Who should be involved, and in what roles?
Budget, Resources, and Duration • What will it cost (including both direct and indirect costs), and how long will it take?
Communication • When and how should we tell our employees, and what are the key messages for them?
External Support • What type of help will we need from outsiders?
Approval • How can I gain the support of the leadership team for this proposal?

Exhibit 6.273.1-11  (06-01-2002)
Roles and Responsibilities

ROLES RESPONSIBILITIES
Assessment Process Sponsor The Process Sponsor facilitates research and analysis each fiscal year to establish "trends baseline." The baseline prioritizes improvement opportunities to review. The Process Sponsor is typically someone who has a passion to improve the organization and is therefore acting as a change agent, either at the request of the senior leader or on their own initiative. (Director, MSA)
Assessment Process Expert When embarking on an exercise like this, it is a great help to have someone available who already knows the ropes. We will call this individual the assessment process expert — someone with solid experience who knows how to make the process work in a variety of situations and how to deal with the typical problems that are likely to arise. (MSA Team Members)
Assessment Senior Leader It is best to ensure the support of the Senior Leader at an early stage, and certainly before arranging the executive briefing workshop. The Senior Leader needs to visibly lend his or her support, and thus help build a shared commitment within the leadership team; ensure that there is adequate communication to employees about the purpose and nature of the exercise and its importance; and maintain a sense of urgency once the improvement plans are developed and ensure that there is follow-through. (TBD for each assessment)

Exhibit 6.273.1-12  (06-01-2002)
Briefing Contents

OBJECTIVE BRIEFING CONTENTS
Introducing the Assessment Process • Purpose
• Benefits
• Basic flow
• Key success factors
Introducing the Assessment Criteria • Management principles
• Framework of the criteria
Using the Criteria to Perform Some Self-Assessment • A category close to the heart of the leaders
Presenting the Assessment Plan • Identify key decision areas
Confirming the Next Steps • Define the next steps, especially those that involve the leaders
• Proposed criteria for selecting the assessment team members

Exhibit 6.273.1-13  (06-01-2002)
Team Training/Preparation

TEAM
TRAINING/PREPARATION 		FOCUS
Initial Team Training • Team roles and responsibilities
• Criteria, assessment process, scoring
• Interview techniques
Preliminary Data Gathering • Initial data gathering
• Identification of where additional information may need to be obtained
Planning the Data Gathering Process • Development of plan-of action timeline
• Team assignment to specific areas
• Identification of data collection methods

Exhibit 6.273.1-14  (06-01-2002)
Scoring System

SCORE APPROACH/DEPLOYMENT
0% • No systematic approach evident; anecdotal information
10 to 20% • Beginning of a systematic approach to the basic purposes of the item
• Major gaps exist in deployment that would inhibit progress in achieving the basic purposes of the item
• Early stages of the transition from reacting to problems to a general improvement orientation
30 to 40% • An effective, systematic approach, responsive to the basic purposes of the item
• Approach is deployed, although some areas or work units are in the early stages of deployment
• Beginning of a systematic approach to evaluation and improvement of basic item processes
50 to 60% • An effective, systematic approach, responsive to the overall purposes of the item
• Approach is well deployed, although deployment may vary in some areas or work units
• A fact-based, systematic evaluation and improvement process is in place for basic item processes
• Approach is aligned with basic organizational needs identified in the other criteria categories
70 to 80% • An effective, systematic approach, responsive to the multiple requirements of the item
• Approach is well-deployed, with no significant gaps
• A fact-based, systematic evaluation and improvement process and organizational learning/sharing are key management tools; clear evidence of refinement and improved integration as a result of organizational-level analysis and sharing
• Approach is well-integrated with organizational needs identified in the other criteria categories
90 to 100% • An effective, systematic approach, fully responsive to all the requirements of the item
• Approach is fully deployed without significant weaknesses or gaps in any areas or work units
• A very strong, fact-based, systematic evaluation and improvement process and extensive organizational learning/sharing are key management tools; strong refinement and integration, backed by excellent organizational-level analysis and sharing
• Approach is fully integrated with organizational needs identified in the other criteria categories

Exhibit 6.273.1-15  (06-01-2002)
Consensus Scoring

5.1a The System for Work Systems Design
  0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1st round   x xx xxx xx            
2nd round     xxx xxxx x            
Consensus       30              
a. A scoring system, which is designed to place most organizations at the 10 to 30 percent range, to differentiate high performers.
b. An indication that 50 percent is a very good score, indicating that an organization is on track to become world class.
c. An indication that a score in the 10 to 30 percent band means that many good practices may exist, but these have not been made systematic in a way that allows them to be managed, sustained over time, and fine-tuned.
d. An indication that a low score doesn't mean that the organization cannot be successful — but it will need a lot of work to sustain success in the long run.7

Exhibit 6.273.1-16  (06-01-2002)
Closed-Loop Improvement Cycle

This image is too large to be displayed in the current screen. Please click the link to view the image.

More Internal Revenue Manual