The Department of Energy IG did something similar to my old office, the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations. They criticized us for not having internal controls documentation (https://www.energy.gov/ig/articles/inspection-report-doe-oig-25-26) and plans. Well, it's like, we were busy awarding projects...spending time writing all these policies would have slowed the project work down.
I think that career officials have to design programs with the end goal in mind while also accepting that the GAO and IG are going to criticize them no matter how many guardrails are established. Treat the criticism like you did: an inside joke. Because that's all it really is.
I really appreciate the value of being able to bring folks on quickly. Having hiring processes take a year or longer negatively impacts the mission as well as applicants. Seeing a process that seemed to work well, I have some practical questions. What is the government's rationale for requiring a workforce plan? Why wasn't it possible or helpful to create a workforce plan in this case (time burden aside)? This could help others understand whether or not a plan would be useful or relevant in their situation. How much time was saved by not creating a plan? The piece seems to suggest that you didn't know who you needed, and therefore, the plan would be at best a guess. How did you gain the missing information during the process that allowed you to build the team you needed? Given your success, are you sharing those lessons learned via formal channels to catalyze internal reform?
The centralized hiring tracker stands out as something most agencies should copy. Too often, different teams use their own systems and nobody has a complete picture of where things are stalled. The Excel tracker you describe is smart because it gives everyone transparancy without needing some expensive software rollout. Hiring in 67 days versus the 100 day average is a real acheivement when you're scaling that fast.
Thanks for reading and asking these great questions! Some responses below, which I would caveat upfront by clarifying that I am decidedly not an expert on OPM policy - I can just reflect on my own experience as an operations leader for CHIPS.
What is the government's rationale for requiring a workforce plan?
“Agencies conducting effective workforce planning are prepared to face the difficult challenges of attracting,developing, and retaining a workforce that is competent and capable of addressing new objectives, new technologies, and new mission requirements. Workforce planning is a sound business practice that supports and documents accountability.”
Why wasn't it possible or helpful to create a workforce plan in this case (time burden aside)?
I should clarify that while we didn’t create a specific “workforce plan” that doesn’t mean we weren’t planning at all. Our leadership team members each worked to design the functions they’d need to build and we discussed who was hiring for which kind of roles as a group. I then helped prioritize positions in the pipeline. So to be clear, we weren’t anti-planning – and we were crystal clear about the importance of having the right talent on board as quickly as possible. It’s the specific context of needing to ramp a program as quickly as possible that made getting dinged for not creating a more formal document feel backwards.
I should also note two things: first, it’s not clear to me that such a workforce plan is intended to be created at the program level (versus at the agency or bureau level), and second, no one ever actually told us or asked us to create this specific kind of workforce plan. So it’s not that we were standing on principle.
If we had actually been asked, I am certain we would have found a way to thread the needle and write something responsive to the request, but with enough flexibility to accommodate our evolving program. It would have been a check the box exercise for us, and I’m not sure it would have shielded us from this criticism – so on balance, I believe it would have been a waste of time.
So my overall takeaway remains the same: especially in the context of a start-up, the existence of a document called a “workforce plan” isn’t that meaningful - the real question is whether you have the staff you need to do the job, ready to work when things kick into high gear.
How much time was saved by not creating a plan?
It’s hard to say - if we’d done a check the box exercise, I probably could have spun that up in a week or so, but again that would have served little purpose. If we were running a thorough long-term planning exercise it could have taken months to conduct a fulsome analysis (setting aside whatever kind of approvals we might have needed to obtain).
But it’s important to understand that that only would have been possible once we documented all of our processes to understand the kinds of people we needed at every step of the way. Running a good planning process requires time to create the plan, but it also requires that you understand the work, and we were building in real time.
How did you gain the missing information during the process that allowed you to build the team you needed?
We iterated! Each leadership team member presented to the group what they were envisioning for the types of roles they needed and they largely prioritized for their own teams, while I played a role prioritizing across the organization. We also of course learned over time, as processes were developed, and we identified gaps, we relied on the existing team to pinch hit while we hired up. I understand that’s not the culture of all teams in government, but we were well served by hiring folks who were entrepreneurial and understood the all hands on deck nature of a start up.
Given your success, are you sharing those lessons learned via formal channels to catalyze internal reform?
This series is a part of how we are sharing our lessons learned! We may also create some more formal playbooks to help implementers in the future navigate some of the challenges we faced.
The Department of Energy IG did something similar to my old office, the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations. They criticized us for not having internal controls documentation (https://www.energy.gov/ig/articles/inspection-report-doe-oig-25-26) and plans. Well, it's like, we were busy awarding projects...spending time writing all these policies would have slowed the project work down.
I think that career officials have to design programs with the end goal in mind while also accepting that the GAO and IG are going to criticize them no matter how many guardrails are established. Treat the criticism like you did: an inside joke. Because that's all it really is.
I've been enjoying this series. Well done!
Thanks Keith!
I really appreciate the value of being able to bring folks on quickly. Having hiring processes take a year or longer negatively impacts the mission as well as applicants. Seeing a process that seemed to work well, I have some practical questions. What is the government's rationale for requiring a workforce plan? Why wasn't it possible or helpful to create a workforce plan in this case (time burden aside)? This could help others understand whether or not a plan would be useful or relevant in their situation. How much time was saved by not creating a plan? The piece seems to suggest that you didn't know who you needed, and therefore, the plan would be at best a guess. How did you gain the missing information during the process that allowed you to build the team you needed? Given your success, are you sharing those lessons learned via formal channels to catalyze internal reform?
The centralized hiring tracker stands out as something most agencies should copy. Too often, different teams use their own systems and nobody has a complete picture of where things are stalled. The Excel tracker you describe is smart because it gives everyone transparancy without needing some expensive software rollout. Hiring in 67 days versus the 100 day average is a real acheivement when you're scaling that fast.
Thanks for reading and asking these great questions! Some responses below, which I would caveat upfront by clarifying that I am decidedly not an expert on OPM policy - I can just reflect on my own experience as an operations leader for CHIPS.
What is the government's rationale for requiring a workforce plan?
It’s not entirely clear to me that such a plan is an actual requirement, but rather a suggested best practice. OPM’s rationale from their own guide (https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/human-capital-framework/reference-materials/talent-management/workforce-planning-guide.pdf) is as follows:
“Agencies conducting effective workforce planning are prepared to face the difficult challenges of attracting,developing, and retaining a workforce that is competent and capable of addressing new objectives, new technologies, and new mission requirements. Workforce planning is a sound business practice that supports and documents accountability.”
Why wasn't it possible or helpful to create a workforce plan in this case (time burden aside)?
I should clarify that while we didn’t create a specific “workforce plan” that doesn’t mean we weren’t planning at all. Our leadership team members each worked to design the functions they’d need to build and we discussed who was hiring for which kind of roles as a group. I then helped prioritize positions in the pipeline. So to be clear, we weren’t anti-planning – and we were crystal clear about the importance of having the right talent on board as quickly as possible. It’s the specific context of needing to ramp a program as quickly as possible that made getting dinged for not creating a more formal document feel backwards.
I should also note two things: first, it’s not clear to me that such a workforce plan is intended to be created at the program level (versus at the agency or bureau level), and second, no one ever actually told us or asked us to create this specific kind of workforce plan. So it’s not that we were standing on principle.
If we had actually been asked, I am certain we would have found a way to thread the needle and write something responsive to the request, but with enough flexibility to accommodate our evolving program. It would have been a check the box exercise for us, and I’m not sure it would have shielded us from this criticism – so on balance, I believe it would have been a waste of time.
So my overall takeaway remains the same: especially in the context of a start-up, the existence of a document called a “workforce plan” isn’t that meaningful - the real question is whether you have the staff you need to do the job, ready to work when things kick into high gear.
How much time was saved by not creating a plan?
It’s hard to say - if we’d done a check the box exercise, I probably could have spun that up in a week or so, but again that would have served little purpose. If we were running a thorough long-term planning exercise it could have taken months to conduct a fulsome analysis (setting aside whatever kind of approvals we might have needed to obtain).
But it’s important to understand that that only would have been possible once we documented all of our processes to understand the kinds of people we needed at every step of the way. Running a good planning process requires time to create the plan, but it also requires that you understand the work, and we were building in real time.
How did you gain the missing information during the process that allowed you to build the team you needed?
We iterated! Each leadership team member presented to the group what they were envisioning for the types of roles they needed and they largely prioritized for their own teams, while I played a role prioritizing across the organization. We also of course learned over time, as processes were developed, and we identified gaps, we relied on the existing team to pinch hit while we hired up. I understand that’s not the culture of all teams in government, but we were well served by hiring folks who were entrepreneurial and understood the all hands on deck nature of a start up.
Given your success, are you sharing those lessons learned via formal channels to catalyze internal reform?
This series is a part of how we are sharing our lessons learned! We may also create some more formal playbooks to help implementers in the future navigate some of the challenges we faced.