March 10, 2015
Risk Management Panel Discussions
Census Bureau offers primer on enterprise risk management
Nancy Potok speaks with Emily Kopp at Consortium for Advanced Management-International in Alexandria, Virginia.
You can listen to the full audio here Federal News Radio
February 7, 2011
Consortium for Advanced Management-International (CAM-I) publishes Performance Management Maturity Framework
Framework promises to help organizations identify where they are and what they need to do to improve performance
(Austin, Texas) In a bid to help organizations identify concrete steps to improve performance, the Performance Management Interest Group of the Consortium for Advanced Management-International (CAM-I) recognized the need to develop a standardized and integrated view of performance management. The interest group has just published the Performance Management Maturity Framework to help organizations to assess their level of performance management maturity and indentify concrete improvement steps.
“Organizations need a roadmap to identify gaps in their performance management maturity.” said Ward Melhuish, Principal at Grant Thornton Global Public Sector and head of its Organizational Improvement Practice. “This framework is the most comprehensive roadmap of its kind and can help any organization identify how to close these gaps.”
The Performance Management Maturity Framework:
1) Defines enablers that all organizations use to deliver successful results;
2) Classifies the evolving maturity of enablers over four levels;
3) Identifies categories of proven improvement techniques that can be used to achieve higher levels of performance management maturity; and
4) Recognizes that an organization’s capacity to change should be addressed prior to implementing improvement initiatives.
The framework can be used as an assessment tool to identify an organization’s current and desired level of maturity, from rudimentary to adaptive. For example, for human capital management, an organization assessed as “rudimentary” would typically have only core human capital processes and no sophisticated recruitment and career development practices. An “adaptive” maturity level, on the other hand, fully aligns individual performance with organization strategies. To get the organization from rudimentary to adaptive, Benchmarking, Business Process Re-Engineering, and Capacity Management are techniques identified in the framework to improve their human capital management maturity.
"The high level of accolades and interest that we have received since first releasing the PMMF publication is very encouraging and validates the significant effort that has gone toward the breakthrough research in this area," said
Derek Sandison, Performance Management Subject Matter Expert, Decimal Technologies
The Performance Management Maturity Framework can be applied in both public and private sector organizations. In the private sector, the framework can be used to find ways to enhance all aspects of business results ultimately improving financial results. In the public sector, the framework can enhance the outcomes achieved for tax dollars spent. The Performance Management Maturity Framework can specifically address new federal government performance management requirements found in the Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010, signed by President Obama on January 4, 2011.
Founded in 1972, CAM-I is the leading forum for realizing practical, proven management solutions, methods and tools to advance the way organizations manage their business. This international consortium of industry, government, and research organizations works together to develop the mechanisms that leaders need to more effectively address critical management issues.
August 23, 2010
Consortium for Advanced Management International (CAM-I)
Helps Organizations Save by Encouraging Early Analysis of Costs and Greater Collaboration with Suppliers
The CAM-I Target Costing Best Practice Interest Group conducted a study on involving Operations and Support (O&S) suppliers as partners in the product design process when the O&S cost of the product represents a significant component of the product’s life cycle cost. A literature search was conducted to discover recent, relevant research on the subject, and a summary of this research is presented. Interviews were conducted with several companies representing a spectrum of industries to explore preliminary identified issues, and to collect related current practices. Four major topic areas were studied: (1) Supplier Involvement and Engagement, (2) Contractual Issues, (3) Setting and Accepting O&S Cost Targets, and (4) Managing Risk and Uncertainty. Key challenges include data unfamiliarity, unavailability, and poor quality; lack of contractual incentives and missing protective terms and conditions; lack of supplier participation in developing cost targets, lack of credibility of the cost targets, lack of attention paid to the importance of the cost target, unwillingness to adhere to the cost target, and organizational impediments; exposure to operational and estimate risk (on operational decisions) in O&S estimates.