Claunch.cathy
- 1. Cathy Claunch Sid Schmidt PM Challenge February, 2011
- 2. Need to balance Agency portfolio within tight budgets ◦ Successful Programs ◦ Robust Institutional Base Are they really competing priorities? Is a competitive environment healthy? Can the Agency succeed with one or the other? 2
- 3. 11/12/2010 report from the Inspector General listed “Infrastructure and Facilities Management” as a top Agency challenge. “NASA is the ninth largest Federal Government property holder, controlling a network of approximately 5,400 buildings and structures that support Agency research, development, and flight activities. NASA’s ability to effectively manage the necessary maintenance and renovation of this large and aging portfolio of facilities is a critical challenge facing the Agency.” 3
- 4. Can the budget process help bridge the apparent competition for scarce resources? What is the content of these two budgets? What activities are underway to improve these efforts? How are these two entities linked? Can the synergy be improved? 4
- 6. Lengthy budget formulation process Small window of time for integration of program and institution budgets 6
- 7. Appropriation Process Takes ~18 Months M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J/J A S O FY11 Execution FY12 Execution 18 MONTHS Start PPBE-13 FY13 Appropriation • Final budget ~March 2011 PRESIDENT approval • Budget message to Congress CONGRESS • Budget Resolution • Authorization Acts OMB • Appropriation Acts Review and integrate agency recommendations Markup and OMB reclama process • Midyear update / Secure final sequester report determinations by • Apportionment of President appropriated funds AGENCIES • Operating Plans Internal determination of requirements • Implementation of AGENCIES and authorities program Formation of budget recommendations • Obligations • Costs • Outlays 7
- 8. Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Agency Budget Final Budget Leadership Governance/Decisions Reviews Decisions President’s Agency Budget Request Request to OMB Issues Issues Agency Budgets Book Book Decisions Amended HQ Office of the Chief Financial Officer Update Made as Necessary Agency Program Program & Guidance Budgets Center Submitted Budgets Program Integrated Budget Mission Directorates Reviews Program Guidance Work actions as necessary based on decisions Programs/Projects & Centers Budget Development 8
- 10. Agency budget is understandably mission oriented Center institutional component of budget ◦ Relatively small ◦ More than “overhead” 10
- 11. NASA FY10 Budget by Theme 11
- 12. FY10 Cross-Agency Support Budget 12
- 13. FY10 Center M&O Budget Science & Engineering Institutional Engineering Technical $244M, 51% Programmatic Center Investments Authority $1,679 Ensure core science $483 $65M, 13% $122M, 25% 78% and engineering 22% Independent Research & Engineering Leadership SMA Technicalare capabilities Development Authority & $52M, 11% to support available Bid and Proposal Chief Program/Project Safety and Mission at program activities Engineers a Center Assurance Support 13 13
- 14. FY10 CMO Institutional Budget Center Director Center Multi-Media Support Equal Opportunity & Diversity Other Center Management Strategic Communications Chief Counsel Procurement Human Resources Financial Management Occupational Health Logistics Utilities Operations Inactive Buildings & Structures Roads & Grounds Maintenance Scheduled (proactive) Maintenance Unscheduled (reactive) Maintenance New Capability Other Facilities Services 14 Facility Management
- 16. Profiles Vary Widely By Center FY 2004 Center G&A – with CoF • Focus on budget year knowing that out-year budgets could be adjusted in FY 2005 Center G&A – no CoF next cycle • Some Centers anticipating reduced workforce FY 2006 Center G&A Profiles Vary Widely By Center CMO - Center G&A, FY 2007 Facilities & IT Service Pools, Eng & SMA Existing G&A Out-yr budgets Technical Authority transferred to CMO as fixed budget FY 2008 CMO – Added Indirect portion of remaining Service Pools Profiles Consistent Across Agency • Reallocated budget among FY 2009 CMO Centers •Reallocated some funds (FY09) from Corporate G&A 16
- 17. During recent years, the institutional budget portfolio has seen several process changes all seeking to improve efficiencies ◦ Baseline Services Level Review ◦ Institutional Gap Review ◦ Corporate Portfolio Management Review 17
- 18. Goal: ◦ Define content of Center Management & Ops budget for ease of explanation to stakeholders ◦ Minimize or eliminate the variation in service levels provided across the Agency ◦ Minimize or eliminate variation in charging practices Conclusions ◦ City Management functions – goals met ◦ Technical Capability functions – more work to be done 18
- 19. Began as review of facilities require decision as Shuttle Program ended ◦ Continue operations – fund with next Program with requirement? Mothball – until needed by future Program? Abandon – not needed in foreseeable future? Acknowledges need to maintain minimum critical skills for the Agency during a changing environment Review of all facilities and technical capabilities – focus is Human Spaceflight (ESMD/SOMD) ◦ What will be needed by future programs? Excellent example of ongoing debate that links infrastructure, capabilities, and Programmatic requirements 19
- 20. NASA Agency management proposed that a process be instituted to manage Agency strategic capabilities as corporate portfolios ◦ Study underway ◦ Promotes increased collaboration across NASA 20
- 22. Mission Directorate example Center example Civil Service budgeting 22
- 24. A healthy institutional base enables Programmatic success Tension between two competing budget entities can be healthy – if kept in check Real-life budget pressures require both to be efficiently managed 24