Tag Archives: Government waste

A Holistic Approach to Reducing Fraud, Waste, and Abuse


Overview

Under the current administration, there is a renewed emphasis on reducing fraud, waste, and abuse (FWA) within the Federal Government.  While this is nothing new, historical initiatives have focused primarily on external threats and only moderately succeeded at reducing operational waste and have made little to no impact in identifying the fraud and abuse prevalent in certain areas of Government.  Historical approaches are top heavy, punitive, and rely on self or third party reporting with only negative consequences for those involved.

Figure 1Decades of experience show that fraud, waste, and abuse can be attributed to three sources: the external threat; the internal threat; and internal/external collaboration.  First, the external threat has received a lot of attention.  In this case, new laws, policies and systems (Figure 2) have been enacted to proactively identify and reduce fraud perpetrated by outside actors.  The second type of threat is the collaborative threat.  In this case, the threat is an external force working with unethical or willingly naïve officials within the Government.  This type of offense is often the most highly publicized aspect of FWA.  The third type of FWA is the internal threat.  In this case, internal Government personnel manipulate resources and abuse the system for unintended purposes.

As mentioned above, a number of important laws and policies have been implemented since 2002 with growing success in reducing the external threat.

Figure 2As we move forward in reducing FWA one must understand that the methods used for external threats do not apply universally to collaborative and internal threats.  The introduction of an insider as part of the equation creates a very different risk profile for the agency.  There are political and cultural implications when exposing an insider threat that do not exist with purely external threats.

To understand FWA and its threat to the Government and Taxpayers, we must come to terms with a common definition.  This is not as simple as it may seem and even with a definition, it is hard to determine what falls where without more clarification.  For the case of this paper, we will use the definition currently being used by the Department of Veterans Affairs (Figure 3).

Figure 3
With a working definition of FWA and an understanding of the FWA Triple Threat (Figure 1), we can now begin to address the issue that appears to be hiding in plain sight, the Internal Threat.   The internal threat comes in many forms, some examples are:

  • Low-Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) acquisitions for non-commodities.
  • The various forms of acquisition fraud
  • Duplicative programs and functions within or across agencies refusing to consolidate due to the “Uniqueness” of their program or mission on even the most basic of functions (i.e. badging, billing, human resources, acquisitions)
  • Promotions and bonuses in offices/agencies with declining performance and rising inefficiency
  • Artificial barriers to improvement (e.g., Union Agreements)

A New Approach

While current Government initiatives are focused on identifying fraud from external threats and the IG is investigating issues as they are identified, Management Science & Innovation (MSI) has devised a new approach to addressing fraud, waste, and abuse.  Rather than relying on intra-agency inspection and whistle-blowers to identify the effects of internal threats, we propose using a data driven and statistically sound analysis to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse within our organizations in the same way that we are beginning to defend ourselves from external threats.

The MSI approach requires organizations to proactively identify fraud, waste, and abuse and report it along with remediation strategies in a non-punitive manner.  Each organization is given six months to conduct an internal analysis on FWA using an approach that starts with operational outcomes as the handle for pulling threads that can lead to FWA issues.  This analysis is conducted by a third party, ideally from another agency or with contractor resources that are willing to accept OCI restrictions on future work, using proven risk detection, modeling, and analysis tools.

As part of the self-reporting phase, reporting organizations are immune from punitive action, unless egregious or clearly illegal behavior is detected, so long as they propose sound remediation strategies and where possible demonstrate action already taken. Reporting organizations are also given the opportunity to propose expected operational efficiency and effectiveness gains as well as a rewards and punishments system for staff.  From this foundation, the organization is tasked with two things: 1) executing remediation strategies and conducting any internal rewards/punishments and 2) implementing a system for detection and reporting of FWA that will integrate with the agency and Government programs for the elimination of FWA.  Organizations are also informed at the beginning of the process that should they report no findings in the initial six month study, there will be a complete FWA review of their program by the inspector general.

This new approach addresses the concern of FWA from a more positive perspective that emphasizes and prioritizes operational outcomes and works with organizations to understand the impact of removing FWA within their organization.  Additionally, it reemphasizes the importance of reducing the impact of waste by helping employees truly understand what waste is (Figure 4) and how it impacts Stakeholders.  In the case of the Department of Veterans Affairs we can redirect the conversation to the impact on the Veteran for example (Hypothetical):

  1. $100,000 in unnecessary overtime is equal to 10 Veterans receiving Dialysis Figure 4Treatments.
  2. $500,000 in improper billing is equal to housing as many as 50 homeless Veterans for a year.
  3. $1,000,000 in unnecessary acquisition costs is equal to as many as 10 additional Veterans receiving prosthetic limbs.

By refocusing the conversation on the stakeholders and applying a less punitive approach to detecting and preventing FWA, It gives motivated staff (the non-offenders) the opportunity to act in a positive manner and it gives the offenders an opportunity to change their ways and become part of the solution.  Ultimately, this new approach should transform the culture from one in which FWA is ignored and sometimes even tolerated to the point of being condoned to one where even the hint of FWA is adjudicated swiftly.

While there are a great number of organizations and leaders who will  stand up and praise there efforts to eliminate FWA.  These efforts are focused on the external threat unless an internal or collaborative threat has been exposed to them and the world by an outside source.  Unless a serious effort is taken to address the Internal threat and begin to undergo the serious transformational change effort that our government is crying out for,  we will never begin to scratch the surface on eliminating fraud, waste and abuse within our government.

 

For more information contact:

info@msipros.com

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, common sense, consulting, efficiency, Fraud, Waste, and Abuse, government consulting, Health Care, Lean, Lean Six Sigma, Management

Low Cost Technically Incapable – Revisited


As we are facing a transition of power with the hope of “Making America Great Again”, we have an opportunity, once again, to fix our broken system which continues, regardless of the party in power, to be a self-licking ice cream cone.  Five years ago I published a post titled Low Cost Technically Incapable urging the Federal Government to hire consultants based on their ability to deliver results based on proof that they can perform the work.

In a world where every penny should count, where we are told continuously how bad the economy is, do we really know what we are getting when we bring in outside help?  I can identify numerous types of consultancies that exist in the market.  However, there are two major types that are continually pressing my buttons.

The first type of consultancy is far more staff augmentation then advisory support.  These companies are nearly incapable of providing any value to their customer other than eliminating busy work and creating a need within their clients to add more staff.  These companies are growing at a rapid pace in the Federal Government due to the trend toward Low Cost, Technically Acceptable contracts.  Many of these companies are so low cost and poorly managed that they can hardly hold on to staff long enough to even get properly acclimated to their jobs.  Because of the Governments growing reliance on this type of Contractor we have seen a growing presence of the second type of consultancy.

The second type of consultancy is the Advisory Firm (i.e. Think Tanks or Federally Funded Research and Development Centers).  These organizations run on the motto that we are XXXXX and we are here to help.  Many of these organizations are considered not for profit however, they have rates that often double or triple their counterparts in the first group.  Moreover, they are extremely good at making recommendations and writing reports without ever delivering a single quantifiable result.  They create work for themselves by identifying gaps in Government processes and programs, followed by making a recommendation that includes adding more staff to the project, then expecting someone else to deliver the results that they recommended.

With these two types of companies combined we have built ourselves a whole new platform by which to demonstrate incompetence.  We lean on the low cost technically incapable companies to deliver on the promises made by the overpriced non-producers.

So, where do we go from here?  The answer isn’t as hard as it seems.  There are numerous great consultancies around the world.  These companies are reasonably priced and have renowned delivery capabilities.  They have the ability to identify problems, develop and deliver solutions all while creating a sustainable environment where the organization will be set up for long term success.

How do we get there from here?

  • Understand your needs or hire someone to help you identify those needs.  If you hire someone to help you define your needs, they shouldn’t be the ones doing the follow on work.
  • Clearly define your needs in a clearly written Performance Work Statement (PWS)
  • Identify performance metrics/goals that can be attained and will indicate the successful completion of the project/program/effort
  • Hire the people who have proven that they can do the work
  • Award work based on:
    1. Response to PWS (what they can do for you)
    2. Verified Past Performance (with references)
    3. Key Personnel (people who will be contractually bound to do the work)
    4. Price

Beyond hiring the right people to execute on the work that really needs to be done, be sure that any time you bring in contractors to provide assistance, build in a method to hold them accountable for delivery of specific products or services that clearly demonstrate a return on your investment.

Happy Leaning,

The Common Sensei

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, common sense, consulting, government consulting, Management