GovernmentExecutive.com

Certainly not precisely the same measures, Marcus, but surely you'd agree that it's too simplistic to say to HQ, "Your job is complete, and you are deemed successful, when the rule is promulgated." What about how easy or hard it is for the field doers to actually implement the rule? How well does the rule cover the range of circumstances and conditions the doers encounter in putting it to work? etc. etc. And BOTH thinkers and doers should share accountability for the ultimate impact and effectiveness of said rule -- recognizing that often takes a while to determine, and other actors can play a big role in whether it works or not. Complicated stuff to sort out, no doubt, but hey that's why you get the big bucks :)

Skepticus  | Thursday, April 10, 2008 |  09:10 PM

---

Yes, the name is offal. He's very sheepish about it.

Marcus  | Thursday, April 10, 2008 |  04:48 PM

---

"Haggis"? ...what an offal name for a dog!

one of the "eaters"  | Thursday, April 10, 2008 |  04:12 PM

---

Yes, Skepticus, you have put your foot right in it. Lets say we've got a few hundred people responsible for writing rules to protect water quality and then another few hundred people responsible for implementing these rules in the field. Should the rule writers be held accountable using the same performance measures as the rule implementers?

Marcus  | Thursday, April 10, 2008 |  03:27 PM

---

Ok, I'll bite (sorry, couldn't resist). Sounds as if Mr. Peacock is using an amusing anecdote to rationalize allowing HQ elements to be held accountable only for activities (processes) instead of accomplishments (outcomes). But policies and programs should lead to results too, right? Not just documents generated, meetings held, milestones met, donuts consumed, etc. The field staff are the "doers," so let's hold their feet to the fire. But we here in DC are the "thinkers" -- process is our product! Might that phrase... ring a bell?

Skepticus  | Wednesday, April 09, 2008 |  06:39 PM

---