Administrative Conference of the United States Needs Better Project Management
GGD-80-13: Published: Feb 4, 1980. Publicly Released: Feb 4, 1980.
- Full Report:
The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) was established in 1964 as an advisory body with the aim of making administrative procedures fairer and more efficient. It has directed its activities toward understanding and improving the administrative process. Generally, ACUS projects tend to be small. Through its research projects ACUS has developed recommendations for administrative improvements and an information base for its other activities.
Many ACUS projects, intended to improve administrative procedures, have not led to recommendations or other tangible results. Even when projects led to recommendations, the feedback on their implementation has been limited. ACUS projects are not planned in a systematic manner. No long-range planning of projects exists to meet established objectives nor is there a council or committee review process to select projects. ACUS documentation of projects is inadequate. Not all project costs are included in project costs reported to Congress. ACUS lacks the staff to comprehensively evaluate all its project recommendations. Attempts to evaluate agency implementation of ACUS recommendations have been limited to independent agencies. In the past, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has served as a focal point to determine whether executive departments are implementing another agency's recommendations and could do so for ACUS, as well. This would permit ACUS staff to clarify and verify agency responses rather than simply request such responses. ACUS has not assessed the impact of implemented recommendations. Such feedback could assist ACUS in planning future projects.
Recommendation for Executive Action
Comments: Please call 202/512-6100 for additional information.
Recommendation: ACUS should: conduct long-range planning of future projects which would include a council or committee review, and consider cosponsorship with other agencies; improve documentation to better account for project costs and schedules; request the Director of OMB to serve as a focal point for determining executive department implementation of ACUS recommendations; and include project evaluations in planning for future projects.