oversight

IRS' Reorganization: IRS Senior Executives' Views on the Impact of the 1987 Reorganization

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-03-08.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                United   States   General   Accounting   Office
                Report to the Commissioner, Internal              -I
                Revenue Service



March   1990
                IRS’
                REORGANIZATION
                IRS Senior Executives’
                Views on the Impact of
                the 1987
                Reorganization




GAO/GGD-90-45
GAO
                         United States
                         General Accounting  Office
                         Washington, D.C. 20548

                         General   Government   Division

                         B-234512

                         March 81990

                         The Honorable Fred T. Goldberg, Jr.
                         Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service

                         Dear Mr. Goldberg:

                         In the fall of 1988, the General Accounting Office and the Internal Reve-
                         nue Service (IRS) completed a joint general management review of IRS.
                         The resulting GAO report, Managing IRS: Actions Needed to Assure Qual-
                         ity Service in the Future (GAO/GGD-89-1, Oct. 14, 1988), recommended that
                         the Commissioner assess the effectiveness of his 1987 reorganization of
                         top-level positions. In his comments on the report, then Commissioner
                         Gibbs asked us to participate in a follow-up joint assessment of the 1987
                         reorganization.


                         The reorganization’s principal goals were to improve managerial
Background               accountability, communications, and decisionmaking within IRS. Its pri-
                         mary changes included (1) abolishing the positions of Deputy Commis-
                         sioner and Associate Commissioner; (2) creating the positions of Senior
                         Deputy Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner (Operations), and Deputy
                         Commissioner (Planning and Resources); and (3) having Regional Com-
                         missioners and all Assistant Commissioners, except the Assistant Com-
                         missioner (Inspection), report to the new Deputy Commissioners.


                         GAO and IRS agreed to survey IRS senior executives’ perceptions about the
Objectives, Scope, and   effectiveness of this reorganization. GAO and IRS developed a question-
Methodology              naire, pretested it with several IRS executives, and judgmentally selected
                         168 of IRS' top executives to whom the questionnaire was sent. The pri-
                         mary recipients were the Acting Commissioner; the two Deputy Commis-
                         sioners; and all incumbent Regional Commissioners, Assistant
                         Commissioners, Service Center Directors, District Directors, Assistant
                         Regional Commissioners, and Division Directors. Betweeen April and
                         June 1989, we received 139 responses-an 83-percent response rate.
                         GAO maintained full control over the distribution of the questionnaire
                         and the analysis of the results. We did our work from January to August
                         1989 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
                         standards.


                         Overall, IRS senior executives viewed the reorganization’s effect as posi-
Results in Brief         tive but had mixed views about how well it achieved its stated goals.


                         Page1                                         GAO,/GGD9045IRS’ Reorganization
                     5234612                                                             .




                     They believed that it helped organizational communication and decision-
                     making but had little impact on strengthening managerial accountability
                     throughout IRS.

                     IRS executives believed that the reorganization  improved organizational
                     communication. For example, 76 percent of the executives responding
                     said that the new Senior Deputy Commissioner position positively influ-
                     enced the flow of information from the National Office to the field. Since
                     91 percent of IRS’ employees are located in the field, the quality of such
                     communication is extremely important.

                     The executives also said that the reorganization, in general, improved
                     decisionmaking. For example, 79 percent of the respondents said that
                     the new Senior Deputy Commissioner position had a positive effect on
                     IRS’ decisionmaking. Further, 77 percent of the respondents believed
                     that the new Deputy Commissioner (Planning and Resources) position
                     helped improve IRS’ decisions related to its Strategic Business Plan, and
                     90 percent believed that it helped improve the timeliness of selecting
                     executive personnel. However, 27 percent of the executives said that
                     this position had a positive effect on financial management decision-
                     making, and 18 percent said it had a negative effect.

                     IRS executives said that the impact of the reorganization  on IRS’ manage-
                     rial accountability had been less effective. Fifty percent of the respon-
                     dents said that the reorganization had strengthened managerial
                     accountability to a small extent, Fewer than 25 percent believed that the
                     reorganization improved IRS’ ability to hold managers accountable for
                     performance or to establish effective unit performance goals. In addi-
                     tion, over 50 percent of the respondents said that greater accountability
                     was still needed in the critical area of information resources
                     management.


                     In October 1989, IRS created three new positions-Chief     Information
Recent IRS Actions   Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Controller-to   further strengthen
                     managerial accountability. The Chief Information Officer is responsible
                     for strategic technology planning throughout IRS and will serve as a
                     focal point for technology management. The new Chief Financial Officer
                     is responsible for establishing Service-wide financial management stan-
                     dards and goals and, with the Controller, is responsible for an indepen-
                     dent evaluation of the Assistant Commissioners’ financial requests.




                      Page     2                                       GAO/GGD-SO-45   IRS’ Reorganization
                      B-234512




                        provided informal, technical comments on our draft report, and we
Agency Comments       IRS
                      made the suggested changes.

                      Additional background on the reorganization is given in appendix I.
                      Detailed analyses of answers to selected questionnaire items are pro-
                      vided in appendix II. A copy of the questionnaire, with annotations of
                      the 139 responses received, is included in appendix III.




                      As arranged with the Subcommittee, we are sending a copy of this
                      report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Private Retirement Plans and
                      Oversight of the Internal Revenue Service, Committee on Finance,
                      United States Senate.

                      The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. If you
                      have any questions, please call me on 275-8387.

                      Sincerely yours,




                  ’   J. William Gadsby
                      Director, Federal Management Issues




                      Page   3                                      GAO,/GGDSO-45   IRS’ Reorganization
Contents


Letter
Appendix I                                                                                               6
Background on the
1987 Reorganization
Appendix II                                                                                               7
IRS Senior Executives’   Overall
                              Impact
                         Organizational Communication
                                                                                                          7
                                                                                                          7
Views on the Impact      Management Decisionmaking                                                       11
of the 1987              Managerial Accountability                                                       12
Reorganization
Appendix III                                                                                             16
Survey Results
Appendix IV                                                                                              32
Major Contributors to
This Report
Tables                   Table II. 1: Overall Impact of the Reorganization                                7
                         Table 11.2:Impact of the Deputy Commissioner (Planning                          10
                             and Resources) Position on Communication of
                             Resource Plans
                         Table 11.3:Impact of the Deputy Commissioner (Planning                          12
                             and Resources) Position on Agency Decisionmaking
                         Table 11.4:Impact of the Deputy Commissioner                                    12
                             (Operations) Position on Agency Decisionmaking
                         Table 11.5:Impact of the Reorganization on                                      13
                             Accountability-Related Issues
                         Table 11.6:Impact of the Deputy Commissioner                                    14
                             (Operations) Position on Regional Commissioner
                              Accountability
                         Table 11.7:Impact of the Deputy Commissioner (Planning                          14
                              and Resources) Position on Assistant Commissioner
                              Accountability




                         Page   4                                   GAO/GGD9045   IRS   Reorganization
          Contents




          Table 11.8:Extent to Which Accountability for the                                15
              Management of Technology Needs to Be
              Strengthened

Figures   Figure II. 1: Impact of Senior Deputy Commissioner                               8
               Position on Communication Flow to Field
          Figure 11.2:Impact of Deputy Commissioner (Operations)                           9
               Position on Communication Flow to Field
          Figure 11.3:Impact of Deputy Commissioner (Planning                              10
               and Resources) Position on Communication Flow to
               Field
          Figure 11.4:Impact of Senior Deputy Commissioner                                 11
               Position on Agency Decisionmaking
          Figure 11.5:Extent to Which Executives Are More                                  13
               Accountable




          Abbreviations

          IRS        Internal Revenue Service


          Page 5                                      GAO/GGDSO-45   IRS’ Reorganization
Background on the 1987 Reorganization


              The 1987 reorganization was designed to strengthen management
              accountability, enhance organizational communication, and improve
              management decisionmaking. To accomplish these goals, the reorganiza-
              tion created three new top management positions directly below the
              Commissioner: the Senior Deputy Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner
              (Operations), and Deputy Commissioner (Planning and Resources).

              The Senior Deputy Commissioner serves as IRS’ Chief Operating Officer
              and is the top career official in the agency. The Senior Deputy is respon-
              sible for all IRS operations and for assisting and acting for the Commis-
              sioner in planning, directing, and controlling IRS’ policies, programs, and
              activities.

              The two deputy commissioners have direct responsibility and accounta-
              bility for carrying out major segments of IRS’mission. The Deputy Com-
              missioner (Operations) is responsible for program policy development
              and execution matters affecting field operations. This includes supervis-
              ing the Regional Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners who are
              responsible for enforcement, taxpayer service, employee plans and
              exempt organizations, and returns processing.

              The Deputy Commissioner (Planning and Resources) also has substantial
              agencywide responsibilities, including IRS-wide planning and the man-
              agement of human, financial, and information resources. The Deputy
              Commissioner (Planning and Resources) also supervises the Assistant
              Commissioners who are responsible for planning and resources
              activities.




              Page   6                                      GAO/GGD9045   IRS’ Reorganization
App!Wils
-~-          I1


IRS Senior Executives’ Views on the Impact of
the 1987 Reorganization

                                                Overall, IRS senior executives viewed the reorganization’s effect as posi-
                                                tive but had mixed views about how well it achieved its specific goals.
                                                The executives believed that the reorganization improved organizational
                                                communication and decisionmaking but had little impact on strengthen-
                                                ing management accountability, including accountability for the man-
                                                agement of information resources.


Overall Impact                                    helped them provide an overall strategic direction for IRS. As shown in
                                                  table II. 1, 78.7 percent (K = 136)’ believed that the reorganization
                                                  improved IRS’ ability to set a strategic direction. (See app. III, question
                                                  32.) The executives also believed that the reorganization improved their
                                                  ability to communicate their commitment, prepare the agency for the
                                                  future, and solve problems.


Table 11.1:Overall Impact of the Reorganization
                                                                    Improved/                        Worsened/
                                                                       greatly        About the          greatly                            Too early
                                                                     improved             same        worsened        Do not know            to judge
Communicating top management commitment                           -        83.8%            14.7%               .7%            .8%                       0%
Preparing the agency for the future                                        74 3%            18.4%              2.9%           2.2%                     2.2%
Problem solwng                                                              58.0%            33.8%             5.2%           2.2%                       0%
ProwdIng overall strategic directjon to the agency                          78 7%            19 1%             1.5%             7%                       0%
                                                  Note N=136




 Organizational                                   nizational communication, we asked questions focusing on the new
 Communication                                    Senior Deputy Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner (Operations), and
                                                  Deputy Commissioner (Planning and Resources) positions.


 Senior Deputy                                    Given the highly decentralized nature of IRS’ operation (91 percent of
 Commissioner                                     its employees are located in the field), clear and timely communication
                                                  between the headquarters and field is extremely important. As shown in
                                                  figure 11.1,75.7 percent (N = 136) of the executives said that the flow of
                                                  information from the National Office to the field was affected positively



                                                  ‘The letter “S” represents the total number of respondents who answered a given question. This
                                                  number varies depending on the question




                                                     Page   7                                                  GAO/GGD9045       IRS’ Reorganization
                                      Appendix   II
                                      IRS Senior Executives’     Views   on the Impact
                                      of the 1987 Reorganization




                                      or very positively by the establishment of this position. (See app. III,
                                      question 1.)


Figure 11.1:Impact of Senior Deputy
Commissioner    Position on
Communication    Flow to Field




                                                                                         Positive/very positive




                                      NoteN=



Deputy Commissioner                   To direct the activities of the Regional Commissioners and the rest of
                                      IRS' field operations effectively, the new Deputy Commissioner (Opera-
(Operations)                          tions) must establish an effective flow of communication between head-
                                      quarters and the field. As shown in figure 11.2,69.1 percent (N = 136)
                                      said that the position had a positive to very positive impact on the flow
                                      of communication from the National Office to the field. (See app. III,
                                      question 2.)




                                      Page   8                                                  GAO/GGD9O-45      IRS’ Reorganization
                                            Appendix   JII
                                            IRS Senior Executives’     Views   on the Impact
                                            of the 1987 Reorganization




Figure 11.2: Impact of Deputy
Commissioner     (Operations) Position on
Communication     Flow to Field




                                                                                               8.1%
                                                                                               No basis to judge




                                                                                               Positive/very   positive




                                            Note N = 136

                                            One key communication-related activity involving the new Deputy Com-
                                            missioner (Operations) is program coordination. This deputy has respon-
                                            sibility for several interrelated program areas, including examination
                                            and collection activities. A majority of the executives (52.9 percent, N =
                                            138) believed that the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) position had a
                                            positive/very positive effect on coordination among compliance activi-
                                            ties with potentially overlapping programs. (See app. III, question 4.)
                                            Among Regional Commissioners, the Deputy Commissioner (Operations)
                                            position was generally seen as having a positive effect on strengthening
                                            communication between themselves and the Assistant Commissioners
                                            responsible for examination, collection, and returns processing. Four of
                                            six Regional Commissioners said that the effect was positive/very posi-
                                            tive. (See app. III. question 5.)


Deputy Commissioner                         The Deputy Commissioner (Planning and Resources) position also had
                                            important IRS-wide policy communication responsibilities in the areas of
(Planning and Resources)                    planning, budgeting, and information resources management.    As figure



                                            Page   9                                                    GAO/GGD9045       IRS’ Reorganization
                                              AppendixII
                                              IRS Senior Executives’     Views   on the Impact
                                              of the 1987 Reorganization




                                              II.3 shows, 44.5 percent (N = 137) of the executives said that the posi-
                                              tion had a positive/very positive effect on the flow of communication
                                              from the National Office to the field. (See app. III, question 6.)


Figure 11.3: Impact of Deputy
Commissioner     (Planning and Resources)
Position on Communication     Flow to Field
                                                                                                         3.7%
                                                                                                         Negative/very   negative
                                                                                                         No basis to judge




                                                                                                         Positivehety positive




                                                                                                         Had no effect


                                              Note N = 137

                                              We also asked executives what effect establishing the Deputy Commis-
                                              sioner (Planning and Resources) position had on strengthening the com-
                                              munication of three key IRS-wide resource plans throughout IRS.Table
                                              II.2 shows the responses. (See app. III, question 9.)

Table 11.2: Impact of the Deputy
Commissioner (Planning and Resources)                                                                                      Negative/
Position on Communication     of Resource                                                Positive/                               very        No basis to
Plans                                                                                very positive         No effect        negative              judge
                                              Strategic Business Plan                            80.3%            9.5%                .O%                 10.2%
                                              lnformatlon systems plan                           62.1%           21.9%                 7%                 15.3%
                                              Annual budaet                                      40.9%             27%                11%                 13.1%
                                              Note N=137




                                              Page   10                                                         GAO/GGD90-45        IRS’ Reorganization
                                      AppendixII
                                      IRS Senior Executives      Views   on the Impact
                                      of the 1987 Reorganization




                                      Similar to the area of organizational communication, the IRS executives
Management                            recorded their perceptions of the reorganization’s effect on management
Decisionmaking                        decisionmaking by answering questions that focused on the three new
                                      top management positions.


Senior Deputy                         According to the IRSexecutives, the Senior Deputy Commissioner posi-
Commissioner                          tion had a positive effect on the quality of the agency’s decisionmaking.
                                      As shown in figure 11.4,78.8 percent (K = 137) of the respondents said
                                      that the effect had been positive/very positive. (See app. III, question
                                      11.)


Figure 11.4:Impact of Senior Deputy
Commissioner    Position on Agency
Decisionmaking                                                                           Had no effect
                                                                                         1.5%
                                                                                         Negative/very negative
                                                                                         5.1%
                                                                                         No basis to judge




                                                                                         Positive/very positive




                                      Vote h = 137


                                      Because of the highly decentralized nat,ure of IRS’work, the selection of
                                      executive personnel for field operations must be made as efficiently as
                                      possible. Asked to what extent the timeliness of executive selection was
                                      improved by the reorganization, the respondents answered as follows:
                                      90.2 percent (IK = 133) said great/very great, 5.2 percent said moderate.



                                      Page   11                                                  GAO/GGD9045      IRS’ Reorganization
                                               Appendix   II
                                               IRS Senior Executives’     Views   on the Impact
                                               of the 1987 Reorganization




                                               3.8 percent said some/little/none,                  and .8 percent said no basis to judge.
                                               (See app. III, question 14.)


Depu t,y Commissioner                          Table II.3 shows the executives’ views on how the Deputy Commissioner
                                               (Planning and Resources) position affected IRS decisionmaking in certain
(Planning and Resources)                       key activities within this position’s area of responsibility. (See app. III,
                                               question 12.)

Table 11.3: Impact of the Deputy
Commissioner (Planning and Resources)                                                                                    Negative/
Position on Agency Decisionmaking                                                         Positive/                            very          No basis
                                                                                      very positive       No effect       negative           to judge
                                               Strategic Business Plan
                                               development (N = 137)                              77.3%          5.1%            1 5%                  16.1%
                                               lnformatton systems plannrng
                                               (N = 137)                                          47.5%         16.8%           3.6%                   32.1%
                                               Frnancral management
                                               (N = 136)                                          26.5%         34.5%          184%                    20.6%
                                               Formulation of the 1989
                                               budaet (N = 137)                                   343%            27%          15.3%                   23.4%




Deputy Commissioner                            The Deputy Commissioner (Operations) plays an important role in deci-
                                               sions involving the allocation of resources among compliance activities
(Operations)                                   and regions. This deputy also plays a major role in budget execution
                                               decisions, Table II.4 gives the executives’ views on the effect of the Dep-
                                               uty Commissioner (Operations) position on agency decisionmaking in
                                               these key areas. (See app. III, question 13.)


Table 11.4:Impact of the Deputy Commissioner      (Operations)      Position on Agency       Decisionmaking
                                                                                                                         Negative/
                                                                                           Positive/                           very          No basis
                                                                                      very_ positive       No effect      negative           to Judge
Resource allocatron problems among complrance actwrtres                                             35% -~       26.3%          12.4% -           26.3%
Resource allocatron problems among regions                                                        28.5%          27.7%          14.6%             29.2%
                                                              -_____
Budget executron problems                                                                         32.8%            27%             19%             21.2%
                                               Note N=137




Managerial                                     managerial accountability, we focused our questions on overall account-
Accountability                                 ability and on the positions of Deputy Commissioner (Operations) and



                                               Page   12                                                       GAO/GGD90-45     IRS   Reorganization
                                               Appendix   II
                                               IRS Senior Executives’     Views   on the Lmpact
                                               of the 1987 Reorganization




                                                Deputy Commissioner (Planning and Resources). We also asked about
                                                accountability as it relates to information resources management,

                                               Asked to what extent IRSexecutives became more accountable for their
                                               management decisions as a result of the 1987 reorganization, 50.4 per-
                                               cent (N = 137) of the executives responded that such accountability was
                                               affected some, little, or none. (See app. III, question 15.)


Figure 11.5:Extent to Which Executives
Are More Accountable


                                                                                                       Great/very   great




                                                                                                       Someflittletnone

                                                                                                       Moderate




                                                Note N =137


                                                Table II.5 gives the executives’ views on the reorganization’s impact                             on
                                                other aspects of accountability. (See app. III, question 32.)


Table 11.5: lmoact of the Reoraanization   on Accountabilitv-Related        Issues
                                                                      Improved/                        Worsened/
                                                                           greatly       About the         greatly            Do not     Too early
                                                                       improved
                                                                 .~ __--..~--_               same       worsened-.             know       to judge
Holding managers accountable for performance                                   20.6%        .~~62.5%           125%
                                                                                                               -..__              2 9% -15%
ProwdIng effectwe feedback on unit performance                                 21 .3%          62.5%           125%               3 7%             0%
                 -~__.
EstaWshlng effective unit performance goals                                    21.3%           63.2%           10.3%              5 2%             0%
Monltonnq tmt performance against goals                                        19 8%             64%           10 3%              5.2%             7%
                                                 Note N = 136




                                                 Page   13                                                     GAO/GGD90-45     IRS’ Reorganization
                                             Appendix    II
                                             IRS Senior Executives’ Views   on the Impact
                                             of the 1987 Reorganization




Deputy Commissioner                          An important change made by the 1987 reorganization was to make
                                             Regional Commissioners directly accountable to the Deputy Commis-
(Operations)                                 sioner (Operations). Table II.6 presents the executives’ perceptions on
                                             whether the Deputy Commissioner (Operations) position had strength-
                                             ened Regional Commissioner accountability in two key areas. (See app.
                                             III, question 18.)

Table 11.6: Impact of the Deputy
Commissioner     (Operations) Position on                                                                            Negative/
Regional Commissioner       Accountability                                           Positive/                             very         No basis
                                                                                verv- oositive
                                                                                      .             No effect         neaative          to iudae
                                             Resource allocatlon                              38%         29.9%          ” 51%                 27%
                                             Budqet execution                               35.1%         25.5%             13.1%            26.3%
                                             Note N=137



Deputy Commissioner                          Table II.7 gives the executives’ views on the impact of the Deputy Com-
                                             missioner (Planning and Resources) position on Assistant Commissioner
(Planning and Resources)                     accountability in relation to four key activities within that position’s
                                             area of responsibility. (See app. III, question 20.)

Table 11.7:impact of the Deputy
Commissioner    (Planning and Resources)                                                                             Negative/
Position on Assistant Commissioner                                                  Positive/                              very         No basis
Accountability                                                                  very positive       No effect         negative          to judge
                                             Strategic planning (N = 137)                  59.9%                8%             .O%           32.1%
                                             lnformatlon systems planning
                                             CN = 1371                                       46%          117%              2.2%                  40.1%
                                             Human resources
                                             management (N = 136)                            25%          35.3%             4.4% -                35.3%
                                             Financial management (N =
                                             136)                                           26.4%         26.5%              14%                  33 1%




Information Resources                        To ascertain whether the executives felt that accountability for the
                                             management of information technology needed to be strengthened in IRS,
Management                                   we asked questions relating to managerial accountability for key infor-
                                             mation resource management activities. As table II.8 shows, the general
                                             response of those who answered clearly showed that more accountabil-
                                             ity was needed. (See app. III, question 30.)




                                             Page   14                                                   GAO/GGD90-45      IRS   Reorganization
                                            Appendix   II
                                            IRS Senior Executives      Views   on the Impact
                                            of the 1987 Reorganization




~
Table 11.8.Extent to Which Accountability
for the Management of Technology                                                      Great/very                     Some/little/         No basis
Needs to Be Strengthened                                                                    great      Moderate              none         to judge
                                            InformatIon systems planning                      51.5%          22.1%             15.4%             11%
                                            Information systems
                                            develoDment                                        55.2%        17.6%             16.2%                   1 1%
                                            lntroducinq new technoloav                         55.9%          25%               11%                  8 1%
                                            Enhancing managers’
                                            technical expertise                                60.3%        22.8%             10.3%                  6.6%
                                            Note N=136




                                             Page   15                                                      GAO/GGD9O-45      IRS   Reorganization
                                                            U.S.      GENERAL ACCOUNTING           OFFICE

                                                         SURVEY OF 1967               IRS REORGANIZATION




INTRODUCTION

lh.       G.n.r.1          Accounting               Office               .nd       the        pl..~.        indicst.           your       curr.nt            position.
 1nt.rn.1           Revenue          Service           .r.         conducting            .    (CliECK       ONE.)
 joint     .ss.rrm.nt            of th. 1987                r.orp.nizstion.
This       assessment              w.s . r.commandation                       of the          1.   t-1           Ex.cutiv.            Committ..              M.mb.r
 joint      IRS/GAO 9.n.r.l               m.n.p.ment               r.viaw.             An
import.nt             component            of this          .sr.srm.nt            will        2.   1-I           R.pion.1         Conmission.r
 b. the vi.wr            of IRS rcnior               cx8cutiv.s              on the
impact           of    the       raorpaniratlon                  on communic.-                3.   1-I           Assirt.nt            Commissionor
tion,         dccirionmaking,                   .nd           .ccount.bility
within        IRS.       1h.r.       org.nir.tion.1                  irsu.r       wcr.        4.   I -1          S.rvic.         C.nt.r           Dir.ctor
the subj.ct            of      .     pr*liman*ry                 int*rnsl          IRS
study.              The      pr.r.nt           effort           will         provide          5.   r-1           District         Offic.           Director
furth.r          focus     to the bro.d              issues            r.is.d          in
 th.t      study.            Your r.s~ons.s                 will       b. tr..t.d             6.   C-1           Arrirt.nt            R.pion.1          Commissioner
 confid.nti.lly.                 Th.y will           b.       combined            with
 othwr           snd     r.port.d            only         in swnm*~y form.                    7.   c-1           Division         Dir.ctor
Th. qu.stionn.ir.                  1s numb.r.d              to       *id       us in
 our follow-up             offorts         .nd will           not b. us.d to                  8.   1-I           Other        (Specify)
identify           you with        your rpccific                 ras~~nsas.

This     qu.rti.nn.ir*                    should         t.k.  shout      60
mir0ut.r      to       complctc.              If      you h.v.  .ny  qu.s-
tions,      pl..r.        C.11             John         St.hl  on    t2021
634-1953.                                                                                    Now lon9            have        YOU bs.n        in     y.ur       pr.s.nt
                                                                                             position?
Please   return             the comp1.t.d      cw.rtionn.ir.                          in
the onclosed,               pr.-addressed     .nv.lop.       within                     5
dsys of r.c.ipt.                  In the *vent        th.    .nv.lo~.                                            (YEARS)                                (MONTHS)
is misp1.c.d.               th. return    sddrcsr       is:                                              I*-71                                4.4)

        Mr. John St.hl
        U.S. G.n.rsl    Accounting     Office
        441 G Str..t.     N.W..    Room 3858
        W.rhinpton.    D.C.     20546

Th.nk you v.ry               much for           t.kinp          the       time        to
comp1.t. this               w.rtionnsir..




                     Page      16                                                                                          GAO/GGD9@45                     IRS’ Reorganization
                Appendix    III
                Survey   Results




r

    I.   &&.QSMENT       ON IMPACT      OF ORGANIZATIONAL             COt4MUNICATION
    Kmy changes    enected   by the 1987 reorganization          included     the establishment      of a Senior
    Deputy Commissioner,       a Deputy Commissioner        (Operations),       and l Deputy Commissioner
    (Plennzng   end Resources).      UC would like      your views      on how well    the establishment    of
    these offzces      has worked.   This first    set of questions        seeks your opinions       of the
    1987 reorganization's       impact   on organizational       communication.


    1.   In your opinion,   how positive      or negative  en effect   did the establishment     of the
         Senior  Deputy Commissioner     posltion    have on the flow of communication:      a) from the
         Netlone   Office to the field,       end b) among the verious     functions   of the National
         Office?   (CHECK ONE BOX IN EACH ROW.)

                                                     VERY            POSITIVE           HAD NO        NEGATIVE     VERY
                                                     POSITIVE                           EFFECT                     NEGATIVE           ;$I,
                                                                                                                                      JUDGE
                                                          (1)              (2)           (3)            (4)             (5)            (6)
    e.   Flow of communication            from
         the National        Office   to the          16.2%           59.5%             21.3%            .8%            0.0%            2.2%
         field
    b.   Flow of communication
         emong the various          National              2.9%        33.1%             16.2%           0.0%            0.0%          47.8%
         Office   functiprrr
    a.   N = 136             3
                       No answer      = 3            b.N=16


    2.   In your opxnion,         how positive     or negative               en effect  did the establishment       of the
         Deputy Commissioner         (Operotlonsl     position               have on the flow of communication:        a) from
         the Nstlonsl      Office    to the field,     and b)               emong the various  functions      of the National
         OffIce?      (CHECK ONE BOX IN EACH ROW.1


                                                     POSITIVE
                                                                                                                                      JUDGE
                                                                           (2)           (3)            (61             (51            (6)
         the Nstaonal      Office   to the            19.8%           49.3%             19.1%           3.7%            0.0%            8.1%
         field
    b.   Flow of communicetlon
         l tnong the  various     Netionsl                6.6%        23.5%             11.8%           2.9%            0.0%          55.2%
    w                   No answer     = 3            b.    N = 136               No answer      = 3


    3.   To whet extent,        if et all,       do you feel          that         YOU have the        ~CCOSS    that         YOU   need
         to the Deputy        Commlssloner       (Operations)?                   (CHECK ONE.)
         1. I-1      To e vet-y greet       extent
         2. I    1 To P great       extant                       'i:E *.
         3. [=I      To e moderate       extent                  11.7%
         2: t-1      To some extent
              -1     To little    or no extent                   W    *.
         __________________-____________
         6. t-1      Not applicable                              43.8%                 N = 137         No answsr        = 2




                 Page    17                                                                              GAO/GGD9045                 IRS’ Reorganization
                Appendix    III
                Survey   Results




                                                                                                                                                                         1



4.    In Your opinion,    how Positive     OP negative                                        an effect  did the establishment                     of    the
      Deputy Commissionw      (Operations)    position                                        have on tha level  of coordination                        among
      the following    IRS Programs     and operations?                                          (ENTER NUMBER IN SPACE.)
                                                                CAT-
                                      1   =     VERY POSITIVE
                                      2   =     POSITIVE
                                      3   =     HAD NO EFFECT
                                      4   =     NEGATIVE
                                      5   =     VERY NEGATIVE
                                      6   =     NO BASIS TO JUDGE                                                                       ENTER NUMBER
                                                                                                                                        OF RESPONSE
      . . Coord+nttion           between    returns                  processing     and compliance
          l ctlvltles         durang    tha flllng                   season     .......................... f                                        /
             1 = 3.6%         2 = 33.3%     3 = 23.2%                              4 = 0.0%                5 = 0.0%               6 = 39.9%
             N = 138         No .n.r.~  = 1
      b.     Coordination        among Service-wide      compliance  activities
             that have       potentially    ovwlmoping     programs,  such as
             Collection       and Examination       ................................... [                                                           /
             1 = 9.4%         2 = 43.5%    3 = 23.9%                               4 = 0.7%                5 = 0.0%               6 = 22.5%
             N = 138         No .RSY.P = 1
      c.     Coordjnation        among        compliance              activities                within
             indlvldu.1       regions         ._.......,,._,,......................,.,,,.                                               /           /
             1 = 2.2%         2 = 29.0%     3 = 39.1%                              4 = 0.0%                5 = 0.0%               6 = 29.7%
             N = 138         No answer- = 1
      d.     Coordination       betwean           service            centers           and district               offices               /           /
             1 = 1.4%         2 = 25.4%     3 = 43.5%                              4 - 0.0%                5 = 0.0%               6 = 29.7%
             N = 138         No answer  = 1


5.    In your opinion,    how positive    or negative                                        an effect   did the establishment        of the
      Deputy Commissioner    (Doerations)    oosition                                        have on strwwthmnina       communication      batwon
      Regiohl  Commissionws      and the Assistant                                          Commissioner    risponsi~le   for the following
      *b-e**? (CHECK ONE BOX IN EACH ROW.)

                                                              VERY                 POSITIVE              ;;;E;;        NEGATIVE        VERY
      COCIWUNICATIONS BETWEEN                                 POSITIVE                                                                 NEGATIVE     &IS
      REGIONAL COMMISSIONERS                                                                                                                        TO
      AND _..                                                                                                                                       JUDGE
                                                                   (1)                  (2)                (3)              (4)             (5)      (6)
a.    Assistant        Commissionw
      responsible        for                                      6.5%               24.6%               12.3%              1.5%            0.0%    55.1%
      Examination
b.    Assistant        Commissioner
      responsible        for                                       7.3%              24.6%               13.8%              1.4%            0.0%    52.9%
      Collection
c.    Assistant      Commissioner
      responsible      for                                         5.8%              24.6%               12.3%              1.5%            0.0%    55.8%
      Returns     Processing
e.,    b.,      and c.        N = 138             No answer               = 3




               Page     18                                                                                                  GAO/GGD9045            IRS’ Reorganization
                Appendix    III
                Survey   Results




6.   In your opinion!        how positive       or negative   an effect      did the establishment   of
     the Deputy Comm1ssloner           (Plsnnlng    and Resources)      position    have on the flow of
     communic.tion:       .) from the N.txon.1         Office  to the field,       end b) snong the
     various    functions     of the National       Office?    (CHECK ONE BOX IN EACH ROW.)

                                                   VERY         POSITIVE       HAD NO         NEGATIVE         VERY
                                                   POSITIVE                    EFFECT                          NEGATIVE


a.   Flow of communication           from
     the N.tlon.1       Offace    to the
     field
b.   Flow of communication
     rlnong tn. verlous        Natlone,
     Office   functions
a.   .nd b.       N = 127       No answe


7.   To what extent,           if at all,       do YOU feel    that YOU have             the access  that              YOU need
     to the Deputy           Commissioner       (P1.nnr.g   and Rssourcas)?                (CHECK ONE.)

     ::   t-1
          I-1
                  To . very great
                  To P great     extent
                                         extent
                                                           ‘2::
     a:   tz{
     5. f-1
                  To P moderate
                  To some extent
                  To little
                                      extent
                               or no extent
     __ ________-_____--_____________
                                                           13.9%
                                                           13.1%
                                                           15.3%
     6. t-1       Not oppllcable                           40.1%            N = 137                No answer        = 2


8.   In your opmion,     how posltlve    or negative    .n effect      did the establishment   of the
     Deputy Commissioner    (Planning   and Resources)      position      have on the level  of coordination
     .mong the following    IRS programs    and operations?          (ENTER NUMBER IN SPACE.)
                                       RESPONSE CATEGORIES
                                   1   =   VERY POSITIVE
                                   2   =   POSITIVE
                                   3   =   HAD NO EFFECT
                                   4   =   NEGATIVE
                                   5   =   VERY NEGATIVE
                                   6   =   NO BASIS TO JUDGE                                                    ENTER NUMBER
                                                                                                                OF RESPONSE
     P. Coordlnotlon       between   the actlvitles         of the Assistant
        Commlssloners       for Computer    Services        and Information
        System.     Development    to develop       information      systems                                    /            /
          1 = 7.3%           2 = 25.5%     3 = 9.5%           4 = 1.5%         5 = 0.0%                 6 = 56.2%
          N = 137           No answer  = 2
     b.   Coordin.tlon         between  strategic        buslne!s      planning      and
          Information         systems  development        actlvlties         .                      .           /            /
          1 = 8.0%           2 = 40.9%     3 = 9.5%           4 = 0.0%         5 = 0.0%                 6 = 41.6%
          N = 137           No answer  = 2
     c.   Coordlnetlon          between     human resource        management       and
          compll.nce         actlvlties                   .._...............              ,.....                /            /
          1 = 0.7%           2 = 26.3%     3 = 28.5%           4 = 0.i;.          5 = 0.7%               6 2 43.1%
          N = 137           No answer  = 2




                Page   19                                                                               GAO/GGD90-45        IRS   Reorganization
                   Appendix    III
                   Survey   Results




r

    9.    In your op2nlon,    how positive              or negative    an effect      did the estobllshment             of     the
          Deputy Commissioner     (Plsnnlng             and Resources)     positlon      have on strengthening               the
          communication    of the following               IRS-wide  resow-cc      plans   throughout   IRS?
          (CHECK ONE BOX IN EACH ROW.)

                                                       VERY            POSITIVE   HAD NO     NEGATIVE   VERY
                                                       POSITIVE                   EFFECT                NEGATIVE         &IS
                                                                                                                         TO
                                                                                                                         JUDGE
                                                         (11             (2)       (3)         (4)          (5)            (6) .
    a.    IRS-wide         strategic
          business         plan                         18.3%           62.0%      9.5%        0.0%         0.0%         10.2%
    b.    IRS-wide          information
          systems         plan                           8.8%           53.3%     21.9%        0.7%         0.0%         15.3%

    c.    IRS annual            budget                   8.0%           40.9%     27.0%        8.0%         3.0%         13.1%
    a.,    b.,    and c.             N = 137     No answer      = 2


    10.    In your opinion,     how positive     or negative    an effect    did the implementation
           of the Executive     Committee    (the group composed of the Commissioner,             Senior
           Deputy Commissioner,     and the Deputy Commissioners          for Operations       and Planning  and
           Resources)   hove on the flow       of comnunicetion    ilmong senior    executives?       (CHECK ONE.)
           1.    I- I          Very positive                   18.2%
           g:    I-1           Positive                        55.5%
                     I         Had no effect                   16.1%
           4.    rz1           Negative                         1.5%
           5.    t-1           Very neg*tlve                    0.0%
           6.    I -1          No baas    to   judge            8.7%               N = 137      No answer         = 2




                        Page    20                                                               GAOIGGD-9045                IRS     Reorganization
            Appendix    III
            Survey   Results




II.   ASSESSMENT OF IIIPACT                     ON DECISIONMAKING
The next set            of     questions      deals        wath        the      1987        reorganization's                   impact         on
decisionmakxng               rithln      IRS.
11.   In your opinion,  how positive      or negative                                     an effect    did           the est&blishment      of                  the
      Senior  Deputy Commissioner    position    hove                                    on the quality              of IRS decisionmaking?
      (CHECK ONE.)
      1.  I-1     Very positive                                      g:;;
      2.  I-1     Positive
      t:  I-1     Had no effect                                      14.6%
            -1    Negative                                             1.5%
      5. [ -1     Very neg*tlve                                        0.0%
      ________-______-_-----
      6. l-1      No barls    to Judge                                 5.1%                               N = 137             No .nsw.r            = 2


12.   In your opinion,    how positive                          or negative    an effect   did the establishment                                          of    the
      Deputy Commzssioner    (Planning                          and Resources)    position    have on the quality                                         of    IRS
      decisionmeking   in the following                           rare&s?   (ENTER NUMBER IN SPACE.)
                                            RESPONSE CATEW
                                        I   =    VERY POSITIVE
                                        2   =    POSITIVE
                                        3   =    HAD NO EFFECT
                                        4   =    NEGATIVE
                                        5   =    VERY NEGATIVE
                                        6   =    NO BASIS TO JUDGE                                                                        ENTER NUMBER
                                                                                                                                          OF RESPONSE

      a.    Stroteglc           Busyness         Plan    development                      ...                  .         ..                   -1
           1 = 15.3%            2 = 62.0%     3 = 5.1%                          4 = 1.5%                  5 = 0.0%             6 = 16.1%
           N = 137            No answer   = 2
      b.    Formulation            of   the      1989    budget           .._.....................                               . . . . -1
           1 = 3.6%            2 = 30.7%     3 = 27.0%                          4 = 11.7%                     5 = 3.6%          6 = 23.4%
           N = 137            No answer  = 2
      c.    Information            systems        pl*nning           ,,,.._.._...__............                                . . . . -1
           1 = 8.8%            2 = 38.7%     3 = 16.8%                          4 = 3.6%                  5 = 0.0%             6 = 32.1%
           N = 137            No answer- = 2
      d.    Informstxon            systems        development                        . .          . .              . ...       .. .. /                      /
           1 = 4.4%            2 = 40.2%     3 = 20.4%                          4 = 2.9%                  5 = 0.0%             6 = 32.1%
           N = 137            No answer  = 2
      e.    Recruitment            and retention                 of high quality                     st&ff,
            Service-wide             . . . . . .._...................._.............                                                          -1
           1 = 0.0%            2 = 11.7%     3 = 65.7%                          4 = 2.9%                  5 = 0.7%             6 = 19.0%
           N = 137            No answer  = 2
      f.    Flnoncial           management          ., ._................._.................                                            ../                 /
           1 = 2.9%            2 = 23.6%    3 = 34.5%                           4 = 13.2%                     5 = 5.2%          6 = 20.6%
           N = 136            No enswe? = 3




             Page       21                                                                                                GAO/GGD90-45                   IRS’ Reorganization
                Appendix    III
                Survey   Results




r
    13.   In your opinion,    how wsltlve                        or     negative        an effect  did the establishment                        of       the
          Deputy Commissioner     (Operations)                          posltion        have on the quality   of IRS
          decislonnoking    in the following                          areas?          (ENTER NUMBER IN SPACE.)
                                                RESPONSE CATEGORIES
                                          1     =   VERY POSITIVE
                                          2     =   POSITIVE
                                          3     =   MAD NO EFFECT
                                          4     =   NEGATIVE
                                          5     =   VERY NEGATIVE
                                          6     =   NO BASIS TO JUDGE                                                              ENTER NUMBER
                                                                                                                                   OF RESPONSE

           a.    Resource      allocatIon            problems       among
                 compliance        actlvltles                   ..___........_........._...._....._.                                /            /
                1 = 3.6%        2 = 31.4%     3 = 26.3%                         4 = 12.4%                 5 = 0.0%         6 = 26.3%
                N = 137        No answer  = 2
           b.    Resaurce      allocation            problems          among regions                                                /            /
                1 = 2.2%        2 = 26.3%     3 = 27.7%                         4 = 14.6%                 5 = 0.0%         6 = 29.2%
                N = 137        No answer  = 2
           c.    Budget     execution           problems                        _......,............                                /            /
                1 = 5.8%        2 = 27.0%     3 = 27.0%                         4 = 15.3%                 5 = 3.7%         6 = 21.2%
                N = 137        No arisrer = 2
           d.    InformatIon        systems          planning          problems                                                     /            /
                1 = 0.0%        2 = 17.5%     3 = 33.6%                         4 = 2.2%                 5 = 0.0%         6 = 46.7%
                N = 137        No answer  = 2
           e.    InformatIon        systems          development            problems                                                /            /
                1 = 0.7%        2 = 14.6%     3 = 34.3%                         4 = 2.9%                 5 = 0.0%         6 = 47.5%
                N = 137        No answer  = 2
           f.    Coordlnstlon   problems      between                   returns         processing
                 and complxance    actlvltles                               .           .          ..           .                   /                /
                1 = 4.4%        2 = 26.2%     3 = 21.9%                         4 = 1.5%                 5 = 1.5%         6 = 44.5%
                N = 137        No answer  = 2


    14.    To what        extent,      if at all,    has              the tamellness       of             the       selection of    executive
           personnel         been    Improved     by the              1987 reorganlzatlon?                          (CHECK ONE.)
          1.  L-1     To e very greet             extent                  61.9%
          2.  I- I To a great             extent                          28.3%
                  I To a moderate              extent                      5.2%
          t: I- 1 To some extent                                           3.0%
          5. rI1      To little         or no extent                       0.8%
          __________------____~~~......--
          6. [- 1 Not applicable                                            0.8%                       N = 134         No answer    = 5




                                                                                                                       GAOiGGD90-45         IRS’ Reorganization
              Appendix    III
              Survey   Results




III.    -T                  OF IMPACT        ON ACtOVNTABILITY
The next sot of auertlpnr      deal with                       your      opinion   of   the        1987        reorganization’s
impact  on management   accountabilIty                         within       IRS.
15.    In YDW opinion,     to              whet     extent,     if      at all,     has the 1987               reorganization
       mmde IRS executives                 more     accountable           for their    management                decisions?         (CHECK ONE.)
       1.    1-I      To    a very great          extent                  0.7%
       2.    l-1      To    a great        extent                        15.3%
       3.    I-1      To    l     moderate     extent
       4.    t-1      To    some extent                                  :::i:
       5.    1-I      To     little      or no extent                    33.6%          N = 137                 No answer         = 2


16.    In your- opinion,    is             the    Senior  Deputy          Commissioner’s            scope of responsibility
       too wide to effectively                    manage,  about          right,   or is      it      too restricted?       (CHECK ONE.)
       1. t-1        Much too         ride     to effectively             manage                   0.7%
       2. l-1        Somewhat         too wide to effectively                  menage
       3. r-1        At about         the right       level                                   t;:::
       4. (-1        Somewhat         too restricted                                            y;
       5. t-1        Much too         restricted                                                          -.
       _------_____-_____----------
       6. [ -1       No basis         to    judge                                             12.4%                    N = 137          No snrwer    = 2


17.    In your opinion,     is             the    Deputy Commissioner’s              (Operations)                 scoge of        responsibility
       too wide to effectively                    manage, about right,             pr is it too                 restricted?           (CHECK ONE.)
       1. [    1 Nuch too wide to effectively                             manage              17.5%
       2. [:I      Somewhat too wide to effectively                            manage         g:;;
       3. L-1      At sbput the right        level
       4. i-1      Somewhat too restricted                                                      0.0;
       5. I-1      Much too restricted                                                          0.0%
       _______________-_-----------
       6. [ -1     No basic         to judge                                                  14.6%                    N = 137          No answer    = 2


18.    In youc opinion,     how positive         or negative    an effect  did the establishment   of the
       Deputy Commissioner        (Operations)       position   have on strengthening     Regional
       Commissioner    accountability          xn the following     areas?   (CHECK ONE BOX IN EACH ROW.)




               Page    23                                                                                       GAO/GGD9045              IRS’ Reorganization
               Appendix    III
               Survey   Results




19.        In your opinion,     how positive         or negative    en effect  did the establishment    of the
           Deputy Commlssloner        (Operations)       posltlon   have en strengthening     Assistant
           Commissioner    sccountabllity          in the following     areas?   (CHECK ONE BOX IN EACH ROW.)

                                                    VERY       POSITIVE          ;;;E;y   NEGATIVE   VERY
                                                    POSITIVE                                         NEGATIVE      %IS
                                                                                                                   TO
          AREAS                                                                                                    JUDGE
                                                       (1)          (2)            (3)       (4)       (5)          (6)
a.        Resource       allocation                    2.9%        25.6%         22.6%       5.9%      0.7%        42.3%

b.        Budget     formulation                       2.2%        27.0%         19.7%       5.9%      0.7%        44.5%

c.        Information          systems                 0.0%        20.4%         22.6%       1.5%      0.7%        54.8%
          devzlpemm3
d.        Proprem       plenning                       2.2%        31.4%        1 19.7%      1.5%      0.7%        44.5%

l    . Rmcryiting      s;d retalnlng                   0.0%        12.4%         40.2%       2.2%      0.7%        44.5%
       a-         stef
a.,     b.. c., d. end l .           N = 137           No answer     = 2


20.        In your opinion,       how positive      or negative     en effect   did the establishment              of    the
           Deoutv    Commissioner    (Plannina     and Resources)      position    have on strengthening
           Assisisnt    Commissioner     accountability        zn the folloulng     programs/activities?
           (CHECK ONE BOX IN EACH ROW.)




          ec eloDLe”t                               I
    a.,    b\(,e. , and        f.        N = 137   No answer   = 2 i       c.   and d.    N = 136    No answer     = 3




                Page      24                                                                GAO/GGD-90-45        IRS    Reorganization
                  Appendix           m
                  Survey   Results




IV.    INFORMATION              RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
One imDortant     issue     that YOS addressed  in the IRS/GAO menegement        review    was the .~.a
of information      resources     mansgement.  The revlow   determined   that    e further    sherpening
1s needed in eccountrbilltv          for the management   of technology.      This section     is to
provide    mope focus     to this   xssue.


21.    To whet extent,                  if at all,  do YOU feel         thot    the Deputy Commissioner's                  (Planning
       and Resources)                 scope of responsibility           permits    adequate l ttention    to             the introduction
       end management                 of technology   at IRS?          (CHECK ONE BOX IN EACH ROW.)

                                                            VERY     GREAT            MODERATE     SOME       LITTLE       NO BASIS
                                                            GREAT    EXTENT           EXTENT       EXTENT     OR NO        TO JUDGE
                                                            EXTENT                                            EXTENT
                                                             (1)      (2)               (3)         (4)         (51             (6)

e.    Introduction              of    technology              3.7%    27.7%            19.0%        17.5%        9.5%        22.6%

b.    Management          of      technology                  1.5%    20.4%            24.1%        19.7%      11.7%         22.6%
a.    end b.             N = 137               No .nswar     = 2


22.    How clear    or            unclear   1s your          understanding   of the            current role  of    the    Assistant
       Commlssloner               for InformatIon            Systems Development?               (CHECK ONE.)
       1.   [       I    Very        clear                                  10.2%
       2.   [II          Clear                                              46.0%
       3.   I-      ;    p:;:;:          clear      nor    unclear
       4.   [                                                               :'5:::
       5.   [=I          Viry        unclear                                  8.8:;            N = 137      No answ.r     = 2




                  Page    25                                                                              GAO/GGD-9045          JRS’ F&organization
             Appendix    m
             Survey   Results




23.    Accordxng    to       th. Inform.tion        Systems     D.v.lopm.nt         M.n.g.m.nt                   Pl.n,  th. Assist.nt
       Commissionw           for ISD works .s . p.rtn.r              with oth.r       Arsist.nt                   Commissioners
       to int.gr.t.          inform.tion     systems     d.v.lopm.nt        .fforts.
       In your opinion,      how positiv.   or n.g.tiv.   an .ff.ct h.. this .ppro.ch                                                 h.d    on
       th. d.cisions     m.d. in th. pl.nning     .nd coordin.tion  of th. mpd.rniz.tion
       of IRS' inform.tion      technology?    (CHECK ONE BOX IN EACH ROW.)

                                                       ER            POSITIVE          AD NO            NEGATIVE      VER                    NO
                                                      FOSYTIVE                       ;FFECT                           NEGZTIVE               BASIS
                                                                                                                                             ZDGE
                                                        (1)               (2)             (3)              (4)             (5)                (6)
. . Mod.rnlz.tion            planning                   4.4%             51.8%        15.3%                2.9%            1.5%              24.1%

b.    Mod.rniz.tion          coordin.tion               4.4%             44.5%       19.7%                 4.4%            1.5%              25.5%
a.    .nd   b.          N = 137         No .nrw.r       = 2


24.    In your opinion,  how positive      or                 n.g.tiv.        .n .ff.ct              do..   th. Inform.tion                 Syst.ms
       Policy  Bo.rd have on str.ngth.ning                       the      m.n.g.m.nt            of    t.chnology     .t IRS?
       (CHECK ONE.)
       1.    I     1 Very         positive                3.7%
       2.    111         Positive                        39.0%
       t:    I-1         H.d n? effect                   19.1%
               -1        N.g.txve                         3.7%
       5. 1 I Very                n.g.tive                0.0%
       --.-__--.-------.-.---
       6. [ -1           No b.sis        to judge        34.5%                   N = 136              No answer      = 3


25.    Th. introduction         of       technology      oft."       requires       non-technic.1                .S well         .s
       t.chnlc.1     d.casions.
       To wh.t wtent,      xf .t .11,     .re subrt.ntiv.   .) policy,                                 bl m.n.g.m.nt,         .nd
       c) technic.1   issu.s    b.ing   r.1s.d   to th. 1nform.ti.n                                  Syst.ms  Policy        Bawd
       for d.cirion   m.king?       (CHECK ONE BOX IN EACH ROW.)




                 Page   26                                                                                  GAO/GGD9645                     IRS   Reorganization
               Appendix    III
               Survey   Results




26.    To what      extent,   If et        all,    do you feel    that    IRS' current      information   systems         plan
       supports      the Service's           Strategic   Business      Plan objectives?          (CHECK ONE.)
       1.   [   I     To     a very great      extent           4.4%
       2.   [=I       To     a great    extent                 25.5%
       t1   i-1       To     . moderate     extent             29.2%
                I     To     some extent                        7.3%
       5.   r= I      To     little   or no extent              4.4%
       6.   t-1       No oplnlon                               29.2%          N = 137             No answer     = 2

27.    In your opinion,     how positive      or negative     sn effect    has the 1987 reorganization
       h.d on IRS' ability      to enh.nce      the knowledge    and skills    that sanlor   executives
       and s.nior   .nd mid-level      n.nsgers     in the field     need to mpapp+ .dvancad     information
       technology?      (CHECK ONE BOX IN EACH ROW.1

                                                   VERY         POSITIVE     HAD NO       NEGATIVE      VERY          HO
                                                   POSITIVE                  EFFECT                     NEGATIVE      BASIS
                                                                                                                      TO
                                                                                                                      JUDGE
                                                        (1)       (2)          (3)          (4)           (5)
a.    Senior      executives                            0.0%     29.9%       62.1%          2.9%          0.0%          5.1%
b.    Senior   and mid-level
      managers    in the field                          0.0%     21.9%       69.3%          2.9%          0.0%          5.9%
a.    and b.          N = 137        No answer      = 2




               Page     27                                                                   GAO/GGD9045              IRS’ Reorganization
               Appendix    m
               Survey   Results




28.    In your opinion,     how positive     or negative     .n effect    has the 1987 reorg.niz.tion
       had on IRS’ l ballty     to enhance     the knowledge    and skills    thet senior   executives
       and senior   .nd mid-level      managers    in th. field     need to &      advanced    information
       technology?      (CHECK ONE BOX IN EACH ROW.)

                                                      VERY
                                                     POSITIVE
                                                      POSITIVE                         EFFECT                      NEGATIVE            !:SIS
                                                                                                                                       TO
                                                                                                                                       JUDGE
                                                           (1)            (2)            (3)          (4)                (5)             (6)
a.    Senior     executives                                0.0%          24.3%         66.9%          2.9%               0.0%            5.9%
b.    Senior   and mid-level
      managers    in the field                             0.0%          19.9%         71.3%          2.9%               0.0%            5.9%
a.    .nd   b.          N = 137              No answer     = 2


29.    In your        opinion,       how positive    or negative en effect has the 1987 reorgenizetion                                            had
       on IRS'        ability      to enhance your knorlw&.      and sa    in managing end .pplying
       advanced        information       technology?     (CHECK ONE BOX IN EACH ROW.)

                                                         VERY           POSITIVE       ;;;E;y       NEGATIVE       VERY
                                                         POSITIVE                                                  NEGATIVE            ::SIS
                                                                                                                                       TO
                                                                                                                                       JUDGE
                                                           (1)            (2)            (3)          (4)                (5)             (6)
a
s.
      "a..-
       l”“,
            Cm--l-Are
            “r’““aw”“s
                           and +klll
      in managing      tee hnology                         0.0%          29.4%         64.0%          3.7%               0.0%            2.9%
                                                     I              I              I            I              I
b.    Your knowledge     end skill
      in applying    technology                            0.0%          25.0%         68.4%          3.7%               0.0%            2.9%
a.    .nd   b.          N = 137              No answer     = 2


30.    To whet extent,    if at all, do you feel                          that  IRS' accountability                for         the   m.n.gamant
       of technology   needs to be strengthened                           in the following     areas?
       (CHECK ONE BOX IN EACH ROW.)




d.    Enhancement           of   m.n.gers’




               Page    28                                                                             GAO/GGD90-45                    IRS   Reorganization
        Appendix    m
        Survey   Results




31.   The GAO/IRS Management         Review recommended         that   IRS consider     establishing    e Deputy
      Commisszoner     for Informotlon       Technology.        In your wmion,         do YOU feel   thet  such
      a position,    if implemented,       would enhance        occountebility      for the management     of
      technology   in the followang        areas?      (CHECK     ONE BOX IN EACH ROW.)

                                        DEFINITELY       PROBABLY      PROBABLY       DEFINITELY     NO BASIS
                                            YES            YES           NO               NO         TO JUDGE
                                            (1)            (2)           (3)              (4)          (5)




a.,   b. and d.    N = 136    No answer         = 3
c.    N = 135   No answer = 4         0.              N = 134       No answer   = 3




         Page   29                                                                GAO/GGD9045        IR!3’ Reorganization
           Appendix    m
           Survey   Results




                                                                                                                                                      1




V. OVERALL        IMPACT
32.   In your opinion,               sance        the 1987 reorganization,                        have the following improved,
      stayed  about the              same,        or have they worsened?                         (ENTER NUMBER IN SPACE.)
                                           RESPONSE CATEGORm
                                      1    =    GREATLY IMPROVED
                                      2    =    IMPROVED
                                      3    =    STAYED ABOUT THE SAME
                                      4    =    WORSENED
                                      5    =    GREATLY WORSENED
                                      6    =    DON’T KNOW
                                      7    =    TOO EARLY TO JUDGE
                                                                                                                        ENTER NUMBER
                                                                                                                        OF RESPONSE

      a.    Communicating            top       management           commitment           .,.._.....___.                  /           /
           1 = 35.3%         2 = 48.5%     3 = 14.7%                            4 = 0.7%              5 = 0.0%     6 = 0.8%    7 = 0.0%
           N = 136         No answer   = 3
      b.    Providing       overall            strategic           direction        to     the    agency     _.          /           /
           1 = 22.8%         2 = 55.9%     3 = 19.1%                            4 = 1.5%              5 = 0.0%     6 = 0.7%    7 = 0.0%
           N = 136         No answer   = 3
      c.    Provldlng       effective             feedback          on unit       performance                            /           /
           1 = 3.7::        2 = 17.6%     3 = 62.5%                            4 = 11.0%              5 = 1.5%     6 = 3.7%    7 = 0.0%
           N = 136         No answer  = 3
      d.    Establlshzng           effective              unit     performance           goals                           /           /
           1 = 2.9%         2 = 18.4%     3 = 63.2%                            4 = 8.8%           5 = 1.5%        6 = 5.2%    7 = 0.0%
           N = 136         No answer  = 3
      0.    Nonitorxng        unit        performance              against       goals                                   /           /
           1 = 2.9%         2 = 16.9%     3 = 64.0%                            4 = 8.1%           5 = 2.2%        6 = 5.2%    7 = 0.7%
           N = 136         No answer  = 3
      f.    Holding      managers          accountable              for      performance                                 /           /
           1 = 3.7%         2 = 16.9%     3 = 62.5%                            4 = 9.6%           5 = 2.9%        6 = 2.9%    7 = 1.5%
           N = 136         No answer  = 3
      g.    Problem      solving                                                           .                             /           /
           1 = 9.6%         2 = 49.2%     3 = 33.8%                            4 = 3.7%           5 = 1.5%        6 = 2.2%    7 = 0.0%
           N = 136         No answer  = 3
      h.    Preparing       the      agency         for      the    future                        .                      /           /
           1 = 19.1%         2 = 55.2%     3 = 18.4%                            4 = 2.2%              5 = 0.7%     6 = 2.2%    7 = 2.2%
           N = 136         No answer   = 3




           Page    30                                                                                        GAO/GGD9@45       IRS   Reorganization
         Appendix    m
         Survey   Results




33.   If YOU h.va any comments          on any      question    in this   quastionn.ira            or   g.nar.1      comments
      on the 1987 raorganir.tion,          ~1a.r.       "I.  the space    below.       If   “.c.s..rY         YOU    may
      l tt.ch addition.1    sheets.




                                      THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE




         Page   31                                                                    GAO/GGD90-45                IRS’ Reorganization
Major Contributors to This Report


                        John H. Stahl, Assistant Director
General Government      Stephen M. Sawmelle, Evaluator-in-Charge
Division, Washington,   Wilfred B. Holloway, Social Science Analyst, Design, Methodology,
D.C.                      and Technical Assistance Group
                        Stuart M. Kaufman, Social Science Analyst, Design, Methodology, and
                          Technical Assistance Group
                        Catherine M. Hurley, Computer Programmer, Design, Methodology, and
                          Technical Assistance Group




                        Page   32                                 GAO/GGD9O-45   IRS’ Reorganization