Program Management, and 4. Program Results. Points were awarded to a program based on the answer to each question, and an overall rating of effectiveness was then assigned. The last year of OMB's use of the PART was , as the tool was then dropped by the Obama Administration and replaced with a new emphasis on using performance information to manage programs, to address a shortcoming that had been a concern of OMB and others for several years.
This new focus on the effective use of performance information in program management was underscored in the enactment of legislation to update the Government Performance and Results Act of , the GPRA Modernization Act of These questions were organized into four sections of the PART that were each assigned a weight for calculating an overall score:.
In addition to the 25 questions on the basic PART instrument, certain types of programs had several additional questions relating to their special characteristics. There were 6 such categories of programs that had their own unique set of additional questions.
The 7 categories of federal programs were:. When a PART was completed for a program, along with each answer there was a brief explanation that included a description of the relevant evidence substantiating the answer. The questions within each section were given equal weight, unless the evaluator decided to alter their weight to emphasize certain key factors of importance to the program.
A Yes answer must be definite and reflect a high standard of performance. Each question requires a clear explanation of the answer and citations of relevant supporting evidence, such as agency performance information, independent evaluations, and financial information. Responses must be evidence-based and not rely on impressions or generalities. However, regardless of the overall score, a rating of Results Not Demonstrated RND was given if the program did not have performance measures that had been agreed-upon by OMB, or if the measures lacked baselines and performance data.
Information and insight on revolutionizing government transparency and accountability. The OAAT is a tool designed to assist Navy program managers in assessing the "openness" of their programs. OAAT 3. Version 3. The supporting materials associated with the OAAT have been updated to reflect these revisions. Changes incorporated into OAAT 3. Major modifications include: a. Streamlining and clarification of the questions and responses; b. Deletion of two questions that were determined to be ineffective; c.
Revisions to question explanations and answers; d. Shift of answer text to selector fields on programmatic tab consistent with technical tab ; and e. Notification flag added to total score screen to indicate score capping. As was the case in OAAT 2. This behavior results from adjustments to the scoring model which were implemented in OAAT 2.
Programs previously assessed using OAAT 2. Changes made to the scoring model are described in detail in Appendix C of the Users Guide. The interactive features of this page are available to you, members of the community, to discuss common issues, share your experiences, and help each other as you learn together how to use the tool and assess your programs.
To report issues with the the tool and make recommendations for changes, please use the feedback process below to help us track each issue to its resolution. We encourage all program managers and Navy contractors to use the tool and submit feedback on their experiences with it, both good and bad, by free form email to navaloa navy.
Clicking on the link below will enable you to download a zip folder containing the OAAT and all of its supporting documents. Please note that you should expect to receive a response from our team, regarding your inquiry, within 2 business days. You may be trying to access this site from a secured browser on the server. Please enable scripts and reload this page.
Turn on more accessible mode. Turn off more accessible mode. Skip Ribbon Commands. Skip to main content. Turn off Animations.
0コメント