Charting New Courses

Reorganization in any agency can create apprehension and discord. It can also generate strength and direction. For DWR and its employees, charting new courses will mean a clearer vision to meet tomorrow’s challenges.

What must DWR do to prepare for the future?

Reorganize strategically, say those in the know.

Thus, over the past two years, DWR has substantially reorganized three of its divisions: Design and Construction, Planning, and Local Assistance. The result, say many observers, is a stronger Department that responds to challenges more effectively than ever before. Because these "reorgs" were beneficial, DWR is now evaluating its Division of Operations and Maintenance in hopes of boosting its performance.

To further clarify the cause and effect of DWR's reorganizing efforts, DWR NEWS posed direct questions to Ray Hart, Deputy Director; Bill Bennett, Chief of the Division of Planning and Local Assistance; Bill Frye, Chief of Management Services; and Katherine Kelly, Chief of the Office of State Water Project Planning. Their responses suggest that DWR's need to reorganize is real, and that the results of its reorganizing efforts won't be fully apparent for a year or two.


Q. DWR's reorganization of the Division of Design and Construction occurred over a year ago. What prompted it, and what impact has it had on the Department?

A. Frye: The Contractors and others voiced concern over staffing levels in D&C and Planning. Completion of the Coastal Branch Project and the absence of comparable future water projects in the near term led them to question why DWR staffing continues at present levels in the absence of new work. This questioning triggered reorganization and led to a more vital organization in the new Division of Engineering. Morale is good within DOE and would probably be even better were it not for the current downsizing of staff.

Kelly: I agree. And the reaction of Arnie Johnson and others in embracing downsizing recommendations has been an inspiration to people throughout DWR facing similar challenges.
In most ways, the reorg's been for the good.

Bennett: Now that some time has passed, I think everyone can understand DOE's need to reorganize based on workload. Looking down the road, we all want a stable organization with an even, sustained workload and staff level.


Q. To some degree, consultants decided how Design and Construction, Planning, and Local Assistance were reorganized. Why did we hire consultants, and at whose suggestion?

A. Frye: I'm not sure who first suggested hiring consultants, but the decision to do so evolved from Contractors' concerns that I've mentioned already. Generally, outside consultants are useful in putting inside thoughts together. Consultants often ask fundamental questions we tend to overlook. They also add a fresh perspective.

Hart: I think consultants can play an important role in fleshing out the pros and cons of major organizational realignments. Many people's careers are potentially interrupted by reorganization, and great care must be taken to assure that the best possible changes are implemented. Consultants don't have axes to grind and therefore can be impartial in their deliberations and reporting.

Bennett: Yes, and they can be helpful in doing the legwork and some of the analysis for the reorg process.

Kelly: They're also useful sounding boards, even if their recommendations aren't always on the mark.

Bennett: In our case, I'm confident that final decisions on what and how to reorganize were based on input from the managers, supervisors, and employees actually affected by the reorgs.

Q. Specifically, why did the reorganizations of DLA and Planning occur?

A. Kelly: Again, these reorgs were prompted by input from inside and outside DWR that led DWR to reevaluate the roles of DLA and Planning. DLA's role is now greatly expanded, and the role of the new Planning Office is more strategically focused than ever before.

Bennett: DLA and Planning were the next logical reorganizations. Our workload is shifting and, as Kathy says, the SWP planning function has become more focused.

Hart: The Department must be responsive to the public's needs. Basically, we have two groups of constituents: the SWP contractors and the people of California.

Q. What other pluses and minuses have these reorganizations generated?

A. Kelly: The only minus I can think of is the uncertainty that existed prior to reorganization. Staff knew that major changes were coming, but they were kept in limbo about what form the changes would take. Uncertainty eroded morale and left some scars. Now that the reorganizations have occurred, or are occurring, it's clear that most of the changes they've brought were needed.

Hart: Making a clearer distinction between SWP and General Fund activities through organizational realignments will help us to be more responsive to our constituents. This new focus should help the Department obtain funding needed for improved water management in California.

Bennett: That's right. And we're seeing savings without layoffs and realizing more direct control of some programs shared with the districts. In general, there's optimism about the Department's future. I share Kathy's concern, though, about the timing of the reorg. I wish it had gone faster. But we gathered and considered many, many ideas from managers, supervisors, and employees. All that took time, but the final product shows that the effort was worth it.

Frye: In some quarters, the reorganizations are still viewed suspiciously. I suppose that was inevitable. In general, however, the more people learn about the reorganizations, the more accepting they seem to be of them.

Q. When will the reorganizations of DLA and Planning be complete?

A. Frye: They became effective on July 1, 1997. Full implementation, including all details and subtleties, will take longer to accomplish.


Q. How will these reorganizations affect jobs and job security?

A. Frye: They shouldn't have any impact on job security departmentwide, and they should make our business processes more efficient.

Kelly: Some people in Planning have been reassigned, and some vacant positions have been transferred from Planning. These changes may not have pleased everyone, but they were necessary.

Bennett: The new organizations should be stronger, leading to increased long-term security.

Hart: I'm certain that the new focus for SWP and General Fund activities will strengthen our ability to convince the public and the Contractors that DWR remains the preeminent water management authority in California. This strengthening, in turn, should improve job security as we strive to meet
the public's needs.

Q. Many people feel that reorganization has strengthened DLA and weakened Planning. What do you think?

A. Frye: It's difficult to say. What is a weakened Planning? One could argue that the advent of CALFED may have weakened or seized the initiative from Planning. Certainly, the reorganizations have shifted statewide planning and some environmentalists from the new Planning Office, but does this constitute a weakened Planning? I don't know. This question should
be posed again in two years.

Kelly: I don't take a divisive view; I'm convinced that reorganization has made the Department better. Sure, DLA is stronger than it was a year ago. But in some ways, Planning is stronger, too. Right now, before CALFED gets into site-specific projects, the programs we have are real and vital. Our staff has a clear idea of what their tasks are and how to proceed. We may also have to gear up if one of these programs, such as Arroyo Pasajero, takes off and requires more attention.

Bennett: Both organizations are stronger, and the workload appears to be steady or increasing in the foreseeable future.

Hart: I agree that both organizations are now stronger. The reorg has realigned the Department's SWP and General Fund activities. This clear focus will give both divisions a stronger hand in convincing their constituents that needed work will be accomplished efficiently and
effectively.

Q. How will the responsibilities of the Office of State Water Project Planning be distinct from those of the Division of Planning and Local Assistance?

A. Kelly: The Planning Office is focused solely on State Water Project activities. In fiscal year 1998-99, we expect to be doing site-specific environmental work on the Bay-Delta preferred alternative. This work is directly related to increasing SWP reliability.

Frye: Another big distinction is funding. Planning no longer means State Water Project planning only. While the Office of SWP Planning is funded by the Contractors, the Division of Planning and Local Assistance does planning, too, and will continue to provide SWP planning support. The two organizations will have to work closely together.

Hart: The Office of State Water Project Planning is focused on the needs of the SWP. The Division of Planning and Local Assistance has a statewide focus that includes support for SWP planning activities in the districts. But more importantly, the reorg allows general statewide planning to be a part of local assistance provided to the public. The reorg combines data collection with the planning part of local assistance.


Q. When will we know what sort of reorganization is in store for the Division of Operations and Maintenance?

A. Frye: In my view, there's little or no reorganization in store for O&M. The Contractors are concerned about costs of special jobs, but I don't hear them or anyone else arguing for a new organization or fewer staff. O&M review will be guided by an ad hoc committee chaired by Ed Huntley and consisting of Don Long, Viju Patel, Don Kurosaka, Les Harder, and me. We expect to divide our work between technical and organizational consultants and in-house staff.


Q. What else would you care to add?

A. Frye: I don't expect more large-scale reorganization studies in the near future.

Bennett: We'll have some small-scale adjustments as we move along. The exciting things in my view are the many opportunities opening up in the near future for our reorganized divisions. With CALFED, Prop 204, flood work, and restoration assignments, it looks like we'll be very busy on
interesting projects for years to come.

Kelly: Water management in California is on the cusp of a new era -- one that will require closer State-federal coordination, as well as closer ties between State agencies. The Department's reorganization is in step with this new era. It positions us well to contribute to the State's future
prosperity.

Hart: That's right. And although they're difficult for some people, these organizational changes will help the Department maintain its preeminent role in California water management. Californians will have to make critical decisions, such as they did on Prop 204, that will affect the long-term viability of our water management infrastructure. We need to be responsive to our constituents if we want them to have confidence in our work. This reorganization will help reinforce and maintain public confidence.