Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act for Research A Status Report (2001) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3. Communication Issues
3. Communication Issues
Pages 27-34
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 27... ...
For the most part, individual agencies have been left with the task of working out for themselves the best way to interpret such terms as "program activity," "performance indicator," and "program result" within their particular structures. In the absence of detailed, continuing discussions among the creators of the law, oversight bodies, and agencies, the agencies have little guidance on the best ways to apply such terms to existing agency procedures and research programs.
|
From page 28... ...
Oversight Groups The viewpoints of Congress, GAO, OMB, and other entities interested in the implementation of GPRA vary with their specific charges. In general, however, all of them have expressed a desire to know more about: · What procedures the federal agencies use to comply with GPRA; How successful those procedures are; and How the GPRA planning and reporting processes can serve agency missions and the public interest better than is available in the existing documentation.
|
From page 29... ...
For example, oversight representatives would like to be assured that the reviewers of research programs are objective, experienced, and expertagain, a communication issue. Oversight bodies have expressed an inability to see or understand how those qualities are validated by agencies, and they have asked for improved communication about the procedures.
|
From page 30... ...
Agencies should provide brief, clear summaries of the procedures by which they perform expert review, aggregate programs, validate evaluation methods, set research priorities, and include user groups and other members of the public in planning and reporting. That simple step would allow a clearer view of the links between GPRA documents and agencies' internal procedures.
|
From page 31... ...
3.4 Communication Within Agencies One objective of the law is to encourage the integration of program activities and strategic planning. With or without GPRA, in fact, each agency can benefit from reviewing its research programs 31
|
From page 32... ...
3.5 The Issue of Timing Although agency representatives expressed enthusiasm for using the criterion of quality to evaluate research on a regular basis, they voiced concern over the requirement to provide annual reports for their basic research programs. As explained earlier, basic research often does not produce useful results in a single year and must be monitored over several years before outcomes become apparent.
|
From page 33... ...
Management goals and short-term objectives in applied-research programs, where targets are more easily calibrated and predicted, would still be described annually in performance plans and reports. A potential benefit of GPRA is the ability to strengthen agencies' planning procedures by making available the research results of previous years.
|
From page 34... ...
Agencies should also continue their efforts to integrate GPRA planning and evaluation procedures into current agency processes. Specifically, the panel suggests that agencies engaged in basic research make 3-year performance plans and set 3-year performance targets for research goals in their performance plans, rather than targets that refer to particular fiscal years.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.