At the present time, no federal  department has a COO/CMO-type position with all these characteristics. Nevertheless, a number of criteria  can be used to determine the type of COO/CMO position for an agency. These criteria are the agency’s    history of organizational performance, such as the existence of long- standing management weaknesses and the failure rates of major projects  or initiatives;   degree of organizational change needed, such as the status of ongoing  major transformational efforts and the challenge of reorganizing and  integrating disparate organizational units or cultures;   nature and complexity of mission, such as the range, risk, and scope of  the agency’s mission;   organizational size and structure, such as the number of employees,  geographic dispersion of field offices, number of management layers,  types of reporting relationships, and degree of centralization of decision  making; and   current leadership talent and focus, such as the extent of knowledge  and the level of focus of the agency’s managers on management functions  and change initiatives, and the number of political appointees in key  positions. Based on  these criteria, there could be several types of COO/CMO positions,  including the following:    The existing deputy position could carry out the integration and business  transformation role. This type of COO/CMO might be appropriate in a  relatively stable or small organization. A second deputy position could be created to bring strong focus to the  integration and business transformation of the agency, while the other  deputy position would be responsible for leading the operational policy  and mission-related functions of the agency. For a large and complex  organization undergoing a significant transformation to reform long- standing management problems, this might be the most appropriate type  of COO/CMO. To address long-standing management and business transformation  problems, we have long advocated that DOD and DHS could benefit from a  senior-level COO/CMO position, with a term appointment of at least 5 to 7  years, and a performance agreement. In fact, consensus exists among GAO’s work  and other studies (e.g. Strategies for Implementing COO/CMO Positions at Federal Agencies

Once the type of COO/CMO is determined, the following six key strategies  can be useful in implementing COO/CMO positions in federal agencies,  including making sure that the COO/CMO has a sufficiently high level of  authority and continuity in the position:  Define the specific roles and responsibilities of the COO/CMO  position. agencies.) We are suggesting that Congress consider the  criteria and strategies that I have discussed today as it continues to  develop and review legislative proposals for the appropriate type of  COO/CMO positions for all major federal agencies, recognizing that the  implementation of any approach should be determined within the context  of the specific facts and circumstances that relate to each agency.
Why GAO Did This Study

As agencies across the federal government embark on large-scale organizational change needed to address 21st century challenges, there is a compelling need for leadership to provide the continuing, focused attention essential to completing these multiyear business-related transformations. At the same time, many agencies are suffering from a range of long-standing management problems that are undermining their ability to accomplish their missions and achieve results. One proposed approach to address these challenges is to have COO/ CMO positions in federal agencies. This statement is mostly drawn from GAO's report released today (GAO-08-34) that discusses criteria that can be used to determine the type of COO/CMO that ought to be established in federal agencies and strategies for implementing these positions. To do this, GAO reviewed four organizations with COO/CMO-type positions and convened a forum. GAO also discusses previous GAO work on DOD and DHS. GAO's report recommends that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), working with the President's Management Council use the identified criteria when assessing the type of COO/CMO positions appropriate for federal agencies and the strategies for implementing these positions. Also, GAO suggests that Congress consider these criteria and strategies as it develops and reviews legislative proposals for these positions.

What GAO Found

GAO has long advocated that the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could benefit from a full-time and senior-level chief operating officer (COO)/chief management officer (CMO) position, with a term appointment of at least 5 to 7 years, and a performance agreement. In fact, every federal agency can benefit from a senior leader acting as a COO/CMO. While the type of COO/CMO may vary depending on the characteristics of the organization, a number of criteria can be used to determine the appropriate type of COO/CMO position in a federal agency. These criteria include the history of organizational performance, degree of organizational change needed, nature and complexity of mission, organizational size and structure, and current leadership talent and focus. For example, the existing deputy position could carry out the integration and business transformation role--this type of COO/CMO might be appropriate in a relatively stable or small organization. Or, a second deputy position could be created to bring strong focus to the integration and business transformation of the agency. This might be the most appropriate type of COO/CMO for a large and complex organization undergoing a significant transformation to reform long-standing management problems. GAO identified six key strategies that agencies can follow in implementing COO/CMO positions in federal agencies. However, the implementation of any one approach should be determined within the context of the agency's specific facts and circumstances.