|
| |
January 18, 2000 Budget Analyst Opinion: Workloads
 | With the upcoming release of the Federal budget request, oversight hearings, and the
generally hectic nature of an election year in Washington, the question of what work
demands (and the nature of these demands) face budget analysts is timely. There will
undoubtedly be many demands on the time, skills, and ingenuity of budget and program
analysts, budget officers, and other staff working on budget execution and formulation.
These demands can be overwhelming and excessive. Is there
anything that can be done to avoid being overwhelmed and overstressed? What drives
the workloads that budget analysts face? What can be done about it? |
| First, what drives the elements of the process that make it stressful? Many
things, including:
 | The nature of the work itself, given the budget process and its time demands. This
is coupled with the intrinsic complexity of much of the work on budget analysis and the
time-consuming research and analysis involved.
 | It is well recognized that budget work places stringent demands on
those who work in the process. According to the Federal Office of Personnel
Management's (OPM) classification standards for budget analysis, "For all positions
in this series the work is characterized by tight time frames and rigid deadlines, i.e., a
set of actionable events and milestones in the budget process." (http://www.opm.gov/fedclass/html/gsseries.htm#0500) |
| Any work that must be completed within "rigid deadlines" is bound to be stressful
if done well - and even more stressful if it cannot be done well. A review
of the process as outlined in this site (process) will
illustrate what is meant by this - much must be done in a short time. |
|
| Multiple simultaneous demands that may be mutually exclusive.
Budget people tend to work multiple processes at the same time. Budget
formulation for one year overlaps budget execution for other years, while additional
demands are placed on these people for whatever may come up that can be best handled by
those who know about the programs, the organization, and who know how to get things done,
i.e., the budget people.
| In addition to actual work performance demands that may be contradictory, there is the
simple fact that budgeting is ultimately about allocating, or rationing, scarce resources,
and not everyone can be kept happy all the time. |
| There are losers, some who are sore, and the people who do budget work
have to face them on a daily basis. And losers tend to have longer memories than
winners. |
|
| To compound the problem, in the Federal establishment there is pressure to cut
down the numbers of people doing budget work. The former National
Performance Review (NPR) identified budget positions as being in excess in the Federal
establishment. This at the time when the NPR itself dramatically increased the
amount of work expected from these staffs. (This is evidence of what I have known
for some time - much of the Federal managerial establishment knows little of what it takes
to do budget work.) More work with less people, achieve more with less.
Familiar, but sadly not possible when the process does not change. |
|
| All this sounds like a recipe for insanity. But the work must be
fulfilling for many since someone gets most of the work done (albeit with some problems,
as evidenced by the constant criticism of agencies for "waste" and for failure
to develop appropriate performance measures). And the Bureau of Labor Statistics
projects that through 2010 the increase in people
working as budget analysts will be about as fast as the average for all
occupations (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos003.htm).
There must be something positive in the work. Some people learn to
like it. |
| So how do people succeed, personally and professionally, in a system with so
many negative characteristics? Neither you nor I can change the process
drivers. The only advice I can give is related to personal control and, for some,
survival. If you are working in a good organization with strong, knowledgeable
leadership and senior analysts who can help you, this advice may not be needed. But
most of you probably do not work in an ideal environment. Then, you should:
| Be prepared. Control the process to the extent you can by knowing
what will come up and planning for it (this site should help you in this)
and setting priorities. Be ready for the obvious analysis or justification document.
Know the process and know what will be required next by
your own agency. If you need help in planning and setting priorities, you may also
want to review my careers page, especially the section on
organization. |
| Develop and have in place systems for fulfilling requirements. Keep track of
recurring requirements and set up systems for developing what is required. Use
information management tools as much as you can. Stay one step ahead of the
higher levels of the organization by using technology; you will feel better and have some
control over your destiny. (You may want to read what I have to say about technology in this regard.) |
| Don't let managers ignorant of the process bully you. If you are confident enough
of your position, or have an exit plan, let them not follow your advise. Let them
fail. They will learn, or they may get fired. Either way, you will have done
humanity a favor. |
| If you think that you will be successfully blamed for failure, make sure you do the
essentials that must be done for the organization to survive in the process and document
what you did. Make sure that others are aware of your accomplishments. Take
steps to leave. (If this is your situation, you should definitely study my careers page.) |
|
| I hope these thoughts are helpful to you, and that the process does not turn out as I
envision it. But if the process for you is better than I imagine, you will have lost
nothing by being prepared. And if the process has been a nightmare for you, being
prepared will help alleviate it. |
|
