1hmPUyl
1hmPUyl
1hmPUyl
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
BUSINESSOFGOVERNMENT.ORG SPRING 2014<br />
The Business of Government<br />
3 From the Executive Director<br />
5 From the Managing Editor’s Desk<br />
8 Conversations with Leaders<br />
Anthony Fauci, M.D.<br />
J. Christopher Mihm<br />
Vice Admiral Mark Harnitchek<br />
Curtis L. Coy<br />
32 Insights<br />
Dave Bowen<br />
David Bowen<br />
Defense Health Agency<br />
Nani Coloretti<br />
U.S. Department of the Treasury<br />
Curtis L. Coy<br />
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs<br />
Nani Coloretti<br />
Mary Davie<br />
Dave Lebryk<br />
Kathy Stack<br />
Dr. Simon Szykman<br />
56 Forum<br />
Six Trends Driving Change in Government<br />
68 Viewpoints<br />
Is Moneyball Government the Next<br />
Big Thing?<br />
Mary Davie<br />
U.S General Services Administration<br />
Anthony Fauci, M.D.<br />
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases<br />
VADM Mark Harnitchek<br />
Defense Logistics Agency<br />
Modernizing the Budget Process to<br />
Reflect Modern Technology Realities<br />
Learning to Trust Open Data<br />
79 Perspectives<br />
Perspectives on Federal Acquisition and<br />
Complex Contracting with Professors<br />
Trevor Brown and David Van Slyke<br />
86 Management<br />
Predictive Policing: Preventing Crime<br />
with Data and Analytics<br />
David Lebryk<br />
Bureau of the Fiscal Service<br />
J. Christopher Mihm<br />
U.S. Government Accountability Office<br />
Kathy Stack<br />
Office of Management and Budget<br />
Using Crowdsourcing In Government<br />
Coordinating for Results: Lessons from<br />
a Case Study of Interagency Coordination<br />
in Afghanistan<br />
98 Research Abstracts<br />
Dr. Simon Szykman<br />
U.S. Department of Commerce
INFORMATIVE<br />
INSIGHTFUL<br />
IN-DEPTH<br />
THE BUSINESS OF<br />
GOVERNMENT HOUR<br />
• Conversations with government executives<br />
• Sharing management insights, advice, and best practices<br />
• Changing the way government does business<br />
ON THE AIR<br />
Mondays at 11:00 am<br />
Wednesdays at Noon<br />
Federal News Radio,<br />
WFED (1500 AM)* or at<br />
federalnewsradio.com<br />
ANYWHERE, ANYTIME<br />
Download current and archived shows:<br />
businessofgovernment.org<br />
* Washington, D.C. area only
Table of Contents<br />
From the Executive Director<br />
By Daniel Chenok.....................................................................................3<br />
From the Managing Editor’s Desk<br />
By Michael J. Keegan.................................................................................5<br />
Conversations with Leaders<br />
Anthony Fauci, M.D.<br />
Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ................. 8<br />
J. Christopher Mihm<br />
Managing Director, Strategic Issues<br />
Government Accountability Office ........................................................ 14<br />
Vice Admiral Mark Harnitchek<br />
Director, Defense Logistics Agency ........................................................ 20<br />
Curtis L. Coy<br />
Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Opportunity, Veterans<br />
Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs .................. 26<br />
Insights<br />
Pursuing IT Standardization and Consolidation:<br />
Insights from Dave Bowen, Director of Health Information<br />
Technology and Chief Information Officer, Defense Health Agency<br />
U.S. Department of Defense.......................................................................... 32<br />
Managing Resources in an Era of Fiscal Constraint and Reform:<br />
Insights from Nani Coloretti, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for<br />
Management, U.S. Department of the Treasury ............................................ 36<br />
Maximizing the Value of Government IT: Insights from Mary Davie<br />
Assistant Commissioner, Office of Integrated Technology Services<br />
Federal Acquisition Service, U.S General Services Administration...............40<br />
Promoting the Financial Integrity of the U.S. Government: Insights<br />
from Dave Lebryk, Commissioner, Bureau of the Fiscal Service<br />
U.S. Department of the Treasury ................................................................... 44<br />
Harnessing Evidence and Evaluation: Insights from Kathy Stack<br />
Advisor, Evidence-Based Innovation, Office of Management and Budget .......48<br />
Data and Information as Strategic Assets:<br />
Insights from Dr. Simon Szykman, Chief Information Officer<br />
U.S. Department of Commerce .................................................................... 52<br />
Forum<br />
Six Trends Driving Change in Government.............................................. 56<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 1
Table of Contents (continued)<br />
Viewpoints<br />
Is Moneyball Government the Next Big Thing?<br />
By John M. Kamensky.............................................................................68<br />
Modernizing the Budget Process to Reflect Modern Technology<br />
Realities<br />
By Daniel Chenok...................................................................................73<br />
Learning to Trust Open Data<br />
By Gadi Ben-Yehuda...............................................................................76<br />
Perspectives<br />
Introduction: Perspectives on Federal Acquisition and Complex<br />
Contracting<br />
By Michael J. Keegan...............................................................................79<br />
Perspectives on Federal Acquisition and Complex Contracting<br />
with Professors Trevor Brown and David Van Slyke<br />
By Michael J. Keegan...............................................................................80<br />
Management<br />
Predictive Policing: Preventing Crime with Data and Analytics<br />
By Jennifer Bachner.................................................................................86<br />
Using Crowdsourcing In Government<br />
By Daren C. Brabham.............................................................................91<br />
Coordinating for Results: Lessons from a Case Study of Interagency<br />
Coordination in Afghanistan<br />
By Andrea Strimling Yodsampa................................................................95<br />
Research Abstracts<br />
Realizing the Promise of Big Data.......................................................... 98<br />
Engaging Citizens in Co-Creation in Public Services................................. 98<br />
Eight Actions to Improve Defense Acquisition........................................ 98<br />
Incident Reporting Systems: Lessons from the Federal Aviation<br />
Administration’s Air Traffic Organization................................................ 99<br />
Cloudy with a Chance of Success: Contracting for the Cloud in<br />
Government........................................................................................... 99<br />
Using Crowdsourcing In Government.................................................... 99<br />
Federal Ideation Programs: Challenges and Best Practices.................... 100<br />
Six Trends Driving Change in Government........................................... 100<br />
Coordinating for Results: Lessons from a Case Study of<br />
Interagency Coordination in Afghanistan.............................................. 100<br />
Predictive Policing: Preventing Crime with Data and Analytics............ 101<br />
Collaboration Between Government and Outreach Organizations:<br />
A Case Study of the Department of Veterans Affairs.............................. 101<br />
A Guide for Agency Leaders on Federal Acquisition............................... 101<br />
The Business of Government<br />
A Publication of the IBM Center for The Business of Government<br />
Daniel Chenok<br />
Executive Director<br />
John M. Kamensky<br />
Senior Fellow<br />
Michael J. Keegan<br />
Managing Editor<br />
The Business of Government magazine and<br />
Host/Producer, The Business of Government Hour<br />
Ruth Gordon<br />
Business and Web Manager<br />
Gadi Ben-Yehuda<br />
Innovation and Social Media Director<br />
IBM Center for The Business of Government<br />
600 14th Street, NW, Second Floor<br />
Washington, DC 20005<br />
For subscription information, call (202) 551-9342. Web page:<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org. Copyright 2014 IBM Global<br />
Business Services. All rights reserved. No part of this<br />
publication may be reproduced in any form, by microfilm,<br />
xerography, or otherwise, without the written permission<br />
of the copyright owner. This publication is designed to<br />
provide accurate information about its subject matter, but<br />
is distributed with the understanding that the articles do not<br />
constitute legal, accounting, or other professional advice.<br />
How to Order Recent Publications.......................................................102<br />
2<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
From the Executive Director<br />
Six Trends Driving Change in Government: Examples of<br />
Agencies Leveraging Change<br />
Since the creation of the IBM Center for The Business of Government over 15 years ago,<br />
it has been our goal to help public sector leaders and managers address real-world problems<br />
by sponsoring independent, third-party research from top minds in academe and the<br />
nonprofit sector.<br />
Daniel Chenok is Executive<br />
Director of the IBM Center for<br />
The Business of Government.<br />
His e-mail: chenokd@us.ibm.com.<br />
We aim to produce research and analysis that help government leaders respond more<br />
effectively to their mission and management challenges. The IBM Center is named “The<br />
Business of Government” because we focus on the management and operation of government,<br />
not the policies of government. Public sector leaders and managers need the best,<br />
most practical advice available when it comes to delivering the business of government.<br />
We seek to bridge the gap between research and practice by helping to stimulate and<br />
accelerate the production of research that points to actionable recommendations.<br />
Over the past several months, the Center for the Business of Government has been examining<br />
trends in six different areas that are driving government to approach mission and<br />
business challenges differently, pointing to the need for further analysis and recommendations<br />
on how to effect change across these six areas. The Center reviewed these trends<br />
and released a special report, Six Trends Driving Change in Government. The Forum in this<br />
edition offers a primer on each of the six trends and the insights that can help gov ernment<br />
executives respond more effectively to their mission and management chal lenges. The<br />
Center’s research agenda is informed by these trends, but some federal agencies have<br />
already started down a positive path of change in each trend area, and their ideas can<br />
serve as models for others to adapt as appropriate.<br />
Such examples include:<br />
Performance. The Department of Education has created a What Works Clearinghouse of<br />
successful policies, programs, and practices that provide educators in the field with the<br />
best information available so they can make evidence-based decisions regarding curriculum<br />
and other education-based initiatives.<br />
Risk. The Internal Revenue Service established a new Chief Risk Officer to help agency<br />
leaders understand risks in advance, and develop strategies that support the delivery of<br />
taxpayer services that account for, communicate, and mitigate risks.<br />
Innovation. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has introduced a portal<br />
called the Project Catalyst, through which they achieve three of the goals laid out in this<br />
section. The CFPB allows visitors to the site to (1) “Pitch a Pilot,” (2) “Run a Disclosure<br />
Trial,” and (3) “Use Our Data.” They are doing so in order to “engage with the innovator<br />
community; participate in initiatives that inform our policy work; and stay on top of<br />
emerging trends to remain a forward-looking organization.”<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 3
From the Executive Director<br />
Efficiency. The General Services Administration has saved over $1 billion through actions<br />
taken by its Information Technology Service to create a marketplace that will provide<br />
agencies with buying options, access to data and information, access to expertise, and<br />
an improved buying experience.<br />
Mission and Leadership. Mission support chiefs within the Departments of Veterans Affairs<br />
and Agriculture convene on a regular basis to share their progress on various initiatives<br />
and to identify ways to work together, for example on telework strategies and reducing<br />
their real estate footprints. Success in any of these initiatives often involves leaders collaborating<br />
with multiple mission-support organizations in order to be successful.<br />
This issue highlights successful actions being taken throughout government to meet challenges<br />
of ever-increasing complexity, and sparks thinking among government leaders and<br />
stakeholders about how best to forge new paths forward. ¥<br />
4<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
From the Managing Editor’s Desk<br />
By Michael J. Keegan<br />
In meeting varied missions, government executives confront significant challenges.<br />
Responding properly to them must be guided and informed by the harsh fiscal and<br />
budgetary realities of the day. It can no longer be simply a wishful platitude that government<br />
do more with less. Leaders need to change the way government does business to<br />
make smarter use of increasingly limited resources—leveraging technology and innovation<br />
to be more efficient, effective, anticipatory, adaptive, and evidence-based in delivering<br />
missions and securing the public trust.<br />
Michael J. Keegan is Managing<br />
Editor of The Business of<br />
Government magazine and<br />
Host/Producer of The Business<br />
of Government Hour. His<br />
e-mail: michael.j.keegan@<br />
us.ibm.com.<br />
Government executives, however, must also avoid the tyranny of the present or the next<br />
budget cycle, and recognize that the challenges of today often morph into the hazards of<br />
tomorrow. So anticipating the future—getting ahead of events rather than being subsumed<br />
by them—becomes integral to positioning, resourcing, and preparing an agency for what<br />
may come, while always keeping focused on primary responsibilities.<br />
This edition of The Business of Government magazine underscores the importance of<br />
correlating short-term decision-making with long-range consequences. We highlight the<br />
latest trends and best practices for improving government effectiveness by introducing you<br />
to key government executives, detailing the work of public management practitioners, and<br />
offering insights from leading academics.<br />
Forum on Six Trends Driving Change in Government<br />
Fiscal austerity, citizen expectations, the pace of technology and innovation, and a new<br />
role for governance make for trying times. These challenges influence how government<br />
executives lead today, and more important, how they can prepare for the future. It is anticipating<br />
the future—using foresight in government—that can deepen our understanding of<br />
the forces driving change.<br />
In a special report, Six Trends Driving Change in Government, the IBM Center for The<br />
Business of Government has identified trends that correspond to these challenges and<br />
drive government change. Separately and in combination, they paint a path forward in<br />
responding to the ever-increasing complexity government faces.<br />
The areas covered by Six Trends are performance, risk, innovation, mission, efficiency,<br />
and leadership. Focusing on these has the potential to change the way government does<br />
business. This forum reflects our sense of what lies ahead, providing an excerpt of the<br />
Six Trends special report. We hope these insights are instructive and ultimately helpful to<br />
today’s government leaders and managers. For a more in-depth exploration of each trend,<br />
download or order a free copy of the full report at businessofgovernment.org.<br />
Conversations with Leaders<br />
Throughout the year, I have the pleasure of speaking with key government executives and<br />
public sector leaders about their agencies, accomplishments, and vision of government in<br />
the 21st Century. The four profiled manifest the leadership and strategic foresight needed<br />
to meet their varied missions.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 5
From the Managing Editor’s Desk<br />
• Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,<br />
leads an agency that has for 60 years been at the forefront of research in infectious<br />
and immune mediated diseases, microbiology, and immunology. Dr. Fauci outlines<br />
his agency’s strategic priorities, how NIAID accelerates basic research into health care<br />
practice, and the lessons learned from studying emerging and reemerging infectious<br />
diseases.<br />
• Chris Mihm, managing director for strategic issues at the U.S. Government<br />
Accountability Office, describes his group’s work in three broad areas—oversight,<br />
insight, and foresight. His oversight mission focuses on making sure that funds are<br />
expended for their intended purposes. Mihm also offers insights into what works, identifying<br />
best practices that can be leveraged and adopted, where appropriate, across<br />
government. Finally, what he calls foresight involves pinpointing emerging trends,<br />
making Congress aware of them, and informing them of the trends’ possible implications<br />
for public policy and governance.<br />
• Vice Admiral Mark Harnitchek, director of the Defense Logistics Agency, is charged<br />
with providing full-spectrum logistical support to the armed services and civilians<br />
around the world every day and for every major conflict over the past five decades.<br />
Logistics is a cost driver that must be managed with deliberate precision. Admiral<br />
Harnitchek recognizes that the very nature of envisioned threats and conflicts over the<br />
next decade, combined with increased fiscal challenges, demand an agile, joint logistics<br />
response marked by innovation and best practices.<br />
• Curtis Coy, deputy under secretary for economic opportunity within the U.S.<br />
Department of Veterans Affairs, manages a portfolio of educational and job training<br />
services for eligible veterans to enhance their economic opportunity and successful<br />
transition. With some one million veterans likely to separate or retire in the next<br />
five years and many young veterans unemployed, Coy discusses how VA promotes<br />
employment and educational opportunities for veterans and what VA is doing to<br />
enhance opportunities for veterans to obtain knowledge and skills to properly transition<br />
to civilian life.<br />
Insights from Leaders<br />
Over the past six months, I also had an opportunity to speak with public servants pursuing<br />
innovative approaches to mission achievement and citizen services. Six government executives<br />
provide insights into how they are changing the ways government does business.<br />
• Dave Bowen, chief information officer at the Defense Health Agency, shares his<br />
insights into the information technology strategy for DOD’s Defense Health Agency,<br />
how the DHA will enhance IT efforts to deliver care anytime, anywhere, and how<br />
DHA is modernizing its technology infrastructure and working toward a robust, integrated<br />
electronic health record.<br />
• Nani Coloretti, assistant secretary of the Treasury for management, offers her insights<br />
on Treasury’s management performance agenda, what her department is doing to<br />
consolidate its office space and right-size its operational footprint, and how it is<br />
working to transform the way it does business.<br />
• Mary Davie, assistant commissioner, U.S. General Services Administration’s Office of<br />
Integrated Technology Services, describes how ITS is increasing government IT’s value<br />
while lowering its cost. She identifies her office’s strategic priorities and how she is<br />
improving its operations, becoming more efficient and agile.<br />
6<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
From the Managing Editor’s Desk<br />
• Dave Lebryk, commissioner, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, U.S. Department of the<br />
Treasury, outlines his insights on how the Fiscal Service transforms the way the federal<br />
government manages its financial services, what Fiscal Service does to promote<br />
the financial integrity and operational efficiency of the federal government, and<br />
how Lebryk is seeking to realize efficiency, better transparency, and dependable<br />
accountability.<br />
• Kathy Stack, advisor for evidence-based innovation at the Office of Management and<br />
Budget (OMB), describes program evaluation and how evidence and rigorous evaluation<br />
can be integrated into decision-making. She details her insights on the importance<br />
of using evidence to inform program delivery and how agencies conduct rigorous<br />
program evaluations on a tight budget.<br />
• Dr. Simon Szykman, chief information officer at the U.S. Department of Commerce,<br />
highlights the department’s information technology strategy, how it has changed the<br />
way it does IT, the challenge of cybersecurity, and much more.<br />
Perspectives on Federal Acquisition and Complex Contracting<br />
In fiscal year 2012, the federal government contracted for $517 billion in products.<br />
Complex products require more sophisticated contracting approaches. Why do federal<br />
agencies need to acquire and procure goods and services? What are the basic phases of the<br />
federal acquisition lifecycle? What are the challenges of acquiring complex products? What<br />
lessons can be learned from the Coast Guard’s Deepwater program? How can government<br />
executives most effectively manage complex acquisitions? We explore these questions and<br />
more with Professor Trevor Brown of the John Glenn School of Public Affairs at The Ohio<br />
State University, and Professor David Van Slyke of the Maxwell School of Citizenship and<br />
Public Affairs at Syracuse University.<br />
Viewpoints<br />
John Kamensky ponders whether “moneyball government” is the next big thing. Dan<br />
Chenok explores the need to modernize the budget process to reflect modern technology,<br />
and Gadi Ben-Yehuda provides his viewpoint on learning to trust open data.<br />
I close this edition with overviews of several recent Center reports. If you have not read<br />
these reports, we encourage you to do so by going to businessofgovernment.org. We hope<br />
you enjoy this edition of The Business of Government magazine. Please let us know what<br />
you think by contacting me at michael.j.keegan@us.ibm.com. I look forward to hearing<br />
from you. ¥<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 7
Conversations with Leaders<br />
A Conversation with Anthony Fauci, M.D.<br />
Director, National Institute of Allergy and<br />
Infectious Diseases<br />
For more than six decades, the National Institute of Allergy<br />
and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has been at the forefront of<br />
research in infectious and immune mediated diseases, microbiology,<br />
immunology, and related disciplines. It conducts and<br />
supports basic and applied research to better understand,<br />
diagnose, prevent, and treat infectious diseases including<br />
HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, as well as immune<br />
mediated disorders such as lupus and asthma. This work has<br />
led to new vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and other<br />
technologies that have improved health and saved millions<br />
of lives in the United States and around the world.<br />
What are the strategic priorities of NIAID? How is NIAID<br />
accelerating findings from basic research into health care<br />
practice? What have we learned from the study of emerging<br />
and reemerging infectious diseases? What’s on the horizon<br />
for NIAID? Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National<br />
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, joined me on<br />
The Business of Government Hour to explore these questions<br />
and more. The following provides an edited excerpt<br />
from our interview. – Michael J. Keegan<br />
On the Strategic Priorities for NIAID<br />
The four major areas of emphasis are:<br />
• HIV/AIDS<br />
• Infectious diseases other than HIV/AIDS, which include<br />
the standard established infections, emerging and reemerging<br />
infections, and even bio-defense such as having<br />
defense against anthrax or other attacks<br />
• Basic and clinical research into the immune system—<br />
understanding how it works, diseases of aberrant function<br />
of the immune system, or deficiency of the immune system<br />
• Global health, focusing on a vision of where we want to go<br />
Regarding HIV/AIDS, three-plus decades since the [recorded<br />
manifestation] of this devastating pandemic, we have the<br />
scientific basis for development of prevention modalities and<br />
treatment that’s highly effective. We are also on a quest for<br />
a vaccine. We feel we can turn around the trajectory of the<br />
pandemic, and within a reasonable period of time, we’ll see<br />
an AIDS-free generation, where the number of new infections<br />
is less than the number of people who are put on therapy.<br />
The strategic vision for tackling emerging and reemerging<br />
infectious diseases involves developing platforms of vaccines<br />
and drugs that would have universal applicability, rather than<br />
trying to chase everything that might emerge. With regard<br />
to immunology, it’s just fundamentally good, sound basic<br />
research to understand the mechanisms of immune function<br />
to properly understand how we might suppress aberrant<br />
mechanisms and enhance deficient mechanisms.<br />
8<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Conversations with Leaders<br />
It’s becoming quite evident that we live in a “global community”<br />
[with] certain consequences. The idea that we worry<br />
about certain diseases and there are diseases other people<br />
worry about is antiquated.<br />
On Challenges Facing NIAID<br />
We live in an era of constrained resources [and unprecedented]<br />
scientific opportunities. This is a real challenge:<br />
how do you get the best bang for the buck? How do we<br />
pursue groundbreaking research that will ultimately benefit<br />
public health under tight budgets? We meet this challenge<br />
by prioritization, which is essential because there are a lot<br />
of good ideas, but in an era of fiscal constraint you can’t<br />
pursue them all.<br />
The next significant challenge we face is particular to<br />
NIAID’s unique mission—anticipating the unexpected! Most<br />
institutes at NIH, including NIAID, are responsible for the<br />
basic and clinical research in a particular area, whether it’s<br />
focusing on heart, lung, blood, kidney, etc. For us, it’s infectious<br />
diseases and immunology. In addition to that predictable<br />
translation from a basic concept to an applied clinical<br />
concept, NIAID must also always be ready for the unexpected.<br />
At a moment’s notice we may need to respond to a<br />
completely new infection.<br />
This is exactly what we faced in the summer of 1981. At<br />
that time, the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report<br />
reported the first five cases of pneumocystis pneumonia in<br />
gay men from Los Angeles. One month later, an additional<br />
26 young gay men from New York, San Francisco, and LA<br />
presented with this strange disease. Immediately, it was our<br />
task to figure what it was and what can be done. This need<br />
to deal with the unexpected and unpredictable presents a<br />
unique challenge for NIAID. It isn’t every week that a new<br />
cancer is discovered or a new form of heart disease, but at<br />
any given time we could face a brand new infectious disease.<br />
On the Characteristics of Infectious Diseases<br />
Infectious diseases have a number of unique characteristics.<br />
Microbes have the capability, through mutations, of changing<br />
characteristics in minutes to days because of their replication<br />
capability. Microbes like HIV replicate thousands of<br />
times per day. When you’re talking about infectious diseases,<br />
it’s a constant evolution. You have a disease. It spreads. You<br />
develop a drug. You treat a person, and then all of a sudden<br />
after a period of years, the virus or the bacteria develops<br />
resistance and you have to come in with another drug. It’s<br />
a constant, dynamic, emerging world of microbes that we’ll<br />
never completely wipe out; microbes constantly adapt for<br />
their own survival. We need to stay a step ahead of it all with<br />
our intervention, therapies, vaccines, or diagnostics.<br />
It’s a constant state of surprise given the extraordinary capability<br />
of microbes, viruses, bacteria, and parasites to evolve,<br />
emerge newly, or reemerge in a different setting and under<br />
different circumstances. I gave the example of HIV/AIDS<br />
emerging in 1981 as a truly new infection. In addition, we<br />
also face reemerging infections; these are infections that have<br />
historically existed that may be dominant, but reemerge either<br />
in a different form or a different location. For example, we<br />
have drug-resistant malaria. For years, we were able to treat<br />
malaria easily, and then drug-resistant forms emerged. We<br />
have diseases that have been around a long time, but not in<br />
our backyard. A classic example of that is West Nile Virus,<br />
which was in the Middle East and in Africa for centuries, but<br />
only within the last couple of decades has come to the U.S.<br />
It’s not so much a state of surprise, but [a] constant state of<br />
the unexpected.<br />
On the Pursuit of Progress: HIV/AIDS<br />
HIV<br />
In the mid-80s and early 90s, the median survival of my<br />
patients with HIV/AIDS was six to eight months, meaning<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 9
Conversations with Leaders<br />
that 50 percent of the patients would be dead in six to eight<br />
months, which is horrible. By applying fundamental basic<br />
research that involves understanding the replication cycle,<br />
targeting the vulnerable components of that replication<br />
cycle, and designing a drug therapy … fast-forward 30 years<br />
[to] today, we now have more than 30 FDA-approved antiretroviral<br />
drugs. When we use these drugs in combination, a<br />
recently infected person could [possibly] live an additional<br />
50 years. That’s a dramatic turnaround over a 30-year period.<br />
Along with these anti-retroviral drugs, we have effective lowtech<br />
forms of prevention.<br />
In addition, we’re actively pursuing the development of an<br />
HIV vaccine. The question is, can we cure people? Can we<br />
get to the point where you suppress the virus enough that<br />
you could stop the drug and the virus won’t rebound? I don’t<br />
know … but it’s certainly … worth trying …. Over the last<br />
three years, the advance … toward a vaccine is much more<br />
than what we had seen in the previous 15 to 20 years.<br />
On Bringing Tuberculosis (TB) Research into the<br />
21st Century<br />
Tuberculosis<br />
Tuberculosis is one of these enduring global health issues.<br />
It has been neglected because of a good dose of complacency—that<br />
it’s somebody else’s problem, not a problem for<br />
the developed world. One-third of the world’s population<br />
is infected with latent tuberculosis. That’s over two billion<br />
people. Though they’re not sick, they have latent TB, with<br />
about eight million new cases a year and about 1.3 million<br />
deaths per year.<br />
Our goal is to bring the science of tuberculosis into the 21st<br />
century. Until recently, we haven’t had a new drug for tuberculosis<br />
in over 40 years. Just this past year, we had the first<br />
drug that was specifically approved only for TB.<br />
We have a very ineffective tuberculosis vaccine. We have<br />
diagnostics that are antiquated. We don’t have enough drugs<br />
and the drugs we do have require six months to a year to<br />
suppress the disease. We need to play serious catch-up.<br />
We’re doing that by aggressively applying modern techniques<br />
such as the ability to rapidly sequence strains of TB, identify<br />
vulnerable parts of the microbacteria susceptible to drugs,<br />
and code for antigens that might be used for a vaccine. We<br />
have ways of not only diagnosing TB, but also determining<br />
at the point of care whether we’re dealing with a resistant<br />
tuberculosis.<br />
About 10 percent of the two billion-plus who are latently<br />
infected with TB will, during their lifetime, manifest active<br />
TB. We don’t understand this mechanism. We don’t understand<br />
the fundamental pathogenesis of tuberculosis or the<br />
systems biology of the immune system. Why doesn’t the<br />
immune system completely eradicate tuberculosis? Why<br />
do you always have a little bit that remains and is latent?<br />
What is the proper immune response to protect you? We<br />
are applying microbial genomic sequencing technologies,<br />
investing in the basic science underlying point-of-care<br />
diagnostics, supporting research to develop vaccine candidates,<br />
and engaging in public-private partnerships for drug<br />
development.<br />
On the Development of a Universal Influenza<br />
Vaccine<br />
We have made significant progress toward the production<br />
of vaccines, but for me and my colleagues in the field, the<br />
real goal is to develop what we call a universal influenza<br />
vaccine. This would obviate the need for annual influenza<br />
vaccination and enhance our ability to respond to … influenza<br />
pandemics. A universal flu vaccine induces a response<br />
against that component of the influenza virus that doesn’t<br />
change or changes very little from season to season. We are<br />
getting closer to this goal, so the exciting thing in influenza<br />
research is to develop a truly effective influenza vaccine that<br />
you may need to give once or two or three times throughout<br />
the lifetime to protect you against all strains.<br />
On Combating Drug Resistance<br />
Influenza<br />
MRSA<br />
It is a fact of life that microbes, given their replicative and<br />
mutational capability, adapt to whatever you throw at them.<br />
When you treat a patient with an antibiotic or an antiviral,<br />
10<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
“It’s a constant state of surprise given the extraordinary capability of microbes,<br />
virus, bacteria, and parasites to evolve, emerge newly, or reemerge in a<br />
different setting and under different circumstances.”<br />
unless you completely eliminate that bacteria or that virus,<br />
it will naturally select for the mutation that is resistant to<br />
getting killed. When you are infected with a virus or bacteria<br />
it isn’t a single homogenous microbe. Mutations occur that<br />
can make a microbe resistant. If you inadequately treat<br />
the sensitive microbes, resistant ones might emerge and<br />
dominate.<br />
Therefore … if you use antibiotics when you don’t need them<br />
or use them at the incorrect dose, you will inadvertently<br />
select for resistant microbes. The overuse and inappropriate<br />
use of antibiotics is a surefire way to help the microbe select<br />
for resistance, leading to drug-resistant forms.<br />
In an outbreak of a disease, using sequencing and computational<br />
biology, we can very rapidly know whether we are<br />
dealing with a microbe, for example a virus. We can then<br />
identify the class of virus: checking databases, we assess<br />
whether there is a virus that absolutely matches it. If this<br />
virus doesn’t match anything we’ve seen before, then wow,<br />
we’re dealing with a brand-new virus. Once you identify<br />
it and sequence it, you can actually create it and then<br />
On Technological Advancement and the Use of<br />
Scientific Technology<br />
From the standpoint of infectious diseases, there are a<br />
number of technologies, but let me pick out one that is<br />
really transformative. It is the ability to rapidly sequence the<br />
genome of the microbes. To give you a sense of the transformation,<br />
when the first microbe was sequenced decades ago<br />
it took about a year and about $40 million. Today, we can<br />
do it in a few hours for a couple of dollars. It’s just breathtaking<br />
what you can do. We refer to it as next generation<br />
sequencing, NGS, or deep sequencing where you could take<br />
a quasi-species of viruses and sequence every single one<br />
of them and know the signatures of resistance, transmissibility,<br />
and pathogenesis. This is the application of genomics,<br />
proteomics, and informatics. These are technically the most<br />
transforming advances that we’ve been able to make.<br />
From a basic research perspective, we are able to better<br />
understand how the microbe works—all the genetic determinants<br />
of its functions. You arrive at a genotype and a phenotype.<br />
Genotype is what the genes are and the phenotype<br />
is how the microbe acts, what it does. To be able to make<br />
that correlation between genotype and phenotype instantaneously,<br />
as opposed to waiting, is phenomenal. From an<br />
applied research standpoint, the progress is breathtaking.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 11
Conversations with Leaders<br />
“ The strategic vision for tackling<br />
emerging and reemerging<br />
infectious diseases involves<br />
developing platforms of vaccines<br />
and drugs that would have<br />
universal applicability, rather than<br />
trying to chase after everything<br />
that might emerge.”<br />
12<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Conversations with Leaders<br />
manipulate it. This enables you to target drugs against it.<br />
These are activities that can be done today almost instantaneously,<br />
which years ago took months, if not a year or<br />
longer.<br />
On the Evolving Strategies in Biodefense<br />
Our biodefense strategy has evolved since the mid-2000s,<br />
[when] we were developing vaccines and drugs for threats<br />
we knew. It became clear that it was futile to try and make<br />
an intervention against each and every single potential<br />
microbe. We started to focus on what we call broad multiuse<br />
platforms for vaccines, antibiotics, and antivirals. We<br />
could have an antiviral that would be effective against<br />
multiple different classes of viruses.<br />
This shift in strategies has been transformative for the entire<br />
field of microbiology. It allows us to develop sustainable<br />
interventions against microbes that someone might deliberately<br />
release, namely bioterrorism. It also helps us prepare<br />
against the more likely scenario and that is nature itself.<br />
The evolutions of microbes that have devastated civilizations<br />
are naturally occurring events. In the quest to protect<br />
and develop interventions against deliberately released<br />
microbes, we’ve come a long way to enhance our capability<br />
of responding to naturally occurring events.<br />
On the Future<br />
We can expect extraordinary, breathtaking opportunities<br />
in science. From the standpoint of infectious diseases and<br />
immunology, it is being able to unlock the intricacies and<br />
the secrets of the immune system. How might we control<br />
it when it’s aberrant and supplement it when it’s deficient?<br />
With regard to microbes, we remain ever vigilant for any<br />
emerging infectious disease. We also seek, beyond just an<br />
aspiration, to send HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis the<br />
way of smallpox. We pursue these goals, and our mission,<br />
in an era of constrained resources at a time when some<br />
view scientific research as a discretionary component of the<br />
federal budget. Personally, I don’t think science should be a<br />
discretionary component. It should be a mandatory component<br />
of what we do. ¥<br />
To learn more about the National Institute of Allergy and<br />
Infectious Diseases, go to www.niaid.nih.gov/Pages/default.aspx.<br />
To hear The Business of Government Hour’s interview with Dr. Anthony<br />
Fauci, go to the Center’s website at www.businessofgovernment.org.<br />
To download the show as a podcast on your computer or MP3 player,<br />
from the Center’s website at www.businessofgovernment.org, right<br />
click on an audio segment, select Save Target As, and save the file.<br />
To read the full transcript of The Business of Government Hour’s<br />
interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci, visit the Center’s website at<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 13
Conversations with Leaders<br />
A Conversation with J. Christopher Mihm<br />
Managing Director, Strategic Issues<br />
Government Accountability Office<br />
Governments today face serious public management challenges<br />
that go to the core of effective governance and leadership,<br />
testing the very form, structure, and capacity required<br />
to meet these challenges head on. These challenges run the<br />
gamut—national security, the aging population, mounting<br />
fiscal pressures, and a host of others. Given these challenges,<br />
government leaders need to reassess and reprioritize<br />
how they do business. For these leaders it is ultimately about<br />
delivering meaningful results and being solid stewards of the<br />
public trust.<br />
In many ways the U.S. Government Accountability Office<br />
(GAO) provides the oversight, the insight and the foresight<br />
that can assist today’s government leaders to better manage<br />
resources, enhance program performance, and forge a path<br />
to a more sustainable future. What are the fiscal, management<br />
and performance challenges facing today’s government<br />
executive? What is the goal of GAO’s High Risk Series? How<br />
are performance data being used to drive decisions in the<br />
federal government? How can agencies change the way they<br />
do business to respond effectively to 21st century governance<br />
challenges?<br />
Chris Mihm, GAO’s Managing Director for Strategic Issues,<br />
joined me on The Business of Government Hour to explore<br />
these questions and more. The following provides an edited<br />
excerpt from our interview. – Michael J. Keegan<br />
On the History and Mission of GAO<br />
The General Accounting Office was formed in 1921. In 2004,<br />
it was renamed the Government Accountability Office to<br />
more accurately reflect the work we do today. Our mission<br />
is to support the U.S. Congress in meeting its constitutional<br />
responsibilities. We are a congressional agency that focuses<br />
on helping to improve the performance and ensure the<br />
accountability of the American government for the benefit of<br />
the American people. In recent years, we have done between<br />
800 and 900 products a year. Most of those are performance<br />
audits with probably 90% performed at the request of<br />
Congress or written into legislation.<br />
Our audit work falls into three broad areas—oversight,<br />
insight, and foresight. Our oversight mission focuses on<br />
compliance and making sure that funds are properly<br />
expended for their intended purposes. Our work also offers<br />
insights into what works, identifying best practices that can<br />
be leveraged and adopted, where appropriate, across government.<br />
Finally, what we call foresight involves pinpointing<br />
emerging trends, making Congress aware of them, and<br />
informing them of the possible implications of these trends<br />
for public policy and governance.<br />
We pursue our mission with an approximate budget of $546<br />
million a year. Like most other federal agencies, we have had<br />
a decline during the [recent] period of austerity. Our staffing<br />
is at about 2,900 today, which is among the lowest since the<br />
1930s. We’re organized here in Washington, D.C., with 11<br />
field offices across the country. About 70% of the GAO staff<br />
is located in D.C.<br />
14<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Conversations with Leaders<br />
On Leading GAO’s Strategic Issues Portfolio<br />
There are 14 teams within GAO. For the most part, these<br />
teams are programmatically organized. For example, we<br />
have a team that focuses on defense issues, another on<br />
natural resources, and still another that concerns itself with<br />
the physical infrastructure of the U.S. However, some of<br />
the teams are crosscutting in nature. The team that I lead,<br />
Strategic Issues, is one of the crosscutting teams. Our focus<br />
is more functional and less programmatic. We look at functional<br />
issues that span across government and programs.<br />
GAO’s Strategic Issues team supports the agency’s third strategic<br />
goal, which is to help transform the federal government<br />
to address national challenges. We have responsibility<br />
for a broad set of crosscutting governance issues encompassing<br />
performance planning, strategic planning, regulatory<br />
policy, and strategic human capital management. We’re<br />
also concerned with how the government funds itself, which<br />
entails looking at the tax system in terms of tax policy,<br />
administration, as well as budgeting. We perform our own<br />
engagements—audits that typically culminate in reports. Just<br />
as importantly, we work with and support our colleagues<br />
from other teams within GAO. For example, if the GAO<br />
Defense Group perhaps identifies a human capital issue,<br />
then we are there to provide them the latest thinking and<br />
best practices to address this issue.<br />
On Challenges and Changes<br />
We work in a very challenging environment. We face what<br />
I refer to as a supply-demand imbalance. Congress’ need<br />
for independent, objective, and timely information, as well<br />
as assessments on how to improve government performance,<br />
has grown markedly and continues to grow. At the<br />
same time, our budget has been going down. This situation<br />
requires us to work very closely with our clients to understand<br />
their needs and set clear expectations. The only thing<br />
worse than bad news is bad news that comes late or bad<br />
news that is unexpected.<br />
I also want our auditing techniques to be top-tier, and that<br />
the questions we’re asking are suited to the problems we’re<br />
addressing. For example, when we do a performance audit<br />
of a government program, these audits have followed a traditional<br />
logic model approach. We would assess a program’s<br />
inputs (e.g., resources expended) and outputs (e.g., products<br />
produced) and determine its effectiveness. Increasingly,<br />
the focus is shifting away from program outputs and more<br />
towards outcomes. This approach changes the unit analysis,<br />
given we are now concerned with an outcome and working<br />
back, which is a distinctly different approach than the typical<br />
logical model that starts with a program and works through<br />
its specific inputs, activities, and outputs.<br />
Given that government is confronting increasingly complex,<br />
wicked challenges, this shift in focus toward outcomes and<br />
results may present a more suitable approach to effective<br />
governance. It also rests on the recognition that the outcomes<br />
being sought today are not going to be possible by one organization<br />
using one program strategy, operating on its own.<br />
They are going to be achieved by a variety of programs<br />
working together in a coordinated way to achieve results. This<br />
notion of complexity and network management is certainly a<br />
big change requiring a new way of doing business.<br />
The pace at which decision-makers need and must have<br />
information has changed significantly. Where we used to<br />
have time to pilot-test something or shake out the bugs,<br />
today the impetus has changed. Technology and social media<br />
have really pushed this change.<br />
On the Importance of GAO’s High Risk Series<br />
In 1990, GAO began a program to report on government<br />
operations that it identified as high risk. The High Risk Series<br />
was designed to highlight major program areas that are most<br />
vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement or in<br />
need of broad-based transformation. Since then, GAO has<br />
reported on the progress to address high-risk areas. In our<br />
last report, two areas were removed from the high-risk designation:<br />
management of interagency contracting and IRS business<br />
systems modernization. Two areas were added: limiting<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 15
Conversations with Leaders<br />
LOGIC MODELS<br />
OUTCOMES<br />
OUTPUTS<br />
ACTIVITIES<br />
INPUTS<br />
Long term|Intermediate|Short<br />
Benefits or changes for<br />
participants during or<br />
after program activities<br />
The direct<br />
products of<br />
program<br />
activities<br />
What the<br />
program does<br />
with inputs<br />
to fulfill its<br />
mission<br />
Resources<br />
dedicated to<br />
or consumed<br />
by the<br />
program<br />
INPUTS<br />
OUTPUTS<br />
ACTIVITIES<br />
OUTCOMES<br />
Resources<br />
dedicated to<br />
or consumed<br />
by the<br />
program<br />
The direct<br />
products of<br />
program<br />
activities<br />
What the<br />
program does<br />
with inputs<br />
to fulfill its<br />
mission<br />
Short|Intermediate|Long term<br />
Benefits or changes for<br />
participants during or<br />
after program activities<br />
Logic models can strengthen the development of program outcomes, validate underlying program logic, and explain the purpose and operation of the program to<br />
others. Logic model is one among a number of planning and evaluation tools that provide a structured approach to clarifying activities and intended outcomes.<br />
When used as planning tool, the logic model “starts with the end” in mind by focusing on desired outcomes. It then requires the identification of outputs that contribute<br />
to those outcomes, activities that produce those outputs, and the inputs necessary to achieve these outcomes.<br />
When used as an evaluative tool, it starts with inputs working through desired outcomes; it identifies measures that will be used to determine whether desired outcomes<br />
have been achieved as well as the sources of data required to support the measurement of those outcomes.<br />
the federal government’s fiscal exposure by better managing<br />
climate change risks and mitigating gaps in weather satellite<br />
data. These changes bring GAO’s 2013 High Risk List<br />
to a total of 30 areas. Overall, GAO’s high risk program has<br />
served to identify and help resolve serious weaknesses in<br />
areas that involve substantial resources and provide critical<br />
services to the public.<br />
Our next report is scheduled for release in February 2015<br />
inclusive of updates, additional [high risk areas], and<br />
hopefully removals. We do that because it helps shape the<br />
congressional oversight agenda. As Justice Brandeis said,<br />
sunshine is the best disinfectant. Since the high-risk program<br />
began, the government has taken high-risk problems seriously<br />
and has made long-needed progress toward correcting them.<br />
On the Promises of the GPRA Modernization Act<br />
of 2010<br />
One of the greatest accomplishments of the original GPRA<br />
Act of 1993 was putting in place a performance infrastructure<br />
that required agencies to do strategic plans, annual<br />
performance plans, performance reporting with focus<br />
outcomes, and performance measures. It was lacking in two<br />
very important areas. The original GPRA was unsuccessful in<br />
getting agencies to work effectively on specific issues across<br />
organizational boundaries. It also generated volumes of<br />
performance information that was available but rarely being<br />
used to inform decision-making.<br />
The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 was designed to<br />
address these two limitations and more. It sought to craft a<br />
16<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
“Our audit work falls into three broad areas—oversight, insight, and foresight. Our<br />
oversight mission focuses on compliance and making sure that funds are properly<br />
expended for their intended purposes. Our work also offers insights into what works,<br />
identifying best practices that can be leveraged and adopted, where appropriate,<br />
across government. Finally, what we call foresight involves pinpointing emerging<br />
trends, making Congress aware of them, and informing them of the possible<br />
implications of those trends for public policy and governance.”<br />
more integrated and crosscutting approach to federal performance<br />
and push for the expanded use of performance<br />
information. This law established a variety of requirements<br />
and mechanisms to make this happen (i.e., the establishment<br />
of agency priority goals and cross-agency priority goals).<br />
Under the GPRA Modernization Act, we have a statutory<br />
responsibility to do periodic reviews of its implementation<br />
among federal agencies. GAO issued its latest report in June<br />
2013 and found that agencies had been pretty successful<br />
designating the number two in the agency or the deputies to<br />
be the chief operating officers. There are chief performance<br />
officers within agencies and goal leaders that have been<br />
designated as well. Putting this infrastructure in place is a<br />
positive and important development.<br />
The report did identify weaknesses: agencies need to ensure<br />
that performance information is useful and being used by<br />
federal managers to improve results, they need to pursue<br />
additional opportunities to address crosscutting issues,<br />
present performance information that could better meet<br />
users’ needs, and provide performance information that is<br />
useful to congressional decision-making. We’ve made progress,<br />
but we need to keep pushing this crosscutting issue with<br />
agencies and OMB. It’s key in realizing greater effectiveness<br />
and cost savings.<br />
GAO Featured Reports<br />
Duplication & Cost Savings:<br />
GAO’s yearly report on areas where<br />
the federal government could reduce<br />
duplication and achieve cost savings.<br />
High Risk Series:<br />
GAO’s list of programs that need<br />
continued attention due to high risk<br />
factors.<br />
Managing for Results in Government:<br />
Effective performance management<br />
helps the federal government to<br />
improve outcomes in areas that affect<br />
nearly every aspect of Americans’ lives,<br />
from education, health care, and housing<br />
to national and homeland security.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 17
Conversations with Leaders<br />
“ GAO’s Strategic Issues team<br />
supports the agency’s third<br />
strategic goal, which is to help<br />
transform the federal government<br />
to address national challenges.<br />
We have responsibility for a broad<br />
set of crosscutting governance<br />
issues encompassing performance<br />
planning, strategic planning,<br />
regulatory policy, and strategic<br />
human capital management across<br />
the federal government.”<br />
18<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Conversations with Leaders<br />
On Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation,<br />
Overlap, and Duplication<br />
GAO issues an annual report on overlap, duplication, and<br />
fragmentation in government programs. We have identified<br />
over 380 actions that the administration and Congress<br />
can take to address fragmentation, overlap, and duplication.<br />
GAO’s 2013 annual report identifies 31 new areas where<br />
agencies may be able to achieve greater efficiency or effectiveness;<br />
17 involve fragmentation, overlap, or duplication.<br />
The number of program areas where there’s pure overlap—<br />
same programs, same tools, going to the same beneficiary or<br />
target population—is relatively infrequent. Far more frequent<br />
is overlap, which is the same population, but use of different<br />
tools or program strategies. Even more frequent is fragmentation,<br />
which is a variety of different programs using different<br />
strategies that are all trying to achieve a common outcome.<br />
On duplication and overlap, we’ll find success when we<br />
eliminate low-performing or ineffective programs and move<br />
money to better-performing programs that will net better<br />
outcomes. Regarding fragmentation, the solution is very often<br />
getting agencies to work better together; this is absolutely<br />
essential.<br />
We also found other cost savings or revenue enhancement<br />
opportunities. For example, we should do a better job<br />
reducing the net tax gap of $385 billion. The tax gap is the<br />
annual difference between what is legally owed and what<br />
is actually collected by IRS. Over the last few years, my<br />
group has focused on how the IRS can pursue the right mix<br />
of enforcement strategies and citizen service strategies to<br />
reduce that tax gap.<br />
Addressing fragmentation, overlap, and duplication will<br />
require continued attention by the executive branch agencies<br />
and targeted oversight by Congress.<br />
On the Future<br />
The country faces long-term fiscal issues requiring some<br />
fundamental decisions. We support the Congress as it<br />
ponders reprioritization and rethinking to address these fiscal<br />
issues. Since we’re fundamentally interested in improving<br />
performance of government, the way we’re going to do it<br />
is by improving the connections across organizations more<br />
than simply eking out another one or two percent of productivity<br />
out of any individual agency.<br />
I think the Center’s special report, Six Trends Driving Change<br />
in Government, contributes to a better understanding. I<br />
was very pleased to have participated in some of the initial<br />
brainstorming associated with its development. When we’re<br />
looking at drivers such as risk, innovation, mission, performance,<br />
efficiency, and leadership, there are certainly things<br />
individual organizations need to do in each of those areas.<br />
Fundamentally, at the end of the day, to improve the way<br />
organizations work across boundaries, we must recognize<br />
that risk management is more than how I manage my risk in<br />
my four walls. It also includes how my partners, whom I am<br />
absolutely dependent upon, manage their risk; how do we<br />
foster innovation across a network? What does leadership<br />
look like across a network? What does performance look like<br />
across a network? Individual agency improvement efforts are<br />
paying real dividends, but huge improvements are going to<br />
come in working better across organizations.<br />
We’re working on very difficult issues. Given budget realities,<br />
this may require GAO to perform fewer jobs, but the<br />
quality of our work will never be sacrificed; that is nonnegotiable.<br />
Given the speed of the decision-making, we need<br />
to make sure the work we’re doing is sufficient to answer<br />
the questions posed, so that we get the information to the<br />
decision-makers in the time and format they need. A beautiful,<br />
well-crafted report that comes in one day after the decision<br />
was made is essentially an historical document. With<br />
the speed of decision-making, social media, and all the rest,<br />
we need to find ways to radically streamline how we get our<br />
information out. We have an initiative underway in GAO<br />
that’s designed to do just this. ¥<br />
To learn more about the Government Accountability Office,<br />
go to www.gao.gov.<br />
To hear The Business of Government Hour’s interview with J. Christopher<br />
Mihm, go to the Center’s website at www.businessofgovernment.org.<br />
To download the show as a podcast on your computer or MP3 player,<br />
from the Center’s website at www.businessofgovernment.org, right<br />
click on an audio segment, select Save Target As, and save the file.<br />
To read the full transcript of The Business of Government Hour’s<br />
interview with J. Christopher Mihm, visit the Center’s website at<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 19
Conversations with Leaders<br />
A Conversation with Vice Admiral Mark Harnitchek<br />
Director, Defense Logistics Agency<br />
The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) provides full-spectrum<br />
logistical support to soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and<br />
civilians around the world every day and for every major<br />
conflict over the past five decades. Logistics is a cost driver<br />
that must be managed with deliberate precision. DLA’s readiness<br />
to respond to warfighter needs is built on an integrated<br />
supply chain that must be efficient and effective. As stewards<br />
of the Department of Defense’s resources, the agency must<br />
go beyond simply responding to demands to more effectively<br />
anticipating them.<br />
Over the next decade, DLA will find its comprehensive logistics<br />
services needed more than ever in new and challenging<br />
ways. The very nature of envisioned threats and conflicts,<br />
combined with increased fiscal challenges, demands an agile,<br />
joint logistics response marked by innovation and best practices.<br />
What are DLA’s strategic priorities? How is DLA working<br />
to reduce cost while improving support of the warfighter?<br />
What about DLA’s role in providing humanitarian assistance<br />
and disaster relief support? Vice Admiral Mark Harnitchek,<br />
Director of the Defense Logistics Agency, joined me on The<br />
Business of Government Hour to explore these questions<br />
and more. The following provides an edited excerpt from<br />
our interview. — Michael J. Keegan<br />
On the Mission and Operations of the Defense<br />
Logistics Agency<br />
DLA was established on October 1, 1961, and was known<br />
as the Defense Supply Agency before officially changing<br />
to its present name in 1977. It was conceived in the 1960s<br />
as a more efficient way to provide armed services with<br />
supplies. The agency has evolved over time to provide a full<br />
spectrum of logistics, acquisition and technical services …<br />
sourcing and providing almost every consumable item used<br />
by our military forces worldwide—food, medicines, medical<br />
surgical equipment, fuel, construction equipment, construction<br />
supplies, uniforms, and all the things used in the field.<br />
DLA also supplies more than 84 percent of the military’s<br />
spare parts. In addition, we manage reutilization of military<br />
equipment, provide catalogs and other logistics information<br />
products, and offer document automation and production.<br />
DLA has 27,000 people working across 30 countries and 48<br />
states to meet its mission. We are indeed a global organization.<br />
The primary source of financing is our revolving fund,<br />
the Defense Working Capital Fund. We sell to our service<br />
customers the products and services they need. They reimburse<br />
us and those funds go into our working capital fund—<br />
basically, our activity is financed with the funded orders<br />
placed by our customers.<br />
We are required to keep a certain amount of cash on hand<br />
to pay our bills. We are right around $40 billion in sales and<br />
about $5 billion to $6 billion in cost of operations. Our two<br />
biggest financial lines of operation are the things that we buy<br />
and the cost of our operations, which includes staff, infrastructure,<br />
and transportation.<br />
20<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Conversations with Leaders<br />
Fuel is our largest commodity purchase, equaling about<br />
half of that $40 billion. We’re in the same league as Delta<br />
and Northwest in the amount of fuel we buy. It’s about 130<br />
million barrels a year. Food is another big ticket item, at<br />
around $4 billion to $5 billion. Pharmaceuticals are in the<br />
$4 billion to $5 billion range as well, with uniforms, repair<br />
parts, construction equipment, etc., rounding out the last $10<br />
billion of our purchases.<br />
On the Importance of Understanding our<br />
Customers<br />
I am very focused on understanding my customers’ needs,<br />
requirements, and operational outcomes. We take that as<br />
understanding the array of required products and services<br />
while responding to the needs of our customers and assisting<br />
them to achieve mission outcomes. For example, our support<br />
in Afghanistan is to have the requisite amount of food and<br />
fuel on hand to meet the operational commanders’ needs,<br />
whatever those are, and then have all those other supply<br />
chains positioned to do that.<br />
From a 50,000-foot perspective, it’s not all that difficult. It’s<br />
understanding what it is your customers want, the outcome<br />
you’re trying to achieve, and then figuring out on the back<br />
end how to achieve it in the most efficient and cost-effective<br />
manner. Given our service customers pay us for these goods<br />
U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Lacordrick Wilson<br />
and services, we’re very focused on getting the best value<br />
for our money and passing that on to our customers. So if<br />
I can sell something for 10 percent less this year than I did<br />
the year before while getting the same operational outcome,<br />
then that’s exactly what we want to do. This is, in a nutshell,<br />
my responsibility and that of the 27,000 military and civilian<br />
folks who work for DLA.<br />
On DLA’s Strategic Vision: “13 in 6”<br />
Since I arrived at DLA, [I have] focused on significantly<br />
improving our performance while dramatically reducing<br />
cost. It is all about putting our customers first, and being a<br />
warfighter-focused, globally responsive, fiscally responsible<br />
supply chain leader.<br />
To make this strategic vision a reality, I introduced my<br />
10-in-5 strategy, which means saving $10 billion over the<br />
next five years by focusing on five core priorities: decrease<br />
direct material costs, decrease operating costs, right-size<br />
inventory, improve customer service, and achieve audit readiness.<br />
But the targets get more aggressive as we go forward.<br />
We’ve upped 10-in-5 to create even more savings; our new<br />
goal [is to] slash $13 billion in operating and material costs<br />
over the next six years. DLA will deliver improved performance<br />
for $13 billion less.<br />
On decreasing direct material costs, we are to be smart<br />
buyers of the right stuff through a combination of reverse<br />
auctions, commercial-type contract terms, substantial<br />
industry partnerships, performance-based logistics and prime<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 21
Conversations with Leaders<br />
vendor contracts, and significantly reduced lead times. We<br />
are reducing operating costs through a combination of eliminating,<br />
consolidating, and co-locating infrastructure, optimizing<br />
the global distribution network, enhancing retail<br />
industrial support, incorporating process improvements, and<br />
going green at DLA operating locations.<br />
An integral aspect of achieving the 13-in-6 strategy centers<br />
on cleaning out the attic. This involves right-sizing both<br />
war reserves and operational inventory by reviewing and<br />
adjusting strategic requirements, leveraging commercial<br />
supply chains without redundancy, and improving planning<br />
and forecasting accuracy. Our short-term goal is to reduce<br />
excess inventory by $6 billion by the end of 2014 without<br />
sacrificing military readiness.<br />
In the end, our customers must be front and center, so<br />
improving customer service is a key strategic objective. As<br />
with all DoD components, we need to make sure our organization<br />
achieves audit readiness, demonstrating our commitment<br />
to transparency and accountability through our culture<br />
of judiciousness.<br />
On improving performance, you have to give everybody<br />
a target and then you have to fully empower them to start<br />
improving performance and dramatically reducing cost.<br />
This is not something we define; it’s something our service<br />
customers define. Improving performance is not all that difficult<br />
if you stick to the basics. We are an acquisition machine.<br />
You have to buy enough. You have to buy it on time, and<br />
then you have to make sure it gets where it needs to go.<br />
On Reducing Costs Using Reverse Auctions<br />
DLA has substantially increased its reverse auction opportunities,<br />
which has led to savings of more than $1.6 billion. To<br />
put a fine point on it, our energy area achieved $400 million<br />
in savings in fiscal year 2013 by using reverse auctions<br />
to get better prices and increase competition in awarding<br />
fuel contracts. We had another contract that we ran as an<br />
auction for a medical prime vendor for medical supplies. It’s<br />
a 10-year contract worth about $10 billion. We saved five<br />
percent. Five percent of $10 billion is a big number leading<br />
to significant savings. So how do they work?<br />
Instead of a sealed bid or a best and final that we negotiate<br />
with each of the suppliers, reverse auctions run online<br />
and the reverse auction pricing tool should be used for all<br />
competitive purchases over $150,000. Reverse auctions<br />
involve contractors placing a bid lower than an earlier bid,<br />
which fosters intense competition and drives down prices.<br />
Typically, the bidding process lasts about an hour and<br />
auctions are held almost daily by DLA units.<br />
On Right-Sizing Infrastructure and Achieving<br />
Optimization<br />
We manage 26 distribution centers worldwide. To achieve<br />
our 13-in-6 vision, it is important to optimize warehouse<br />
operations and reduce distribution infrastructure. Since we<br />
need to decrease operating costs, we’re going to keep the<br />
inventory we need and store it in our most cost-effective,<br />
advantageously located distribution centers.<br />
Last year, 40 percent of DLA’s inventory was in more than<br />
one place. If you talk to FedEx, they’ll tell you they can<br />
have anything, big or small, moved anywhere in the United<br />
States in five days. How can we employ the same principle?<br />
It involves minimizing inventory and really leveraging our<br />
fabulous distribution and transportation system. We’re going<br />
to put most of our wholesale inventory at one of four places:<br />
Susquehanna, San Joaquin, Warner Robins, and to a lesser<br />
extent Red River.<br />
22<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
“Since I arrived at DLA, my guidance has focused on significantly improving<br />
our performance while dramatically reducing cost. It is all about putting our<br />
customers first, and being a warfighter-focused, globally responsive, fiscally<br />
responsible supply chain leader.”<br />
When we eliminate a facility, we reduce operating costs.<br />
Reducing operating costs also reduces the rates charged to<br />
customers and ultimately [the price they will] pay for material<br />
storage. In FY12, by vacating 34 buildings, one partial<br />
facility, and four temporary structures, we reduced infrastructure<br />
by 2.6 million gross square feet. An even larger reduction<br />
was achieved in FY13 when 4.1 million gross square<br />
feet were vacated. The plan is constantly modified to account<br />
for changes in mission, workload, material in storage and<br />
DOD and DLA initiative.<br />
On Reducing Fuel Cost While Improving<br />
Distribution<br />
Fuel procurement, primarily jet fuel which accounts for<br />
approximately 75 to 80 percent of DLA Energy’s fuel<br />
purchases, represents the largest portion of expenditures.<br />
The U.S. Air Force is our biggest fuel customer, then the<br />
Navy, and then the Army. We sell largely JP8 fuel to them.<br />
JP8 is commercial jet fuel with a different flash point and<br />
a different freeze point. We have to store it separately from<br />
other types of fuel, resulting in about 600 sites where we<br />
store military-specification fuel.<br />
most susceptible to counterfeiting is microcircuits. We are<br />
attacking this situation on multiple fronts.<br />
We are only buying from certified suppliers. We’re instituting<br />
software that can identify anomalies in vendor addresses and<br />
buying patterns. If we have a supplier who only has a post<br />
office box or is fairly new to the system, then a flag should<br />
be raised, much like a credit card vendor recognizes anomalous<br />
buying patterns and warns the buyer.<br />
We also made it a requirement that all electronic microcircuits<br />
we buy must be marked with botanical DNA. This<br />
means that manufacturers and distributors that want to<br />
sell microcircuits to DLA have to mark those items with<br />
SigNature DNA, a product invented by the civilian hightechnology<br />
firm for forensic authentication and counterfeit<br />
prevention. We spent some 18 months working to come up<br />
with this functionality and proving that these products could<br />
The Air Force has decided to [switch] from JP8 fuel to standard<br />
commercial jet fuel. This makes you more ready<br />
because that fuel is available all over the world. Everybody<br />
doesn’t use military jet fuel. A second thing is if you don’t<br />
have this unique requirement for military-specification fuel,<br />
you can rely on commercial industry to store it for you, so<br />
we can rid ourselves of legacy World War II vintage, belowground<br />
storage tanks that, frankly, are an environmental accident<br />
waiting to happen. This effort by the Air Force will save<br />
hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure cost over 20<br />
years. Plus, standard jet fuel costs a little less.<br />
On Combating Counterfeit Parts<br />
We are working to aggressively keep counterfeit parts out of<br />
the military supply system, and we’re doing this by working<br />
closely with manufacturers to find innovative ways of<br />
proving product authenticity. A commodity most at risk or<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 23
Conversations with Leaders<br />
“ I introduced my 10 in 5 strategy,<br />
which means saving $10 billion<br />
over the next five years by<br />
focusing on five core priorities:<br />
decrease direct material costs,<br />
decrease operating costs, rightsize<br />
inventory, improve customer<br />
service, and achieve audit<br />
readiness. But the targets get more<br />
aggressive as we go forward.<br />
We’ve upped 10-in-5 to create<br />
even more savings; our new<br />
goal [is to] slash $13 billion in<br />
operating and material costs over<br />
the next six years.”<br />
To learn more about the Office of Management and Budget,<br />
go to www.whitehouse.gov.<br />
To hear The Business of Government Hour’s interview with Danny<br />
Werfel, go to the Center’s website at www.businessofgovernment.org.<br />
To download the show as a podcast on your computer or MP3 player,<br />
from the Center’s website at www.businessofgovernment.org, right<br />
click on an audio segment, select Save Target As, and save the file.<br />
To read the full transcript of The Business of Government Hour’s<br />
interview with Danny Werfel, visit the Center’s website at<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org.<br />
24<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Conversations with Leaders<br />
be marked with botanical DNA during production and that<br />
those marks could later be read.<br />
We buy about 80,000 different types of microcircuits, used<br />
in everything from aircraft and ships to medical equipment.<br />
Microcircuits are the first commodity DLA is targeting<br />
because they have a high risk of being counterfeited. As the<br />
guy that’s responsible for good components in the supply<br />
chain, this is not a fail-safe method. It’s been very successful<br />
and we plan to expand that to other commodities as well.<br />
On Leadership<br />
I have been very fortunate and blessed to work [with]<br />
excellent leaders. I recall fondly what I have learned from<br />
mentors such as General Duncan McNabb, General Norton<br />
Schwartz, Admiral Mike Mullen, and General Whitcomb. I<br />
probably have learned the most in the past 10 years given<br />
the pressures faced while the country’s been at war. My last<br />
boss before arriving at DLA, General Duncan McNabb, has<br />
shaped my “Guiding Principles” in my Directors Guidance,<br />
which in turn has shaped my leadership approach. “We<br />
are living in historic times doing things we’ve never done<br />
before. Make some history yourself. Push for smart things<br />
to do … don’t wait for the requirement or for folks to ask.<br />
No one knows this stuff better than us—act like it. I trust<br />
you; prioritize, do it your own way, but get it done or ensure<br />
it gets done. This is your time; do big things and make it<br />
better. If not you, who? If not now, when? Relationships are<br />
key; build them and use them. Take care of one another.<br />
Keep promises.” ¥<br />
To learn more about the Defense Logistics Agency, go to www.dla.mil.<br />
To hear The Business of Government Hour’s interview with<br />
Vice Admiral Mark Harnitchek, go to the Center’s website at<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org.<br />
To download the show as a podcast on your computer or MP3 player,<br />
from the Center’s website at www.businessofgovernment.org, right<br />
click on an audio segment, select Save Target As, and save the file.<br />
To read the full transcript of The Business of Government Hour’s<br />
interview with Vice Admiral Mark Harnitchek, visit the Center’s<br />
website at www.businessofgovernment.org.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 25
Conversations with Leaders<br />
A Conversation with Curtis L. Coy, Deputy Under<br />
Secretary for Economic Opportunity, Veterans Benefits<br />
Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs<br />
As veterans separate or retire from the military, transitioning<br />
to civilian life can be hard. The federal government has the<br />
obligation to ensure that returning veterans have access to<br />
and use of hard-earned benefits that can ease this transition.<br />
With some one million veterans likely to separate or retire in<br />
the next five years and many young veterans unemployed,<br />
the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs manages a portfolio<br />
of educational and job training services for eligible veterans<br />
to enhance their economic opportunity and successful<br />
transition.<br />
How does the VA promote employment opportunities for<br />
veterans? What is the VA doing to enhance opportunities for<br />
veterans to obtain knowledge and skills to properly transition<br />
to civilian life? What programs provide opportunities for<br />
veterans to obtain, retain, and adapt a home? Curtis Coy,<br />
Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Opportunity, Veterans<br />
Benefits Administration, joined me on The Business of<br />
Government Hour to explore these questions and more. Here<br />
are some insights from our discussion. — Michael J. Keegan<br />
On the Mission of VA’s Office of Economic<br />
Opportunity<br />
The office was created in 2011 within VA’s Veterans Benefits<br />
Administration to consolidate different economic opportunity<br />
programs for veterans under a single office. There are three<br />
business lines: education service administers VA’s education<br />
programs that provide education and training to eligible<br />
service members, veterans, and dependents; loan guaranty<br />
service provides oversight of the VA Guaranteed Home Loan<br />
Program and ensures veterans’ rights are protected when<br />
purchasing a home under this program. We also have the<br />
vocational rehabilitation and employment (VR&E) service,<br />
which oversees programs that provide employment and independent<br />
living services including vocational counseling, job<br />
search assistance, and post-secondary training. Our portfolio<br />
of benefits and services is designed to enable both personal<br />
and economic success.<br />
We do this with about 4,000 people located in about 56<br />
VA regional offices across the country, as well as in the<br />
Philippines. Our budget for fiscal year 2014 is a bit over<br />
$600 million. To give you a sense of what we are doing,<br />
in the last four years we’ve paid about $35 billion in Post-<br />
9/11 GI Bill benefits to about a million beneficiaries. We<br />
have about 800 vocational rehabilitation and employment<br />
counselors throughout the country. We just guaranteed the<br />
20 millionth home loan since the program was established<br />
in 1944, and those loans for the past 22 quarters have the<br />
lowest default rate of all cohorts across the country. You can<br />
see that our veterans take their home loans and financial<br />
responsibilities very seriously.<br />
26<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Conversations with Leaders<br />
On the Strategic Priorities of VA’s Office of<br />
Economic Opportunity<br />
We’ve created three specific strategic goals. The first one is to<br />
promote employment opportunities for veterans. The second<br />
is to enhance opportunities for veterans to obtain knowledge<br />
and skills. Finally, we provide opportunities for veterans<br />
to obtain, retain, or adapt a home. Each goal has a host of<br />
[associated] programs. We want to build the foundation for<br />
veterans to succeed. For example, through our education<br />
and employment programs—GI Bill, VetSuccess on Campus,<br />
VR&E—we want to ensure that we’re empowering veterans<br />
with the knowledge, skills, and opportunities they need to<br />
succeed in the 21st century.<br />
We want to make sure that veterans are equipped with the<br />
tools they need to succeed in school ... that we’re providing<br />
them the resources to ensure that they continue their education<br />
and ultimately graduate [and] gain meaningful employment.<br />
We’re working with many different schools, veteran<br />
service organizations, community organizations, and other<br />
partners to ensure that our beneficiaries have access to the<br />
right information to make informed decisions.<br />
I gave a keynote address to the Student Veterans of America<br />
Conference and my message was, in World War II, the GI<br />
Bill served about eight million of the 16 million veterans that<br />
served. They were called the greatest generation. I called<br />
this group in the audience the next greatest generation. We<br />
believe that the veterans of today are the engine that will get<br />
the economy moving.<br />
On the Benefits of the Post-9/11 GI Bill<br />
It is arguably the most extensive educational assistance<br />
authorization since the original Montgomery GI Bill in 1944.<br />
It’s basically three pieces. One is tuition. Specifically, we pay<br />
for the veteran’s tuition at public schools. There are some<br />
limitations for private schools. We provide up to a $1,000<br />
book stipend. Finally, we also provide a housing stipend for<br />
veterans. Combining these three benefits—tuition, books, or<br />
housing—veterans can focus on their schooling.<br />
The Post-9/11 GI Bill provides 36 months of benefits;<br />
veterans have up to 15 years to use these benefits. The<br />
program increases accessibility to higher education for<br />
veterans and their dependents. A unique aspect of the Post-<br />
9/11 GI Bill is that veterans can provide some of those 36<br />
months of benefits to their spouses and/or dependents. They<br />
have to make that election while still in the service. The GI<br />
Bill benefits have never been available to beneficiaries other<br />
than the veterans themselves, so that’s key.<br />
On the Principles of Excellence<br />
In 2012 the president signed an executive order called<br />
the Principles of Excellence to ensure that federal military<br />
and veterans educational benefits programs are providing<br />
service members, veterans, spouses, and other family<br />
members with the information, support, and protections<br />
they deserve. It directs agencies to implement and promote<br />
compliance with the principles of excellence for educational<br />
institutions that interact with veterans. The Principles<br />
of Excellence are a set of guidelines with which institutions<br />
that receive federal funding, including the GI Bill, agree to<br />
comply. To date, we have about 6,000 schools that have<br />
agreed to adhere to them. Described broadly, the principles<br />
require schools to provide meaningful information about<br />
the financial cost and quality of the school. It prevents<br />
abusive and deceptive recruiting practices. It calls for them<br />
to provide high-quality academic and student support<br />
services.<br />
On the Veterans Retraining Assistance Program<br />
(VRAP)<br />
VRAP is a joint program between the Department of Veterans<br />
Affairs and the Department of Labor. This program provides<br />
12 months of educational benefits to veterans between<br />
the ages of 35 and 60 who are unemployed and have no<br />
educational benefits. Today, 80% of unemployed veterans<br />
are over the age of 35. They may not be entitled to or may<br />
have exhausted benefits from either the Post-9/11 GI Bill<br />
and/or Montgomery GI Bill. VRAP provides 12 months of<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 27
Conversations with Leaders<br />
Education and Training Tools<br />
VA’s Office of Economic Opportunity offers many tools<br />
to help veterans. Veterans can go to www.benefits.<br />
va.gov/gibill to access a rich library of information and<br />
tools. Here are a few examples:<br />
GI Bill Comparison Tool—The GI Bill Comparison Tool<br />
provides key information about college affordability<br />
and value so beneficiaries can choose the best education<br />
program for their needs.<br />
GI Bill Feedback System—Submit a complaint if your<br />
school or employer is failing to follow the Principles of<br />
Excellence.<br />
CareerScope Interest & Aptitude Assessment—Helping<br />
Veterans Focus on Success.<br />
educational benefits for a certificate program or an associate’s<br />
degree program. Twelve months may not get you a<br />
complete associate’s degree, but it’ll get you on your way or<br />
help you finish it.<br />
We’ve identified over 200 high-demand occupations. A<br />
veteran has to sign up for one of these high-demand occupations.<br />
It’s been overwhelmingly successful. In just the last<br />
couple years, we’ve had over 143,000 veterans apply. We’ve<br />
approved 126,000 veterans for the benefit. The number one<br />
occupation is IT support specialist. The number two occupation<br />
is substance abuse and behavioral disorder counselors.<br />
[The latter role] shows me that veterans want to continue to<br />
serve those in need of help. This is pretty true to form.<br />
On Supporting Veteran Success on Campus<br />
The VetSuccess on Campus (VSOC) program provides<br />
supportive services to ensure veteran students are successful<br />
in their academic pursuits. We help them adjust to campus<br />
life and transition to civilian life. We have trained and experienced<br />
vocational rehabilitation and employment counselors<br />
on campus full-time. They provide professional counseling<br />
on disabilities, vocational goals, and academic achievement<br />
and transitions. The counselors are familiar with all the VA<br />
benefits and can help veterans navigate them and find the<br />
[right] benefits [for] that veteran.<br />
The program started as a pilot in 2009 at the University of<br />
South Florida. Since then, we’ve gone through multiple evolutions.<br />
We grew from one pilot site to eight campuses, then to<br />
32 campuses, and today 94 campuses. We’re also working<br />
with new partners. For example, we’re going to be placing<br />
AmeriCorps volunteers on several of our VSOC campuses to<br />
help us deal with some of the issues surrounding veterans and<br />
to give us more boots on the ground. We’re very proud of it,<br />
very excited about the program. At 94 campuses, we’re institutionalizing<br />
the program’s processes, and we’ve seen a great<br />
deal of success, no pun intended, for this program.<br />
On VA’s Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment<br />
Benefits<br />
The Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program<br />
helps veterans with service-connected disabilities and<br />
employment handicaps prepare for, find, and keep suitable<br />
jobs. For veterans with service-connected disabilities so<br />
severe that they cannot immediately consider work, VR&E<br />
offers services to improve their ability to live as independently<br />
as possible.<br />
The VR&E has five tracks: reemployment, rapid access<br />
to employment, self-employment, employment through<br />
28<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
“We’ve created three specific strategic goals. The first one is to promote<br />
employment opportunities for veterans. The second is to enhance opportunities<br />
for veterans to obtain knowledge and skills. Finally, we provide opportunities for<br />
veterans to obtain, retain, or adapt a home. Each goal has a host of [associated]<br />
programs. We want to build the foundation for veterans to succeed.”<br />
long-term services, and then independent living. Under this<br />
program, veterans who qualify receive the Post-9/11 GI Bill<br />
benefits with many additional benefits afforded under the<br />
VR&E program. VR&E counselors also help veterans with<br />
their resume, job-seeking, placement, mock interviews,<br />
networking with employers, and negotiating salary requirements.<br />
We do an entire case management for that wounded<br />
warrior or disabled veteran.<br />
One of the other things that we’ve started is the integrated<br />
disability evaluation system ... it places over 200 vocational<br />
rehabilitation and employment services counselors<br />
within DOD bases. Before a service member separates from<br />
the service, we have a counselor working with prospective<br />
veterans explaining benefits and services, developing that<br />
case file while they’re still in service.<br />
On the Importance of Collaboration and<br />
Partnerships<br />
At the VA, collaboration is critically important. We cannot<br />
do all of this alone, nor would we want to. What we do<br />
rests on the success of our collaborative efforts with other<br />
government agencies and the private sector. The Veterans<br />
Retraining Assistance Program highlights our collaboration<br />
with the Department of Labor. We work with the Department<br />
of Education and the Department of Defense. We’re also<br />
working on an interagency academic credentialing work<br />
group that’s dedicated to identifying and sharing strategies for<br />
institutions of higher learning to award or evaluate military<br />
training and experience. You earn academic credits while in<br />
the military.<br />
We’re working with, for example, the National Student<br />
Clearinghouse and the Student Veterans of America. We’re<br />
analyzing post-secondary education completion data for one<br />
million veterans, both Montgomery GI Bill and Post-9/11<br />
beneficiaries. This will help us measure the outcome of these<br />
benefits. We also have a memorandum of understanding<br />
with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation. It hosts job<br />
fairs [and the] Hiring Our Heroes program. The Chamber has<br />
done over 600 job fairs around the country, having helped<br />
well over 10,000 veterans with their efforts to find meaningful<br />
employment. We just released a veterans hiring guide<br />
for employers. We work very closely with veterans service<br />
organizations (American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars,<br />
or the Disabled American Veterans). Our collaborative efforts<br />
have been incredible.<br />
On the Future<br />
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 20 million<br />
veterans live in the U.S. Veterans’ unemployment for the<br />
month of December 2013 was 5.5%, the lowest since 2008.<br />
Though these results are encouraging, veterans still face<br />
many employment challenges. We can ensure that veterans<br />
have a better outlook by giving them the tools to get the best<br />
education and training experiences.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 29
Conversations with Leaders<br />
“ I spend much of my time speaking<br />
to constituent groups and<br />
employers. Whenever I talk about<br />
hiring veterans, the first thing I say<br />
is hiring a veteran makes good<br />
business sense. I then explain that<br />
the military experience veterans<br />
bring to the workforce makes them<br />
resilient, motivated to succeed,<br />
dependable, and reliable.”<br />
To learn more about the Office of Management and Budget,<br />
go to www.whitehouse.gov.<br />
To hear The Business of Government Hour’s interview with Danny<br />
Werfel, go to the Center’s website at www.businessofgovernment.org.<br />
To download the show as a podcast on your computer or MP3 player,<br />
from the Center’s website at www.businessofgovernment.org, right<br />
click on an audio segment, select Save Target As, and save the file.<br />
To read the full transcript of The Business of Government Hour’s<br />
interview with Danny Werfel, visit the Center’s website at<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org.<br />
30<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Conversations with Leaders<br />
We want to make sure veterans know what their benefits are<br />
so they can leverage them in their life-planning goals. Every<br />
year, about 280,000 service members leave the services and<br />
become veterans. With the coming drawdown, we project<br />
that will grow to about 300,000 to 310,000 annually. With<br />
more veterans coming into the workforce, we need to be<br />
ready to process all the applications and claims for program<br />
benefits. It’s an incredibly busy time, not only keeping up<br />
with the workload that we have, but projecting forward what<br />
we anticipate it will be.<br />
On the Benefits of Hiring Veterans<br />
I spend much of my time speaking to constituent groups and<br />
employers. Whenever I talk about hiring veterans, the first<br />
thing I say is hiring a veteran makes good business sense. I<br />
then explain that the military experience veterans bring to<br />
the workforce makes them resilient, motivated to succeed,<br />
dependable, and reliable.<br />
Billions of dollars have been invested in the training of the<br />
specifically Post-9/11 generation of veterans; it’s also the<br />
most tech-savvy military force in the world. Think about<br />
all of these veterans and the amount of tools that they’ve<br />
used in the military and they’re now coming into the workforce.<br />
I underscore that our veterans are a good investment.<br />
Employers who have established hiring practices that seek<br />
veterans are not disappointed.<br />
Our veterans have unmatched skills in team-building, organizational<br />
commitment, decision-making, working in diverse<br />
cross-cultural work settings, and advanced technical settings.<br />
They’re driven. They’re mission-focused. They have proven<br />
leadership skills. Think about the young combat infantry man<br />
that’s over in Afghanistan negotiating with tribal chieftains<br />
that are 80 years old. Think about that young squad leader<br />
in charge of the lives of those 10 or 15 squad mates. This is<br />
the kind of person you want to have in your company. Our<br />
veterans bring DoD state-of-the-art training with them.<br />
On Leadership<br />
I often tell people leaders lead people and managers<br />
manage things. We often forget that there’s a difference<br />
between leadership and management. If you don’t know<br />
where you’re going, it doesn’t matter which way you go.<br />
Having a vision is key.<br />
As a leader, you’re responsible for the organization, so take<br />
the blame and hand out the praise. You always need to be<br />
ready to make those tough decisions. Governor Tommy<br />
Thompson, when he was Secretary of Health and Human<br />
Services, wrote: “God gave you two ears and one mouth.<br />
Use them in that proportion.” ¥<br />
To learn more about the Veterans Benefits Administration,<br />
go to www.benefits.va.gov.<br />
To hear The Business of Government Hour’s interview with Curtis L.<br />
Coy, go to the Center’s website at www.businessofgovernment.org.<br />
To download the show as a podcast on your computer or MP3 player,<br />
from the Center’s website at www.businessofgovernment.org, right<br />
click on an audio segment, select Save Target As, and save the file.<br />
To read the full transcript of The Business of Government Hour’s<br />
interview with Curtis L. Coy, visit the Center’s website at<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 31
Insights<br />
Pursuing IT Standardization and Consolidation:<br />
Insights from Dave Bowen, Director of Health<br />
Information Technology and Chief Information Officer,<br />
Defense Health Agency, U.S. Department of Defense<br />
By Michael J. Keegan<br />
The provision of health services is a<br />
critical and significant mission within<br />
each branch of the U.S. Military, as<br />
well as an integral part of the U.S.<br />
Department of Defense’s Military<br />
Health System, MHS.<br />
MHS relies on information and technology<br />
to carry out its mission and<br />
meet DOD’s quadruple aim: to<br />
achieve medical readiness, improve<br />
the health of its people, enhance the<br />
experience of care, and lower its health care costs. To do<br />
this, it depends on access to high-quality, timely, and reliable<br />
information and the technology that makes that possible<br />
—advances in technology that are clinically relevant, technically<br />
feasible, and financially viable.<br />
What is the information technology strategy for DOD’s<br />
Defense Health Agency (DHA)? How does the creation of<br />
the Defense Health Agency enhance IT efforts to deliver care<br />
anytime, anywhere? How is DHA modernizing its technology<br />
infrastructure and working toward a robust, integrated electronic<br />
health record? Dave Bowen, chief information officer<br />
at the Defense Health Agency, shares his insights on these<br />
topics and more. The following is an edited excerpt of our<br />
discussion on The Business of Government Hour.<br />
Would you provide an overview of the continuing evolution<br />
of the mission of DoD’s Military Health System?<br />
Dave Bowen: We are a global health care system—direct<br />
care providers in over 400 military treatment facilities, hospitals,<br />
and clinics, [and] purchased care through … civilian<br />
providers and institutions. We strive to provide optimal<br />
health care services in support of our nation’s military<br />
missions anytime, anywhere. We also provide premier care<br />
for military service members, their family, retirees, and their<br />
families. Our personnel are ready to go into harm’s way to<br />
deliver care.<br />
We build bridges to peace through humanitarian support<br />
whenever and wherever needed, notably [on] hospital<br />
ships. In FY13, MHS’ budget was $50 billion. It’s the unified<br />
medical program that supports the physical and mental<br />
health care of over 9.6 million patients worldwide. Today,<br />
approximately 230,000 MHS users depend on information<br />
technology services delivered through civil defense organizations.<br />
These include the Tricare Management Activity and<br />
each of the armed services’ medical departments.<br />
How does the creation of the Defense Health Agency<br />
enhance your IT efforts?<br />
Dave Bowen: It has been challenging for our health IT<br />
customers to determine who was accountable for health IT<br />
performance. Reforming the management of the IT infrastructure<br />
will give us the ability to manage health IT delivery all<br />
the way to the desktop. There will no longer be any confusion<br />
about who is accountable for health IT. It will be us,<br />
within the DHA IT directorate.<br />
[In 2011, an internal DoD task force reviewed the structure<br />
of the military health system. It provided options to improve<br />
the system, which in March 2013 called for the establishment<br />
of the Defense Health Agency. DHA incorporated the<br />
TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) as well as the Joint<br />
Task Force National Capital Region Medical, and back-office<br />
mission support functions.]<br />
DHA began in October 2013. We consolidated a number of<br />
back office services into shared services—facility services,<br />
health plan operational services, logistic services, and IT.<br />
Under the IT directorate, each health IT business process will<br />
be aligned to a leader, reflecting our commitment to ownership<br />
and accountability. We’re basically consolidating the<br />
health IT component of all the military services. To support the<br />
transition, the chief information officers and their associated<br />
service IT management functions have transitioned into the<br />
Defense Health Agency and [are] actively involved in all the<br />
planning for providing health IT on a shared-services basis.<br />
32<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
“We face a significant challenge—the<br />
high cost to support and maintain our<br />
current systems—and yet, our need to<br />
transition from the legacy system to new,<br />
more modern systems that will reduce<br />
costs. Today, sustainment costs eat about<br />
90% of our budget—it is this push-pull<br />
challenge around the high current costs<br />
and the need to fund the future.”<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 33
“Under the DHA governance structure within the new information technology<br />
directorate, we’re going to ensure that the right service leadership is involved<br />
in the health IT requirements generation process, and that we deliver the right<br />
application in the right way at the right time.”<br />
The military services’ CIOs actually have a dual role. They<br />
will continue to advise each department’s surgeons general<br />
on IT matters and guide IT delivery within the services until<br />
all IT functions transition under the Defense Health Agency.<br />
We anticipate that’s going to be about a two-year process.<br />
The service CIOs will retain direct authority over their<br />
service-specific resources until we reach full operational<br />
capability around October 2015. In the end, we seek an<br />
enterprise-wide, integrated IT environment with standardized<br />
infrastructure and applications down to the desktop.<br />
Would you give us a brief overview of the mission of the<br />
Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) within DHA?<br />
How is it organized, the size of its overall budget, and the<br />
number of full-time employees?<br />
Dave Bowen: In October 2013, we transitioned 744<br />
people into the office of the CIO. We developed an organization<br />
that has six vertical divisions, essentially using best of<br />
breed, best practices from industry. [These] are innovation<br />
and modern technology, governance, customer relations,<br />
infrastructure solution delivery, information delivery and<br />
analytics, and security and privacy. Our budget for this year<br />
is around $2.2 billion across those six verticals. When we<br />
reach full operating capability, we expect to be between<br />
8,000 and 9,000 employees and contractors. Certainly the<br />
2.2 billion-dollar number will be at least that, maybe more.<br />
What can you tell us about MHS’ quadruple aim? How do<br />
your efforts support the department’s overall mission?<br />
Dave Bowen: We support the overall mission of the<br />
Military Health System that we call the quadruple aim. There<br />
are four pillars to the mission. In FY13, senior MHS leadership<br />
agreed to explicitly emphasize the quadruple aim as the key<br />
strategic direction for the organization. The four pillars of the<br />
quadruple aim include readiness, which means being able to<br />
field a medically ready force and deliver health care anytime,<br />
anywhere in support of the full range of military operations.<br />
The second component is promoting better health among<br />
service members … promoting better health choices and<br />
reducing the number of clinical visits. We’re moving from<br />
simply delivering health care to focusing on prevention.<br />
The third aim is better care … the finest in the world, safe,<br />
timely, effective, efficient, equitable, and patient- and<br />
family-centered.<br />
The final aim [is to do] this more effectively and at lower<br />
cost. We need to create value by focusing on quality, eliminating<br />
waste, and reducing unwanted variation. We’re going<br />
to consider the total cost of care over time, not just the cost<br />
of an individual health care activity. We have both nearand<br />
long-term objectives to become more agile in our decision-making<br />
and maximize longer-term opportunities to<br />
change the trajectory of our cost growth through a healthier<br />
population.<br />
What are your top management challenges?<br />
Dave Bowen: The MHS health budget is almost 10<br />
percent of the total budget of the Department of Defense.<br />
This includes the total defense health program and all the<br />
care that we provide. Given budget realities, we have a<br />
strong focus on cost control and reduction, coupled with a<br />
need to take MHS into the 21st century.<br />
We face a significant challenge—the high cost to support and<br />
maintain our current systems—and yet, our need to transition<br />
from the legacy system to new, more modern systems that<br />
will reduce costs. Today, sustainment costs eat about 90% of<br />
our budget—it is this push-pull challenge around the high<br />
current costs and the need to fund the future.<br />
The second challenge involves properly collecting health<br />
care data of our members who receive care from external<br />
service providers. We need to get the data generated from<br />
external health care activities back into our members’ military<br />
record … trying to get data back from them continues<br />
to be a challenge because of privacy regulations and lack of<br />
interoperability of systems.<br />
The third challenge is identifying and selecting a replacement<br />
for current systems. How do we make a selection? How do<br />
we deploy a new system across 400 care sites in our direct<br />
care system alone, as well as properly equipping our ships<br />
and submarines?<br />
34<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Insights<br />
Under the DHA governance structure within the new<br />
information technology directorate, we’re going to ensure<br />
that the right service leadership is involved in the health IT<br />
requirements generation process, and that we deliver the<br />
right application in the right way at the right time.<br />
Would you tell us about your efforts in supporting the development<br />
of the integrated Electronic Health Record?<br />
Dave Bowen: Much of the activity in this area predates<br />
my arrival. There was an initial agreement that DOD and VA<br />
would jointly acquire an electronic health record or jointly<br />
develop an electronic health record. The plan was to acquire<br />
a best of breed solution—the best pharmacy system, best lab<br />
system, best radiology system. The Interagency Program<br />
Office manage[s] this activity, and they were doing great<br />
things and moving forward. I joined the agency in September<br />
2012, and towards the end of 2012 it became clear to<br />
department leadership that this was going to be a long and<br />
expensive process.<br />
Upon this realization and reflection, the strategy shifted to<br />
adopt a best-of-suite core application strategy. VA chose to<br />
pursue such a strategy, but instead of buying a new core,<br />
VA would modify its current core. Now without a partner,<br />
DoD leadership consulting with Congress decided to buy a<br />
commercial product. We are moving down this road focusing<br />
on acquiring a commercial product. The acquisition testing<br />
and logistics area has been assigned the responsibility for<br />
overseeing this acquisition.<br />
My office is going to be involved with implementing what<br />
is acquired. What are my interface requirements? How do I<br />
interface to my current legacy systems that will remain and<br />
not be replaced? What kind of infrastructure footprint do we<br />
have to lay down for running this on basically a worldwide<br />
basis? My experience in the commercial world will assist our<br />
efforts and help identify what’s going to be our training methodology,<br />
deployment methodology, how we’re going to run<br />
the new systems at the same time we run the old systems. It’s<br />
a very important project.<br />
What are some of the major opportunities your organization<br />
will encounter in the future; and, how do you envision your<br />
office will evolve to meet those challenges and seize those<br />
opportunities?<br />
Dave Bowen: We have to reduce the cost of our direct<br />
care system … proactively promote health [and] proactively<br />
connect with our commercial providers to get our<br />
members’ health data into our system for as complete a<br />
record as possible.<br />
We also have an opportunity to take an enterprise-wide view<br />
of our system. This will permit us to pose strategic questions<br />
as we move to realizing our future state. For example, prior<br />
to buying an application to address a certain need, let’s be<br />
sure that we’re buying a solution that we can leverage across<br />
the enterprise for all services and military treatment facilities.<br />
We must be cost-effective with our investments, taking an<br />
enterprise view, and making sure that investments are in the<br />
interest of the overall organization.<br />
We also have an opportunity to focus on accountability and<br />
results in the IT arena, results in terms of clinical performance<br />
in our military treatment facilities, in our hospitals,<br />
and better results coming from our private care providers.<br />
We are actively encouraging our business leadership to standardize<br />
the clinical processes we have in place. We have to<br />
adopt best practices, reduce the variability of outcomes, and<br />
drive down the costs of care.<br />
In an era of fiscal constraint, it’s critical that agency leaders<br />
act with strategic intent and keep the workforce motivated<br />
to meet mission. How do you keep your employees focused<br />
and motivated in the face of dramatic and sometimes<br />
painful changes?<br />
Dave Bowen: I would respond to that with three words:<br />
communicate, communicate, communicate! You can’t<br />
communicate enough these days. We have a far-flung operation<br />
and getting information out and feedback from the far<br />
reaches of our organization is critical. If we can do that well,<br />
we will continue to have a motivated workforce, despite the<br />
fact that we’re facing seriously challenging budget<br />
constraints. ¥<br />
To learn more about Defense Health Agency, go to www.health.mil/<br />
About-MHS/Defense-Health-Agency<br />
To hear The Business of Government Hour’s interview with Dave<br />
Bowen, go to the Center’s website at www.businessofgovernment.org.<br />
To download the show as a podcast on your computer or MP3 player,<br />
from the Center’s website at www.businessofgovernment.org, right<br />
click on an audio segment, select Save Target As, and save the file.<br />
To read the full transcript of The Business of Government Hour’s<br />
interview with Dave Bowen, visit the Center’s website at<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 35
Insights<br />
Managing Resources in an Era of Fiscal Constraint<br />
and Reform: Insights from Nani Coloretti,<br />
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Management,<br />
U.S. Department of the Treasury<br />
By Michael J. Keegan<br />
Clear strategic focus and sound<br />
management are essential to the<br />
effective stewardship of taxpayer<br />
dollars, enabling federal agency<br />
decision makers to make tough<br />
choices on day-to-day and long-term<br />
management challenges.<br />
The U.S. Department of the Treasury<br />
seeks to improve performance<br />
and operations while managing<br />
its resources more effectively and<br />
efficiently. In an era of fiscal austerity, this is even more<br />
pressing. What is Treasury’s management performance<br />
agenda? What is Treasury doing to consolidate its office<br />
space and right-size its operational footprint? How is<br />
Treasury working to transform the way it does business? Nani<br />
Coloretti, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Management,<br />
shares her insights on these topics and more. The following<br />
is an edited excerpt of our discussion on The Business of<br />
Government Hour.<br />
Would you tell us about the mission of your office and share<br />
insights on your duties and areas under your purview?<br />
Nani Coloretti: I am principal policy advisor to the<br />
secretary and deputy secretary on development and execution<br />
of the [department’s] budget, [its] internal management,<br />
and its bureaus. My area is responsible for budget, planning,<br />
human resources, information and technology management,<br />
financial management and accounting, procurement,<br />
privacy, records, and administrative services to departmental<br />
(headquarters) offices.<br />
Given your responsibilities and duties, what are the top challenges<br />
you’re facing and how have you sought to address<br />
those challenges?<br />
Nani Coloretti: The top challenge right now across<br />
the government is managing with reduced or constrained<br />
resources. It is a time of uncertainty. We have sort of a<br />
tagline in my office called “delivering more mission for the<br />
money.” We merged a couple of bureaus, which has reduced<br />
our footprint while maintaining a constant level of service.<br />
We’ve pursued a paperless Treasury initiative projected to<br />
save about $500 million over five years. This is truly changing<br />
the way we interact with people. We also are pursuing<br />
shared services strategies to achieve our mission in the most<br />
cost-effective manner.<br />
Another challenge is employee turnover and retirement. At<br />
Treasury, about 70% of the senior executives are eligible to<br />
retire in the next five years; that’s a pretty significant reality. The<br />
department is focusing on succession planning and creating<br />
leadership networks as a way to prepare for this over time.<br />
When you come to work in government there are many rules<br />
to follow that you didn’t issue. The third challenge involves<br />
pay[ing] attention to these rules and be[ing] keyed in to the<br />
various government-wide initiatives. To that end, it is very<br />
important to pay attention to what the Office of Management<br />
and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management are<br />
doing. There are communities of practice moving to the next<br />
thing and the next thing and you really need to keep up with<br />
government-wide efforts.<br />
The Treasury Department’s mission is focused on promoting<br />
economic prosperity and ensuring financial security. I want<br />
to explore some of Treasury’s key strategic priorities as well<br />
as its current agency performance goals.<br />
Nani Coloretti: As you know, the GPRA Modernization<br />
Act governs how we do strategic planning at the executive<br />
agency level. It calls for a new plan every four years. [Since<br />
this interview, Treasury has released its 2014-2017 Strategic<br />
Plan, which will provide more updated information.]<br />
Generally, we remain focused on our core mission.<br />
36<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
“The top challenge right now across the<br />
government is managing with reduced<br />
or constrained resources. It is a time of<br />
uncertainty. We have sort of a tagline<br />
in my office called ‘delivering more<br />
mission for the money.’”
“At Treasury, about 70% of the senior executives are eligible to retire in the<br />
next five years; that’s a pretty significant reality. The department is focusing<br />
on succession planning and creating leadership networks as a way to<br />
prepare for this over time.”<br />
We are set to repair and reform the financial system. We are<br />
supporting the recovery of the housing market.<br />
Another goal is to enhance U.S. competitiveness and<br />
promote international financial stability. We are protecting<br />
national security through targeted financial actions by the<br />
Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. We’re pursuing<br />
comprehensive tax and fiscal reform. We are also focusing on<br />
managing government finances [responsibly].<br />
We had two agency priority goals. Increasing electronic<br />
transactions is [one]. Another goal focuses on increasing<br />
voluntary tax compliance. [Today these goals are increasing<br />
self-service options for the taxpayers and focus enforcement<br />
on high-priority threats using pro-active analysis]<br />
In response to the need for financial reform, Congress<br />
passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer<br />
Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) in July 2010. Dodd-Frank<br />
established new responsibilities for Treasury and created<br />
new offices tasked to fulfill those responsibilities. What<br />
are some of the challenges associated with setting up new<br />
offices?<br />
Nani Coloretti: I’ll start with the office I helped set up,<br />
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has as its<br />
mission helping consumer finance markets work by making<br />
rules more effective, by consistently and fairly enforcing<br />
those rules, and by empowering consumers to take more<br />
control over their economic lives. I left Treasury for about<br />
nine months to help establish the bureau, which is no longer<br />
part of Treasury. We were doing everything from scratch. We<br />
were merging staff from six bureaus into one.<br />
I used to joke that I went from one of the oldest agencies in<br />
the federal government to the newest with just 10 employees.<br />
We did a lot of the initial work by detailing folks to the new<br />
bureau. It was a massive management project with only<br />
a year to complete. I actually didn’t stay the first year, but<br />
I learned much from the ground up. Similar efforts were<br />
done to set up Treasury’s Office of Financial Stability, which<br />
manages the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). It was a<br />
massive management project with only a year to complete. I<br />
actually didn’t stay the full first year, but I learned much from<br />
the ground up.<br />
There are several other entities we’ve stood up as a result of<br />
Dodd-Frank—the Office of Financial Research, which serves<br />
the Financial Stability Oversight Council, its member agencies,<br />
and the public by improving the quality, transparency, and<br />
accessibility of financial data and information; by conducting<br />
and sponsoring research related to financial stability; and by<br />
promoting best practices in risk management.<br />
The department also had to set up the Financial Stability<br />
Oversight Council (FSOC). The council provides, for the<br />
first time, comprehensive monitoring of the stability of<br />
our nation’s financial system. The council, headed by the<br />
Secretary of the Treasury, is charged with identifying risks to<br />
the financial stability of the country, promoting market discipline,<br />
and responding to emerging risks to the stability of the<br />
United States’ financial system.<br />
The council consists of 10 voting members and five<br />
nonvoting members and brings together the expertise of<br />
federal financial regulators, state regulators, and an independent<br />
insurance expert appointed by the president. A fairly<br />
small staff supports the council. As part of Dodd-Frank, the<br />
department also established a couple of other offices: the<br />
Federal Insurance Office (FIO) vested with the authority to<br />
monitor all aspects of the insurance sector, and the Office of<br />
Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI). Each has its own<br />
creation story facing similar challenges to starting anew in<br />
the federal government.<br />
Treasury conducts quarterly performance reviews of each<br />
bureau. What can you tell us more about the quarterly<br />
performance reviews?<br />
Nani Coloretti: The department started the quarterly<br />
performance reviews in March 2010. These reviews are now<br />
required as part of the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010.<br />
We have used the sessions to gain visibility into the activities<br />
and performance of the bureaus and policy offices within<br />
Treasury. It’s described as a meeting with a framework and an<br />
agenda that allows for a data-driven discussion. We review<br />
how we are doing. Are we meeting milestones and metrics<br />
on certain strategic priorities?<br />
We use these sessions to identify what we need to do<br />
better to achieve results. For example, we had a set of<br />
38<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Insights<br />
goals from the Small Business Administration that we were<br />
not achieving. We have a federated procurement model.<br />
Procurement policy is under me at headquarters, but actual<br />
procurement activity is delegated to the bureaus. During<br />
these reviews, we assessed whether goals were being met<br />
using a dashboard. Every quarter the deputy secretary would<br />
speak with the bureaus about their performance.<br />
The very first year, we not only achieved our SBA goals, we<br />
exceeded them. It becomes clear that what gets measured<br />
and talked about gets done. The success involved the leadership<br />
of former Deputy Secretary Wolin, who took a<br />
keen interest in the operational and managerial aspects of<br />
Treasury. His leadership helped drive bureaus and policy<br />
offices to engage in the process and achieve their goals.<br />
Would you tell us more about the green initiatives to reduce<br />
Treasury’s environmental footprint and save taxpayer<br />
dollars?<br />
Nani Coloretti: We’re pursuing green and environmentally<br />
sound initiatives across Treasury. Integral to our efforts is<br />
reducing the department’s physical footprint. The IRS, our<br />
largest bureau, has done a fantastic job using office space<br />
more productively. IRS is basically pulling down walls,<br />
turning offices into shared spaces or bullpens, or hoteling<br />
space. From these changes, IRS saved $40 million, which is<br />
significant in a time of budget constraint.<br />
Treasury is the third oldest department, but it has the oldest<br />
office building, which received the Leadership in Energy and<br />
Environmental Design (LEED) Gold certification from the U.S.<br />
Green Building Council (USGBC). LEED is a leading international<br />
standard for the design, construction, and operation<br />
of high-performance green buildings. The Treasury Building<br />
received its LEED Gold certification based on a number of<br />
green construction and operation features, from developing<br />
and implementing advanced control and management of the<br />
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems to simply<br />
changing light bulbs. Doing these things enables us to reduce<br />
the environmental impact of this centuries-old building.<br />
Addressing improper payments is a central component of the<br />
administration’s efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse.<br />
Would you define an improper payment and tell us more<br />
about Treasury’s Do Not Pay Business Center?<br />
Nani Coloretti: An improper payment is when funds go to<br />
the wrong recipient, the right recipient in the wrong amount,<br />
or lacking the proper documentation to support payment.<br />
It can be an overpayment or underpayment. Error rates of<br />
agencies are generally low, but the estimate for FY 2012 is<br />
about $108 billion of improper payments. The president has<br />
focused on this issue since 2009 and has issued a series of<br />
executive orders and memos to guide agencies in reducing<br />
improper payments.<br />
One effort has been the Do Not Pay Business Center, which<br />
Treasury runs. Do Not Pay is a one-stop shop that allows<br />
agencies to check various databases before making payments<br />
or awards in order to identify ineligible recipients and<br />
prevent fraud or errors from being made.<br />
All our bureaus are active participants in Do Not Pay. We<br />
were first movers. As we’re asking everybody else to do it,<br />
we’re setting the example. We’re focusing on the front end,<br />
catching payments before they go out. We also have efforts<br />
to reduce improper payments in the tax refund area. There’s<br />
a whole host of efforts in that arena, including identity theft,<br />
fraud, and data analysis, that helps us understand how [to]<br />
get out in front of these risks.<br />
Given your experience, what makes an effective leader?<br />
Nani Coloretti: An effective leader knows him or herself<br />
really well. What I’ve noticed over time as I’ve come up<br />
through the ranks is that people who have a high degree of<br />
emotional intelligence make effective leaders. These leaders<br />
are actually able to navigate uncertainty better. These leaders<br />
are also authentic in their dealings; they can inspire and<br />
motivate people to be their very best. People want to work<br />
for them [and] be as productive as possible when they’re<br />
working for them. Effective leaders are also knowledgeable,<br />
incredibly smart, and quick on their feet. Finally, I would say<br />
an effective leader is a great coach, encouraging staff to<br />
probe and ask questions. ¥<br />
To learn more about the U.S. Department of the Treasury, go to<br />
www.treasury.gov.<br />
To hear The Business of Government Hour’s interview with Nani<br />
Coloretti, go to the Center’s website at www.businessofgovernment.org.<br />
To download the show as a podcast on your computer or MP3 player,<br />
from the Center’s website at www.businessofgovernment.org, right<br />
click on an audio segment, select Save Target As, and save the file.<br />
To read the full transcript of The Business of Government Hour’s<br />
interview with Nani Coloretti, visit the Center’s website at<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 39
Insights<br />
Maximizing the Value of Government IT: Insights<br />
from Mary Davie, Assistant Commissioner, Office of<br />
Integrated Technology Services, Federal Acquisition<br />
Service, U.S General Services Administration<br />
By Michael J. Keegan<br />
Today, government executives<br />
confront serious challenges to mission<br />
effectiveness. The Office of Integrated<br />
Technology Services (ITS) in GSA’s<br />
Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) positions<br />
itself as a facilitator and enabler<br />
of government IT savings. By reducing<br />
federal agency customer costs, ITS<br />
can assist them in focusing on their<br />
core missions with smarter, more efficient<br />
IT purchases. At the same time,<br />
ITS looks for innovative approaches to<br />
maximize value while lowering cost.<br />
What are the strategic priorities for GSA’s Office of Integrated<br />
Technology Services? How does ITS maximize the value of<br />
government IT while lowering cost? What is ITS doing to<br />
improve its operations and become more efficient and agile?<br />
Mary Davie, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Integrated<br />
Technology Services, shares her insights on these topics and<br />
more. The following is an edited excerpt of our discussion on<br />
The Business of Government Hour.<br />
Would you describe the mission and continued evolution<br />
of the U.S. General Services Administration’s Federal<br />
Acquisition Service?<br />
Mary Davie: It is GSA’s mission to deliver the best value<br />
in real estate, acquisition, and technology service to government<br />
and the American people. We focus on the values of<br />
integrity, teamwork, and transparency to deliver better value<br />
and savings, serve our partners, make a more sustainable<br />
government, and lead with innovation. FAS is vital to GSA’s<br />
mission. Given the needs of government are constantly<br />
shifting, we are continuously looking at ways to improve.<br />
I’d like to understand more about FAS’ Office of Integrated<br />
Technology Services. What services does it provide and how<br />
is its portfolio organized?<br />
Mary Davie: About a quarter of all federal IT spend<br />
comes through ITS. We stand up acquisition solutions for our<br />
agency customers that allow access to mission-enhancing IT<br />
products and services.<br />
We’re currently organized into three groups: Schedule 70 is<br />
the largest and most comprehensive IT acquisition vehicle in<br />
the federal government, spending about $15 billion last year.<br />
The Office of Strategic Programs contains our strategic<br />
blanket purchase agreements (BPAs)—E-mail as a Service,<br />
SmartBUY, our USAccess program that provides identify verification<br />
services, our GWAC program, and a portfolio of<br />
network services solutions like Networx, Connections II, the<br />
mobility program, and the Commercial Satellite program.<br />
We have about 550 people across the country and we do<br />
everything from making contracts accessible to providing<br />
people with training on how best to use those contracts.<br />
We’ve moved away from simply contract build focus to a<br />
solutions-based approach to administration priorities such as<br />
cloud and data center consolidation.<br />
My biggest duty is to support the folks that carry out the<br />
functions of ITS. Information technology is recognized as a<br />
critical mission enabler for federal agencies. It helps agencies<br />
deliver services and improve citizen accessibility to government<br />
services. I facilitate and manage relationships while<br />
working to forge collaborative solutions. I strongly believe in<br />
IT and GSA’s mission as that central buying arm, providing<br />
central services and support, which is exactly what ITS does.<br />
40<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
“We’ve been focused on sharing information across<br />
government and across the buying space. Today<br />
federal buying is so fragmented. We ask ourselves<br />
what can we provide to agencies to improve their<br />
buying power and buying decisions?”<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 41
“We have three main strategic goals: deliver efficient operations, drive worldclass<br />
value, and be agile and innovative. For years, we were focused on<br />
contracts. Now it’s more about what our customers need and how we can best<br />
use common solutions across agencies. We’re moving from a contracts-focused<br />
model to a solution-oriented model.”<br />
What are your top challenges and how have you sought to<br />
address them?<br />
Mary Davie: The first challenge is keeping up with the<br />
pace of technological innovation. Technology is evolving so<br />
rapidly that it is difficult for government to keep up, especially<br />
when technology challenges someone to change a<br />
business model like cloud, and make it available quickly and<br />
safely for government. Given government takes extra precautions,<br />
we realize we’re never going to be right at the innovation<br />
curve, but we want to be as close as possible. As my<br />
deputy Mark Day likes to say, we need to anticipate skating<br />
to where the puck is going. For instance, we have created<br />
innovative technology Special Item Numbers (SINs), so new<br />
technologies that do not fit our current structure on Schedule<br />
70 have a landing pad so agencies can access them quickly.<br />
We also have flexible contracts like our GWACs that allow<br />
for companies to make new technologies available.<br />
A second challenge is how technology evolves. Technology<br />
no longer means you have new software that you install.<br />
IT solutions like cloud, cybersecurity, and network services<br />
require a collaborative effort between chief financial officers,<br />
chief acquisition officers, and chief information officers.<br />
We’re also sharing lessons learned, whether for cloud<br />
implementation, when we switched to E-mail as a Service,<br />
launched our Mobility program, or made the Networx transition.<br />
You need that coordinated effort to succeed.<br />
The third challenge is that for a long time, we were solely<br />
an acquisition organization. ITS has undergone a major<br />
recruiting and training effort to ensure our program representatives<br />
are experts not only in acquisition, but in technology.<br />
We cannot drive value or create solutions for innovative technologies<br />
without understanding them.<br />
What are your strategic priorities?<br />
Mary Davie: We have three main strategic goals: deliver<br />
efficient operations, drive world-class value, and be agile and<br />
innovative. For years, we were focused on contracts; we’re<br />
moving from a contracts-focused model to a solutionoriented<br />
model. We’re also looking to increase the amount of<br />
information available for agencies to make informed decisions.<br />
We’re looking at making prices paid available for our<br />
acquisition vehicles so agencies can conduct better research<br />
and better negotiate prices with vendors.<br />
Our second priority is delivering world-class value. Today<br />
federal buying is so fragmented. What can we provide to<br />
agencies to improve their buying power and buying decisions?<br />
Part of driving world-class value is sharing best practices.<br />
Another part is “speed to value.”<br />
We know cloud has the potential to save government<br />
millions, but if you can’t access innovative technologies like<br />
cloud quickly and efficiently, that is lost opportunity. We’re<br />
working to provide greater visibility on the prices paid by<br />
government agencies for commonly purchased goods and<br />
services and related purchasing behaviors to the acquisition<br />
community, in order to support efforts to reduce total<br />
cost of ownership for these goods and services. We’ve also<br />
introduced the solutions navigator tool on our website. We<br />
have an 800 number and an online chat so people can ask<br />
questions.<br />
My third priority is being agile and innovative—being ahead<br />
of the market. We talk about skating to where the puck is<br />
going and anticipating if we see a shift toward a specific<br />
trend. How do we need to start revamping our contracts and<br />
our solutions to help meet these needs? Our infrastructure<br />
as a service and e-mail as a service blanket purchase agreements<br />
really did anticipate that future. We offer choices for<br />
where we are today, but also give them the ability through<br />
contract solutions to get them where they need to be.<br />
Your Network Services Program has undergone some major<br />
initiatives with Networx Transition being complete, Network<br />
Services 2020 (NS2020) underway. Could you go over some<br />
of the things you’re doing and how they’re helping the<br />
government?<br />
Mary Davie: It has been a year since we transitioned to<br />
Networx. This was a heavy lift for the agencies … the<br />
contract was actually awarded six years ago and the technology<br />
landscape was changing. It is important to remember<br />
42<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Insights<br />
that Networx saved the American taxpayers more than $678<br />
million in 2013. We can expect that to increase as agencies<br />
fully use the capabilities of Networx. We are talking to agencies<br />
to share the lessons learned from the transition and will<br />
continue to do so.<br />
NS2020 is not a single contract but rather a strategy recommending<br />
a portfolio of contracts that address a broad range<br />
of infrastructure, IT and telecommunications needs. GSA is<br />
working with industry and our customers to be as forwardthinking<br />
as possible—putting in place the most robust and<br />
service-rich contracts possible. The key to meeting the need<br />
for future technologies will be flexibility. We have to have<br />
the systems and processes that can support the ordering,<br />
billing, and inventory management for new services that may<br />
emerge over the next 10 years. We are working with the GSA<br />
CIO, agencies, and suppliers to ensure our systems efforts are<br />
headed in the right direction. One of my priorities is to be<br />
better buyers of telecommunications and make the transition<br />
less lengthy, costly, or complex.<br />
Many agencies actually face reduced or flat IT spending,<br />
yet missions continue to grow and demands continue to<br />
expand. What is a winning formula for smarter IT spending?<br />
Mary Davie: It’s really about continuing to innovate and<br />
invest while reducing our IT spend.<br />
While these seem contradictory, I think they actually go hand<br />
in hand. Feedback from customers shows us that most of the<br />
time and money is actually spent on operations and maintenance<br />
of legacy systems. When we talk about things like<br />
“cloud,” we’re not talking about it because it is just a new<br />
technology, but because it is a proven way to save on infrastructure<br />
costs and free up funding to allow CIOs to invest in<br />
mission-enhancing technologies.<br />
Governance and program management are also critical.<br />
We need to make sure that some of the more highly visible<br />
projects are being executed on time and within budget.<br />
Collaboration is also important because agencies can learn<br />
from the experiences of other agencies. Given the changing<br />
acquisition environment and process, we need to be more<br />
agile and flexible pursuing modular development. We may<br />
need to do things in smaller chunks; either it’s successful in<br />
four to six months and we move on to the next phase or it’s<br />
not and we change course.<br />
Tactically, other pursuits can make a difference. GSA<br />
manages the Presidential Innovation Fellows, deployed<br />
across government in six to nine-month increments and<br />
charged with solving a specific problem through technology.<br />
There is also strategic sourcing. GSA has been helping run<br />
Federal Strategic Sourcing contracts for some time. ITS has<br />
the lead for FSSI Wireless and the upcoming large publisher<br />
BPA. Both of these allow agencies to pool their dollars and<br />
buy as a federal government rather than individuals. Then<br />
there is the move to shared services where agencies don’t<br />
need to invest in their own systems and services, but can<br />
access mission support functions from recognized shared<br />
services providers. Lastly, there is also the speed to savings.<br />
Agencies don’t have to use GSA to acquire their IT needs,<br />
but besides saving in dollars, we save them time. If an<br />
agency goes open market for a $100 million acquisition and<br />
it takes on average a year, that time it takes acquiring the<br />
technology is time that agencies are missing out on savings<br />
and they can’t get back. Instead, when agencies use us, an<br />
average of one year on the open market for a $100 million<br />
project gets shortened to three months. That is nine months<br />
of savings realization agencies lose by not coming to us. ¥<br />
To learn more about the U.S General Services Administration,<br />
go to www.gsa.gov/portal/category/21383.<br />
To hear The Business of Government Hour’s interview with Mary<br />
Davie, go to the Center’s website at www.businessofgovernment.org.<br />
To download the show as a podcast on your computer or MP3 player,<br />
from the Center’s website at www.businessofgovernment.org, right<br />
click on an audio segment, select Save Target As, and save the file.<br />
To read the full transcript of The Business of Government Hour’s<br />
interview with Mary Davie, visit the Center’s website at<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 43
Insights<br />
Promoting the Financial Integrity of the U.S.<br />
Government: Insights from Dave Lebryk,<br />
Commissioner, Bureau of the Fiscal Service,<br />
U.S. Department of the Treasury<br />
By Michael J. Keegan<br />
The Bureau of the Fiscal Service<br />
(BFS) was formed by combining<br />
the Financial Management Service<br />
(FMS) and the Bureau of the Public<br />
Debt (BPD). BPD financed government<br />
operations, accounted for the<br />
resulting public debt, and provided<br />
financial and administrative services<br />
to federal agencies. FMS provided<br />
payment services, revenue collection<br />
and centralized debt collection for<br />
the federal government, and prepared<br />
the financial statements of the federal government.<br />
How has the Fiscal Service transformed the way the federal<br />
government manages its financial services? What is the<br />
Fiscal Service doing to promote the financial integrity and<br />
operational efficiency of the federal government? How is it<br />
strengthening its financial management processes to realize<br />
efficiency, better transparency, and dependable accountability?<br />
Dave Lebryk, Commissioner, Bureau of the Fiscal<br />
Service, U.S. Department of the Treasury, shares his insights<br />
on these topics and more. The following is an edited excerpt<br />
of our discussion on The Business of Government Hour.<br />
What is the mission of Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal<br />
Service? What activities does BFS engage in to achieve this<br />
mission?<br />
Dave Lebryk: On October 7th, 2012, the Bureau of the<br />
Public Debt and the Financial Management Service came<br />
together to form the Bureau of the Fiscal Service. The Bureau<br />
of the Fiscal Service has a very important mission. We make<br />
most federal government payments. We collect most of the<br />
money for the government; we account for the public debt as<br />
well as report on the financial activity of the federal<br />
government.<br />
appropriated budget of around $360 million; 3300 employees<br />
at six locations located across the country. We have payment<br />
centers in Kansas City and Philadelphia. We have two<br />
debt collection centers, one in Austin, Texas, and one in<br />
Birmingham, Alabama. The bulk of our operations are done in<br />
the Washington, D.C., area and Parkersburg, West Virginia.<br />
I’d like to focus more on your specific responsibilities as the<br />
commissioner of the Bureau of the Fiscal Service. Would<br />
you describe your duties and areas under your purview?<br />
How do your efforts support the overall mission of the<br />
Department of the Treasury?<br />
Dave Lebryk: My main responsibility is to set strategic<br />
direction for the organization. At the same time, any good<br />
leader needs to focus on the operational as well as the<br />
people aspect of an organization. I probably spend a fair<br />
amount of my time on the strategic, setting the direction for<br />
the organization, establishing the priorities, but also making<br />
sure that we’re delivering on them through out daily functions.<br />
Every month we make payments to roughly 80 million<br />
people who rely on their Social Security payments or their<br />
veterans benefits. We call these lifeline payments, so it’s very<br />
important that we deliver these payments every month on<br />
time, every time. We take great pride in doing just that.<br />
We also finance federal operations. Last year we conducted<br />
over 268 auctions raising $8.1 trillion. The number of<br />
Treasury securities that have been issued, payments that have<br />
been made, or financial statements of the federal government—all<br />
this information comes from the Bureau of the<br />
Fiscal Service. It was apparent during the government shutdown<br />
how critical we are to the functioning of the government.<br />
If we’re not raising money to finance government<br />
operations, collecting money, or making payments, it has a<br />
significant impact on not only the operation of the government<br />
but on the economy as a whole.<br />
In addition, we collect debt on behalf of federal agencies<br />
and provide shared services to 78 customers. We have an<br />
44<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
“The Bureau of the Fiscal Service has a<br />
very important mission. We make most<br />
of the federal government payments.<br />
We collect most of the money for the<br />
government; we account for the public<br />
debt as well as report on the financial<br />
activity of the federal government. In<br />
addition, we collect debt on behalf of<br />
federal agencies and provide shared<br />
services to 78 customers.”<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 45
“We’re probably the only bureau or agency that has shared service as part<br />
of its mission. We provide shared services in a number of areas: travel,<br />
procurement, accounting, HR, and IT. Using a shared services model can save<br />
agencies money and time, so they can focus more resources on meeting their<br />
missions. It is a very powerful model and there are lots of opportunities across<br />
government to do more.”<br />
Regarding your responsibilities and duties, what are the top<br />
three challenges that you face in your position and how are<br />
you addressing these challenges?<br />
Dave Lebryk: It’s fair to say that budgets are going to<br />
remain tight for the foreseeable future. Demographics are<br />
changing significantly with the aging of the workforce.<br />
Technology is evolving very rapidly and our bureau is at the<br />
forefront of many of these issues. I’ll give an example.<br />
About three years ago, we started an initiative called the All<br />
Electronic Treasury Initiative. At that time, roughly 80 percent<br />
of all payments were being made electronically. Today, close<br />
to 98 percent of benefit payments are made electronically,<br />
which is safer and more secure than paper checks. Three<br />
years ago, we were producing close to 200 million checks<br />
a year. We’re estimating we’re going to produce 80 million<br />
checks this year. This has a significant operational impact.<br />
This change in process enabled by advances in technology<br />
required that we close payment facilities, illustrating an intersection<br />
of technology and change.<br />
Secondly, workforce demographics have changed, so when<br />
you make these kinds of fundamental changes, you have a<br />
different dynamic than you would have had 20 years ago<br />
when fewer workers were retirement eligible.<br />
Lastly, these changes were driven in large measure to reduce<br />
budgets; it costs over a dollar to produce a paper check [and]<br />
less than 10 cents to issue an electronic payment. This initiative<br />
[will] save close to one billion dollars over the next 10<br />
years. By going in this direction, we operate more efficiently<br />
as a government agency. This is one example of how we<br />
think strategically and carefully about the significant changes<br />
happening and challenges faced.<br />
Would you tell us about your strategic vision for the bureau?<br />
Dave Lebryk: We talk about lead, transform, and deliver<br />
when we think about the things we’re doing. We are now<br />
focused on making government operate better and what we<br />
can do to remain sustainable for the long term. We’ve positioned<br />
the bureau very well. Many government agencies are<br />
experiencing the same budget pressures that we did, requiring<br />
them to focus more on their core missions. The back office<br />
operations we perform are not core to those missions.<br />
Agency leaders must find new ways to deliver their missions<br />
less expensively. There is much receptivity to the kind of<br />
things that we’re doing—centralizing services or pursuing<br />
shared services as options for agencies. We were able to<br />
function well in the budget environment because we went<br />
from five data centers to two. We went from four payment<br />
centers to two. We reduced our facilities footprint and<br />
reduced costs in these areas. There are lessons for government<br />
agencies that are opportunities to reduce costs.<br />
What prompted the creation of this newly established<br />
bureau? How has the consolidation process gone to date?<br />
Dave Lebryk: In September 2011, we began discussing<br />
the need to consolidate the two bureaus given long-term<br />
budget cuts. We asked whether these two bureaus could<br />
continue to function in the face of budget realities. We recognized<br />
that we’d have a difficult time continuing to fulfill our<br />
mission-critical functions. We initially looked at this as a<br />
budget exercise. Through this and other efforts, we identified<br />
close to $100 million of savings—about 20 percent of our<br />
appropriated annual budget from our 2010 level. We have<br />
significantly reduced our costs.<br />
By February 2012, we announced it publicly in our budget,<br />
and by October of 2012, we had actually executed the consolidation.<br />
All of our employees were given a card that highlights<br />
our mission and vision, and to remind us all why we’re doing<br />
what we’re doing. I carry mine with me all the time.<br />
We’ve also used the opportunity to re-imagine what the<br />
combined organization could do. The legacy missions of FMS<br />
and BFD both [were to] “provide services.” We existed to<br />
provide payment services, financing services, or debt collection<br />
services. Today, our mission is about transforming government<br />
… changing the way the government does back office<br />
operations while also improving financial management.<br />
46<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Insights<br />
In bringing these two agencies together, we did six major<br />
reorganizations. We set up a special site called One Fiscal<br />
where employees could ask questions. I do what we call a<br />
“What’s Up email,” every several weeks in which I talk about<br />
things going on in the organization. This became increasingly<br />
important during the consolidation period.<br />
We’ve had to become pretty good at managing change. It has<br />
become a fundamental part. Sometimes you’re going to do<br />
things that aren’t popular, but are necessary to strategically<br />
position the organization for success. It always helps that<br />
you have a clear sense of where you’re going and engage<br />
your team accordingly. The first phase was consolidation.<br />
The second phase involves integration, and the next phase is<br />
optimization. We are in that integration phase. We have an<br />
effort underway to reexamine our values. The most important<br />
thing we can do during this integration phase is ensure our<br />
people feel valued and that we invest in their training.<br />
What are some of the recent initiatives you have been<br />
pursuing?<br />
Dave Lebryk: Late January [2014], it was an exciting<br />
period at the bureau when the president introduced the myRA<br />
in his State of the Union Address. It is a new way for working<br />
Americans to start their own retirement savings. [myRA is a<br />
savings bond that encourages building a nest egg]. We think it<br />
is going to be an appealing way to encourage people to save,<br />
as well as benefit employers large and small who currently<br />
might not offer a retirement account to their employees.<br />
MyRA has some income restrictions similar to Roth IRAs.<br />
I believe those numbers are somewhere around $129,000<br />
per individual and $191,000 for a couple. This is part of the<br />
president’s effort to really encourage savings in the country.<br />
At the bureau, we have the opportunity to actually build the<br />
infrastructure that supports the myRA. This is not new for us<br />
as we run the savings bonds programs and TreasuryDirect,<br />
which have over 50 million savings bond owners.<br />
During that same week, and for the first time in 16 years,<br />
we issued a new security—a floating rate note, successfully<br />
auctioning around $15 billion in its debut—it has been very<br />
popular with the investment community. The larger investors<br />
usually buy these notes, but individuals can buy them as well.<br />
Finally, we implemented a new governmentwide financial<br />
reporting system, Governmentwide Treasury Account Symbol<br />
Adjusted Trial Balance System (GTAS) as the primary means<br />
of reporting agency trial balance data. A single data collection<br />
system will pave the way for more consistent and complete<br />
financial data and will allow for better analytical reporting.<br />
This enables agencies to report their financial information.<br />
We can use that to compile a report for Congress, as well as<br />
make information more readily available and usable.<br />
In an era of fiscal constraint, federal agencies are always<br />
trying to find new ways of doing business that can lead<br />
to cost savings and realize efficiencies. Would you tell us<br />
more about the push towards shared services in the federal<br />
government?<br />
Dave Lebryk: We’re probably the only bureau or agency<br />
that has shared service as part of its mission. We provide<br />
shared services in a number of areas: travel, procurement,<br />
accounting, HR, and IT. We have 78 shared services<br />
customer agencies. This is where government needs to be<br />
going. We work closely with the other shared service<br />
providers in trying to understand the demand for shared<br />
services, and then how we can collectively meet that<br />
demand. We’re talking about what agencies are doing, what<br />
they need to be doing over the course of the next 10 years.<br />
For example, agencies should consider federal shared<br />
services providers as viable options prior to investing in new<br />
systems. In fact, the bureau is working with the U.S.<br />
Department of Housing and Urban Development right now,<br />
looking at their core financial system and how we may be<br />
able to assist them.<br />
I talked to a federal agency CFO who said he spends 25<br />
percent of his time on systems issues because he is dealing<br />
with his agency’s ERP and core financial system. The CFO in<br />
my organization spends none of her time on systems issues.<br />
She has time to spend on strategic issues such as internal<br />
controls and management. Using a shared services model<br />
can save agencies money and time, so they can focus more<br />
resources on meeting their missions. It is a very powerful<br />
model and there are lots of opportunities across government<br />
to do more. ¥<br />
To learn more about the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, go to<br />
www.fiscal.treasury.gov.<br />
To hear The Business of Government Hour’s interview with Dave<br />
Lebryk, go to the Center’s website at www.businessofgovernment.org.<br />
To download the show as a podcast on your computer or MP3 player,<br />
from the Center’s website at www.businessofgovernment.org, right<br />
click on an audio segment, select Save Target As, and save the file.<br />
To read the full transcript of The Business of Government Hour’s<br />
interview with Dave Lebryk, visit the Center’s website at<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 47
Insights<br />
Harnessing Evidence and Evaluation: Insights from<br />
Kathy Stack, Advisor, Evidence-Based Innovation,<br />
Office of Management and Budget<br />
By Michael J. Keegan<br />
The federal government spends tens of<br />
billions annually on social programs<br />
with modest or poor results. In other<br />
cases, billions have been spent on<br />
programs and funding streams while<br />
little rigorous evidence exists about<br />
program outcomes. In a climate of<br />
fiscal austerity, it is far better to cut<br />
programs with minimal impact and<br />
improve existing programs, based on<br />
evidence from high-quality program<br />
evaluations.<br />
What is program evaluation? How can evidence and rigorous<br />
evaluation be best integrated into decision-making? How can<br />
agencies conduct rigorous program evaluations on a tight<br />
budget? Kathy Stack, Advisor for Evidence-Based Innovation,<br />
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) shares her insights<br />
on these topics and more. The following is an edited excerpt<br />
of our discussion on The Business of Government Hour.<br />
What is the mission of the Office of Management and<br />
Budget and how is it organized?<br />
Kathy Stack: We develop the president’s annual budget,<br />
taking agency recommendations and figuring how they fit.<br />
We issue government-wide management policies on how to<br />
promote efficiency. We coordinate review of all legislative<br />
proposals. We review all the regulations and information<br />
collection that put potential burdens and constraints on the<br />
public, trying to make sure that we don’t impose undue<br />
burden and everything has a clear purpose.<br />
The budget side of OMB is a vertical structure. Each major<br />
Cabinet department or agency has an OMB counterpart<br />
on the budget side that oversees their policies and budget,<br />
reviews regulations, and thinks about their management.<br />
The management side is set up horizontally. We’re focused<br />
on mission support functions such as financial management,<br />
procurement, information technology, and performance<br />
management, working with agencies to implement policies,<br />
guidance, and in some instances best practices. The management<br />
side is much more focused on how to get the mission<br />
support offices the capacity and the infrastructure they need<br />
to support policies and programs.<br />
What are you doing now at OMB?<br />
Kathy Stack: OMB is pursuing an aggressive management<br />
agenda that delivers a smarter, more innovative, and more<br />
accountable government for citizens. An important component<br />
of this is strengthening agencies’ abilities to continually<br />
improve program performance by applying existing evidence<br />
about what works, generating new knowledge, and using<br />
experimentation and innovation to test new approaches to<br />
program delivery.<br />
I’m advisor for evidence-based innovation within OMB, a<br />
new role created in July 2013. I have a staff of three and our<br />
mission is to help federal agencies use evidence and data to<br />
inform decision-making. It’s all about creating partnerships<br />
and coalitions of the willing who can try to make things<br />
happen together.<br />
What are your top challenges and how have you sought to<br />
address those challenges?<br />
Kathy Stack: I am rediscovering how important it is to<br />
build trust with agencies. Many are not used to sharing<br />
information. Making progress on my agenda requires encouraging<br />
people to be candid about the challenges they face or<br />
their lack of expertise.<br />
The second challenge has to do with available resources.<br />
Much of what we do is statutorily mandated, but no statutory<br />
mandate specifically requires agencies to use evidence,<br />
48<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
“[Performance Partnership Pilots are] one of the most<br />
exciting examples of bottom-up policy making. Its<br />
genesis comes from a February 2011 presidential<br />
memorandum to agencies calling for administrative<br />
flexibility for states, localities, and tribes. It charged<br />
federal agencies to work closely with state, local, and<br />
tribal governments to identify administrative, regulatory,<br />
and legislative barriers in federally funded programs that<br />
currently prevent them from efficiently using tax dollars<br />
to achieve the best results for their constituents.”<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 49
“OMB is pursuing an aggressive management agenda that delivers a smarter,<br />
more innovative, and more accountable government for citizens. An important<br />
component of this is strengthening agencies’ abilities to continually improve<br />
program performance by applying existing evidence about what works,<br />
generating new knowledge, and using experimentation and innovation to test<br />
new approaches to program delivery.”<br />
evaluation, and data to make better decisions. I am doing<br />
my best to find allies and partners inside agencies and also<br />
external partners … think tanks and nonprofits.<br />
The third challenge is maintaining momentum in the face<br />
of leadership transitions. Fortunately I had a great transition<br />
from the Bush administration into the Obama administration.<br />
Along with the challenges you encounter, most governmentwide<br />
efforts can be fraught with unanticipated or unexpected<br />
surprises. What surprised you most?<br />
Kathy Stack: I have been struck by how similar decisionmaking<br />
is for OMB leadership regardless of a Republican or<br />
Democratic administration. When OMB leaders are<br />
presented with very compelling data and evidence they’re<br />
going to reach similar if not identical conclusions. When you<br />
don’t have data and evidence, ideology tends to fill that gap.<br />
It’s [also] amazing, the ability that OMB or the White House<br />
has, when they can bring agencies in and help them become<br />
part of creating that vision … they get excited about it and<br />
then some great things can happen.<br />
The federal fiscal situation necessitates improvements in efficiency<br />
and doing more with less. Programs can use a broad<br />
range of analytical and management tools, i.e., an “evidence<br />
infrastructure,” to learn what works and what doesn’t. Would<br />
you briefly describe performance measurement and program<br />
evaluation?<br />
Kathy Stack: Performance measurement is the ongoing<br />
monitoring and reporting of program accomplishments and<br />
progress toward established goals. It looks at inputs, process<br />
measures, outputs, outcomes, in order to manage programs,<br />
set goals, and continually improve performance. It’s well<br />
suited to dashboards [which show] performance over time on<br />
different indicators. It can provide valuable information that<br />
enables you to view your performance and if necessary figure<br />
out how to course correct. Every organization needs to use<br />
performance measurement as a management tool.<br />
Program evaluation answers different questions. They are<br />
typically systematic studies conducted periodically to assess<br />
how well a program is working. There are many grant<br />
programs that address various issues while using a wide<br />
range of different strategies. We need to identify those that<br />
have the greatest impact. For example, in the 90s there was<br />
a battle between phonics and whole language. Fortunately,<br />
we had a strong child development center at NIH that was<br />
able to do controlled experiments and discover that phonicsbased<br />
approaches result in better impacts. It just makes<br />
sense to drive dollars to where there is evidence of impact.<br />
It is also essential to bridge these tools, but unfortunately<br />
there aren’t many places where this is happening. New<br />
York City established the Center for Economic Opportunity<br />
to design a portfolio of strategies to reduce poverty. They<br />
are using data all the time to see which providers are doing<br />
better, and th[ose not] doing well, they get let go. New York<br />
City is working with some strong research firms to perform<br />
rigorous analysis demonstrating whether the intervention is<br />
getting results before investing more money.<br />
Federal dollars flow to states and localities through competitive<br />
and formula grants. Grant reforms can strengthen the<br />
use of evidence in government. Among the most exciting<br />
advancements are so-called tiered-evidence or innovation<br />
fund grant designs. Would you tell us more about these<br />
designs?<br />
Kathy Stack: These grant designs focus resources on practices<br />
with the strongest evidence, but still allow for innovation.<br />
In a three-tiered grant model, for example, grantees can<br />
qualify for:<br />
• The “scale up” tier and receive the most funding<br />
• The “validation” tier and receive less funding but evaluation<br />
support<br />
• The “proof of concept” tier and receive the least funding,<br />
but also support for evaluation<br />
50<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Insights<br />
With a tiered-evidence approach, potential grantees know<br />
they must provide evidence behind their approach or be<br />
ready to subject their models to evaluation. The Education<br />
Department’s Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) is a favorite of<br />
mine. These grants are expected to expand the implementation<br />
of and investment in innovative and evidence-based<br />
practices, programs and strategies that significantly:<br />
• Improve K-12 achievement and close achievement gaps<br />
• Decrease dropout rates<br />
• Increase high school graduation rates<br />
Grants are awarded to support scale-up, validation, or development<br />
activities, depending on the level of evidence.<br />
Ultimately, it is about letting states and localities know what<br />
works, so they can replicate these strategies in their own<br />
funding streams.<br />
Right now, five agencies have tiered program designs. The<br />
Labor Department runs two programs, the workforce innovation<br />
fund and a community college initiative, using this structure.<br />
At HHS we have teen pregnancy prevention and home<br />
visiting. The Corporation for National Community Service has<br />
a social innovation fund. USAID has a development innovation<br />
ventures program. All have shown that the tiered structure<br />
can be an overlay to a fairly traditional grant program.<br />
Would you tell us about the new authority for Performance<br />
Partnership Pilots for disconnected youth that was recently<br />
included in the 2014 omnibus appropriations bill? What was<br />
the impetus for this initiative, and how will it work?<br />
Kathy Stack: This is one of the most exciting examples of<br />
bottom-up policy making. Its genesis comes from a February<br />
2011 presidential memorandum to agencies calling for<br />
administrative flexibility for states, localities, and tribes. It<br />
charged federal agencies to work closely with state, local,<br />
and tribal governments to identify administrative, regulatory,<br />
and legislative barriers in federally funded programs that<br />
currently prevent them from efficiently using tax dollars to<br />
achieve the best results for their constituents.<br />
One of the most compelling examples was a coalition of<br />
states focusing on disconnected youth … 14 to early 20s,<br />
school dropouts who don’t have jobs. We have dozens of<br />
federal youth programs, but the way they are structured,<br />
it’s incredibly difficult for a locality to make the[m] work<br />
together. This coalition identified challenges they faced<br />
trying to weave these programs together to support the<br />
needs of these high-risk kids. The paper they presented led<br />
to a meeting with senior officials from a number of agencies.<br />
It convinced them that things had to change.<br />
As a result, the 2014 budget would authorize up to 13 state<br />
or local performance partnership pilots to improve outcomes<br />
for disconnected youth. Pilots would use blended funds<br />
from separate youth-serving programs in the Departments<br />
of Education, Labor, HHS, HUD, Justice and other agencies,<br />
and the strategies would be subjected to evaluations to determine<br />
which efforts work best so they could be expanded.<br />
Interestingly, this authority was given in the 2014 appropriations<br />
bill. Frankly, it was the states who presented this ineffective<br />
and onerous situation to the attention of key members<br />
in Congress.<br />
So-called “Pay for Success” approaches are another way<br />
to strengthen the use of evidence in government. Would<br />
you tell us more about the PFS model (also know as social<br />
impact bonds)?<br />
Kathy Stack: At a time when government resources are<br />
constrained, an innovative approach is the Pay for Success<br />
funding model. This is where investors provide upfront<br />
capital for social services with a strong evidence base that,<br />
when successful, achieve measurable outcomes that reduce<br />
the need for future services. Efforts underway in New York<br />
City and Massachusetts look at the cost of recidivism. Many<br />
of the projects have [gotten] working capital from the private<br />
sector to run these prevention services. Rigorous measurement<br />
and evaluation methodologies assure that these new<br />
projects achieve results. If [investors] get a return, it’s<br />
because the government has realized savings and they are<br />
sharing it while the individuals served are realizing improvements<br />
in their lives. ¥<br />
To learn more about the Office of Management and Budget, go to<br />
www.whitehouse.gov/omb.<br />
To hear The Business of Government Hour’s interview with Kathy<br />
Stack, go to the Center’s website at www.businessofgovernment.org.<br />
To download the show as a podcast on your computer or MP3 player,<br />
from the Center’s website at www.businessofgovernment.org, right<br />
click on an audio segment, select Save Target As, and save the file.<br />
To read the full transcript of The Business of Government Hour’s<br />
interview with Kathy Stack, visit the Center’s website at<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 51
Insights<br />
Data and Information as Strategic Assets: Insights<br />
from Dr. Simon Szykman, Chief Information Officer,<br />
U.S. Department of Commerce<br />
By Michael J. Keegan<br />
The federal government invests<br />
billions on information technology<br />
each year to help agencies accomplish<br />
their missions. IT enables federal<br />
agencies to do this more effectively<br />
and efficiently. Yet fully exploiting the<br />
potential has presented long-standing<br />
challenges. Many federal agency<br />
CIOs are responding to these challenges<br />
by focusing on the enterprise<br />
and coordinating across boundaries.<br />
The U.S. Department of Commerce is one example.<br />
Commerce’s leadership has successfully tackled one of the<br />
most significant challenges facing senior IT leadership—the<br />
requirement for greater empowerment of decision-making to<br />
drive efficiencies and improve effectiveness of IT.<br />
What is the information technology strategy of the U.S.<br />
Department of Commerce? How has Commerce changed the<br />
way it does IT? Dr. Simon Szykman, Chief Information Officer<br />
at the U.S. Department of Commerce, shares his insights on<br />
these topics and more. The following is an edited excerpt of<br />
our discussion on The Business of Government Hour.<br />
What are the responsibilities and duties of the chief<br />
information officer at the U.S. Department of Commerce?<br />
Dr. Simon Szykman: The Department of Commerce has a<br />
dozen bureaus pursuing missions relating to commerce. In<br />
this federated IT model, my role is principally to provide strategic<br />
direction and leadership on a variety of initiatives<br />
(including cost savings and shared services) that have department-wide<br />
relevance. I develop policy guidance and conduct<br />
oversight for IT investments within the department. Unlike<br />
some CIOs, I do not manage the operational IT infrastructure<br />
across the entire department. Those activities are typically<br />
done at the bureau level. I have two deputy chief information<br />
officers. One is focused on management and business operations,<br />
while the other serves as our chief technology officer.<br />
We also have a chief information security officer, who is<br />
responsible for cybersecurity policy, compliance, strategy,<br />
and providing direction for cybersecurity across the<br />
department.<br />
Given the department’s federated IT business model, what<br />
are the top challenges you face and how have you sought to<br />
address them?<br />
Dr. Simon Szykman: My number one challenge is<br />
cybersecurity; it has been a weakness for the department for<br />
some time. However, we’ve made significant improvements.<br />
We still have work to do. The second challenge is working<br />
within this fiscal climate and the budgetary pressures we<br />
face. We have to identify opportunities for cost savings while<br />
maintaining the quality and effectiveness of our services. The<br />
third challenge is focused on improving the quality of<br />
services we deliver.<br />
Commerce views information and technology as strategic<br />
assets critical to accomplishing its mission. Would you tell<br />
us about your strategic IT vision for the department?<br />
Dr. Simon Szykman: Information technology is definitely<br />
a strategic asset for the department. This is because many of<br />
the department’s missions rely heavily on information and<br />
data—from climate modeling and weather prediction, to<br />
supporting innovation through the Patent and Trademark<br />
Office, to the research that goes on at the National Institute of<br />
Standards and Technology. We rely heavily on IT to support<br />
our mission components, but IT is the enabler. Our real asset<br />
is the information and the data we use in our products.<br />
The department has been developing a strategic plan and<br />
we’re working to align our IT priorities to support [it]. For<br />
example, we have a greater focus on data. As a result, we<br />
see the unpublished data we have as an untapped asset.<br />
What can we make available that can be used to create new<br />
products, new businesses, which can ultimately lead to job<br />
creation and help foster economic growth?<br />
52<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
“ An effective technology leader has the<br />
ability to think strategically, articulate<br />
a vision, and be a good communicator<br />
and consensus builder. Today’s<br />
government IT leader needs to be<br />
agile, more adaptive in following and<br />
anticipating commercial IT trends, and<br />
much more customer-focused.”<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 53
Insights<br />
The strategic vision for the department as a whole, and the<br />
importance of data within that strategic vision, is one of our<br />
key IT priorities. We do have a variety of other strategic drivers<br />
that follow general technology trends—what’s happening in<br />
the commercial and consumer markets and how these technologies<br />
can be used to support our mission, the technologies<br />
that people in the department want to use, and the kinds<br />
of technologies that our external customers and stakeholders<br />
expect to see when they’re interacting with Commerce.<br />
There is also value in distinguishing commodity IT from<br />
mission IT. Commodity IT encompasses technology and<br />
services that are common across the department and not<br />
mission-specific. For example, e-mail is a department-wide<br />
technology representative of commodity IT. It can be consolidated<br />
and operated more cost-effectively.<br />
In 2012, you were charged by the department’s senior leadership<br />
to develop, in consultation with the bureaus, an IT<br />
Portfolio Management Policy. What were the reasons for<br />
pursuing such a policy? Would you tell us more about the<br />
actual process?<br />
Dr. Simon Szykman: The development of the IT Portfolio<br />
Management policy was led by me with participation from<br />
the bureau CIOs at Commerce. We did this to get buy-in in<br />
advance. Everybody [had] a voice in the development of the<br />
policy, and in fact, the effort was strengthened by the feedback<br />
provided and recommendations and suggestions made<br />
from the broader community.<br />
We pursued a collaborative approach because it was about<br />
strengthening the department CIO, the CIOs at the bureaus,<br />
and the way we manage IT. Giving more control over some<br />
IT decision-making at the bureau level was also a key<br />
cornerstone.<br />
Bureau CIOs may not have had the level of visibility or<br />
control over decision-making and funding that they prefer.<br />
A good sum of the IT spending actually takes place within<br />
the programs; 100% of every IT dollar is not under the direct<br />
control of the bureau CIO. From a governance perspective, the<br />
delegations in this policy did enable CIOs to have more visibility<br />
within their organizations, but also to drive change more<br />
effectively. We now have consolidation of IT staffing under a<br />
bureau CIO as a result of the policies and the provisions in<br />
this portfolio management policy. This gives bureau CIOs more<br />
influence on the performance of staff and gives them more<br />
control over what’s going on within their bureaus.<br />
What have you done to strengthen the department’s IT<br />
capital investment process to ensure that investment decisions<br />
are mission-aligned and cost-justified?<br />
Dr. Simon Szykman: We’ve been significantly improving<br />
the processes, how the Commerce IT Review Board operates,<br />
its structure, activities, and the mechanisms that we use<br />
to improve the overall oversight that we’re providing for<br />
capital planning and capital investments.<br />
For example, we’ve changed the composition of the board.<br />
The board is co-chaired by the department CIO and CFO<br />
with core representation of bureau CIOs. Today, we’ve<br />
expanded the board to also include representation from the<br />
department’s acquisition and budget organizations, respectively.<br />
We have a new Office of Program Evaluation and Risk<br />
Management, which is also represented at these meetings.<br />
This is key as it helps us understand as part of our review the<br />
risks associated with these major investments. We’ve also<br />
expanded the board to include more regular participation<br />
from the program management community.<br />
Our oversight capabilities have improved significantly. In<br />
addition to our oversight processes, we implemented the<br />
Office of Management and Budget’s IT dashboard [which]<br />
inventories all the department’s major IT investments. We<br />
report on these monthly, including CIO ratings for all these<br />
major investments. This improves transparency for the general<br />
public, but has also required us to develop a new set of<br />
assessment criteria and functions that should lead to a reduction<br />
in risk and better performance for all of these projects.<br />
Would you elaborate on your efforts at Commerce to pursue<br />
cost savings and efficiency initiatives?<br />
Dr. Simon Szykman: We are seeing documented savings<br />
with infrastructure consolidation as part of the governmentwide<br />
data center consolidation initiative. We are also doing<br />
strategic sourcing, consolidating the acquisition and<br />
purchasing of technology, hardware, software services to buy<br />
in larger quantity and drive cost down.<br />
Commerce had over 100 contracts for buying PCs; today,<br />
we have a single strategic sourcing vehicle across the entire<br />
department. We’re realizing 30% to 35% savings … on the<br />
order of $8.6 million just on PC purchasing solely by going<br />
to a single contract.<br />
We’ve [replaced] desktop printers with more efficient work<br />
group printers. We’re looking to consolidate our mobile<br />
phones to a single vehicle for better pricing. We’re also<br />
54<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
“In this federated IT model, my role is principally to provide strategic direction<br />
and leadership on a variety of initiatives (including cost savings and shared<br />
services) that have department-wide relevance.”<br />
doing this with our software purchases. We are pursuing<br />
shared services initiatives (such as help desk consolidation &<br />
network consolidation within the headquarters building.)<br />
Mobile computing is a versatile and potentially strategic technology<br />
that improves information quality and accessibility.<br />
Would you tell us about the department-wide strategy for<br />
mobility and the mobile device management program?<br />
Dr. Simon Szykman: Our department-wide mobility<br />
strategy is lean. Every bureau can still manage their own<br />
mobile devices and create their own enterprise services, but<br />
we have a single department-wide contract for acquiring<br />
mobile device management technology. The single standardized<br />
contract gives us better pricing and makes it easier if we<br />
choose to consolidate and go with one service provider to<br />
support the whole department.<br />
There are bureau-level strategies for mobility as well. For<br />
example, the Census Bureau for the 2010 decennial census<br />
issued government-purchased laptops to every temporary<br />
employee. The bureau would like to reduce the cost of the<br />
2020 decennial census. They’re talking about a variety of<br />
options; one might be to allow a Bring Your Own Device<br />
(BYOD) approach or a virtual desktop infrastructure. This … is<br />
an example of how bureau-level strategies must sometimes go<br />
beyond department-level strategies to achieve mission delivery.<br />
I’d like to discuss “open data” and “big data.” What do these<br />
terms mean? How are they at the forefront of government<br />
tech policy, and to what extent do they represent the next<br />
phase of technological revolution in the federal government?<br />
Dr. Simon Szykman: Open data and big data are distinct<br />
trends. In my view, open data focuses on how the government<br />
can more effectively use the data it has, but more<br />
importantly, share it to increase transparency or provide more<br />
information to stakeholders so they understand what the<br />
government is doing and hold it accountable.<br />
The department has a new strategic focus on data. Right now,<br />
we publish only a small portion of the data we collect. If<br />
you’re looking at weather data we’re talking literally petabytes<br />
per day that we acquire, analyze, and disseminate. The idea is<br />
that, by increasing the amount of available data, industry, citizens,<br />
or companies might identify new and innovative ways of<br />
using that data, which could lead to new jobs, new markets,<br />
and new products providing economic benefit to the country.<br />
Big data focuses on scale and complexity. At Commerce, the<br />
big data issue is linked more directly to the mission delivery<br />
of our bureaus. The Census Bureau collects data on over 320<br />
million households across the United States. NOAA and the<br />
National Weather Service deal with petabytes of data per day.<br />
NIST deals with large data sets to support different aspects of<br />
their research mission. The Patent and Trademark Office has<br />
documented patents going back to the 1800s. The way big<br />
data is emerging from mission delivery varies from bureau to<br />
bureau. As a result, we don’t have a single big data strategy<br />
or big data initiative for the entire department.<br />
What are the characteristics of an effective leader, and does<br />
the concept of leadership need to shift because we’re living<br />
in an increasingly networked world?<br />
Dr. Simon Szykman: An effective technology leader has<br />
the ability to think strategically, articulate a vision, and be a<br />
good communicator and consensus builder. Today’s government<br />
IT leader needs to be agile, more adaptive in following<br />
and anticipating commercial IT trends, and much more<br />
customer-focused. ¥<br />
To learn more about the U.S. Department of Commerce, go to<br />
www.commerce.gov.<br />
To hear The Business of Government Hour’s interview with Dr. Simon<br />
Szykman, go to the Center’s website at www.businessofgovernment.org.<br />
To download the show as a podcast on your computer or MP3 player,<br />
from the Center’s website at www.businessofgovernment.org, right<br />
click on an audio segment, select Save Target As, and save the file.<br />
To read the full transcript of The Business of Government Hour’s<br />
interview with Dr. Simon Szykman, visit the Center’s website at<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org.<br />
Editor’s Note: Since this interview, Dr. Szykman announced he would be<br />
leaving federal service.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 55
Forum: Six Trends Driving Change<br />
in Government<br />
Six Trends Driving Change in Government<br />
Edited by Michael J. Keegan<br />
Government leaders face serious challenges—fiscal austerity,<br />
citizen expectations, the pace of technology and innovation,<br />
and a new role for governance. These challenges influence<br />
how government executives lead today, and, more importantly,<br />
how they can prepare for the future.<br />
Government is in the midst of significant changes that have<br />
both near-term con sequences and lasting impact. Such<br />
changes have the potential to become more complex in<br />
nature and more uncertain in effect. At the same time, the<br />
demands on government continue to grow, while the collective<br />
resources available to meet such demands are increasingly<br />
con strained.<br />
By sharing knowledge and expertise gained from this<br />
research, we hope to spark the imagination of government<br />
executives beyond day-to-day urgencies and toward solutions<br />
to the serious problems and critical challenges that government<br />
faces now and into the future.<br />
This forum introduces each trend based on insights offered<br />
in Six Trends Driving Change in Government. It reflects our<br />
sense of what lies ahead. In the end, we hope that these<br />
insights are instructive and ultimately helpful to today’s<br />
government leaders and managers. For a more in-depth<br />
exploration of each trend, download or order a free copy of<br />
the full report at businessofgovernment.org.<br />
Six Trends Driving Change in Government<br />
In a special report, Six Trends Driving Change in Government,<br />
the Center has identified a set of trends that correspond to<br />
these challenges and drive government change. These<br />
trends—both separately and in combination—paint a path<br />
forward in responding to the ever-increasing complexity that<br />
government faces. The areas covered by Six Trends are:<br />
• Trend 1: Performance<br />
• Trend 2: Risk<br />
• Trend 3: Innovation<br />
• Trend 4: Mission<br />
• Trend 5: Efficiency<br />
• Trend 6: Leadership<br />
Focusing on these six trends has the potential to change the<br />
way government does business. The Center will fund research<br />
into each, exploring in depth their transformative potential.<br />
Each of the six trends will be addressed in greater depth<br />
by our upcoming research and by highlighting cutting-edge<br />
agency actions. Together, they can help federal executives<br />
across the government understand the art of the possible<br />
when developing approaches that address the administration’s<br />
management agenda.<br />
56<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Forum: Six Trends Driving Change in Government<br />
Trend One: Performance<br />
Moving from Measurement to Action<br />
Results Act of 1993 (GPRA)—which requires agencies to<br />
develop strategic plans, measures, and annual reports. The<br />
new law formalizes a performance leadership and governance<br />
structure that had evolved over the last two decades. It<br />
also requires the development of targeted agency and crossagency<br />
priority goals, regular reviews by senior leaders of<br />
progress toward those goals, and government-wide reporting<br />
of performance via a single web portal.<br />
The key challenge that implementers of this new law will<br />
face: the need to ensure that the many procedural requirements<br />
in the new law do not overwhelm federal agencies in<br />
such a way that agency leaders focus on compliance rather<br />
than on improving performance.<br />
The federal government’s efforts to improve the performance<br />
and results of its programs have evolved over the last two<br />
decades. The goal has remained constant—to change the<br />
culture of government agencies to be more results-oriented<br />
and performance-focused in their work and decision-making.<br />
It has been a long road. The Government Accountability<br />
Office’s periodic reviews of federal managers’ use of performance<br />
information shows recent increases in the use of such<br />
information to:<br />
• Identify program problems to be addressed (55 percent)<br />
• Take corrective action to solve program problems<br />
(54 percent)<br />
• Develop program strategy (49 percent)<br />
Administration Policies Open the Gates to<br />
Accountability<br />
In addition to GPRAMA, the Obama administration has<br />
placed a great deal of emphasis on ensuring greater transparency<br />
and more open access to government data.<br />
Government-wide, the administration has created a one-stop<br />
website, Data.gov, for agency data sets, and has set forth a<br />
series of policies and initiatives to foster greater transparency<br />
and openness. Agencies have responded. Congress has also<br />
supported this policy initiative with legislation; for example,<br />
the Recovery Act required greater transparency in government<br />
spending data.<br />
This new openness has also precipitated several new<br />
forms of accountability, according to professors Dorothea<br />
Greiling and Arie Halachmi. “Traditional accountability<br />
These are process—not outcome-related—improvements.<br />
Yet, progress and hope abound. The federal government’s<br />
past performance focus was on developing annual performance<br />
reports based on a supply of information. Today’s<br />
focus is on achieving a handful of strategic goals through the<br />
effective use of data to inform real-time decision-making.<br />
New laws, policies, technologies, and techniques have made<br />
this shift in focus possible, but more can be done in the area<br />
of government performance management to drive change.<br />
Government executives seem to be finding ways to more<br />
effectively integrate performance management into the decision-making<br />
processes and culture of government, within—<br />
and increasingly across—agencies and programs.<br />
New Law Serves As Catalyst for Action<br />
The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) reinvigorates<br />
a 20-year-old law—the Government Performance and<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 57
Forum: Six Trends Driving Change in Government<br />
Linking Data to Decision-Making<br />
Data and evidence are increasingly being used in agency<br />
decision-making, in part because of greater leadership<br />
interest, but also because there are new techniques and<br />
capacities available. For example, the new GPRA law<br />
requires agencies to hold regular data-driven decision<br />
meetings and this new forum has created a demand for<br />
useful information.<br />
In addition, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)<br />
is supporting a series of initiatives to build an evidence and<br />
evaluation-based decision-making capacity in agencies. It<br />
has issued several directives to agencies encouraging their<br />
adoption of evaluation and analytic approaches and is<br />
encouraging the development of such capacities as well.<br />
arrangements are mostly vertically oriented and so follow<br />
hierarchical lines of control,” explain Greiling and Halachmi.<br />
They go on to observe that “innovative forms of accountability<br />
break with this pattern,” and are more horizontal and<br />
bottom-up in nature. New forms of accountability—such as<br />
PerformanceStat reviews—are possible. They reflect the new<br />
interplay between open data, social media technologies, and<br />
the increasing availability of real-time data.<br />
Making Real-Time Analytics Possible<br />
In parallel with the catalyzing effect of the GPRA<br />
Modernization Act and the greater availability of government<br />
data, a series of new technological advances offer<br />
sense-making techniques and access previously unavailable<br />
for large amounts of structured and unstructured data.<br />
Sukumar Ganapati, author of the IBM Center report, Use<br />
of Dashboards in Government, describes the use of dashboards<br />
as one approach to help busy decision-makers<br />
synthesize and understand a wide array of data in ways that<br />
make sense. In his report, he describes how the Obama<br />
administration has created dashboards on the progress of its<br />
information technology investments and its efforts to reduce<br />
the government’s real property holdings.<br />
Conclusion<br />
Studies over the past decade show some progress among<br />
mid-level managers in becoming more results-oriented and<br />
performance-focused. Recent statutory changes and technological<br />
advances have led more senior government leaders<br />
in federal agencies to integrate performance information<br />
into their decision-making processes. This has contributed<br />
to better choices that are rooted in facts and evidence.<br />
For example, the Department of Housing and Urban<br />
Development set a goal of increasing the number of families<br />
housed rather than focusing on reducing the number of<br />
vacant public housing units. This led to improved housing<br />
outcomes.<br />
However, increasing evidence-based decision-making among<br />
senior leaders will likely not be enough to change agency<br />
cultures. Agency leaders will need to create and embed both<br />
individual as well as organizational incentives to be more<br />
results-oriented and performance-focused. Employees on<br />
the front line need to see how what they do on a day-today<br />
basis makes a difference for their agency’s mission. For<br />
example, increasing their access to real-time performance<br />
information may be one approach. When this has been done<br />
in some pioneering agencies, this has allowed data-driven<br />
problem-solving to occur on the front line, in the field.<br />
Finding these kinds of levers for culture change—which will<br />
likely vary from agency to agency—will be a challenge to<br />
both policy makers and agency leaders, but when done well,<br />
they can have a lasting effect.<br />
58<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Forum: Six Trends Driving Change in Government<br />
Trend Two: Risk<br />
Managing and Communicating Risk<br />
Managing risk in the public sector has taken on new significance.<br />
Government leaders lack an accepted culture and<br />
framework in which to properly understand, manage,<br />
and communicate risk. Risks take many forms, including<br />
national security risks via cyber attacks, economic risks<br />
from natural disasters, budget and program risks, or privacy<br />
risks. Recognizing the spectrum of risks and developing<br />
strategies and tools to incorporate risk into decision-making<br />
and action can help government drive change and ensure<br />
successful management of programs and missions.<br />
disruption. Further complicating the picture is a different<br />
kind of risk calculus that faces the national security community<br />
every day. Long-range, precision threats are now achievable<br />
via cyberattack to a wide range of people and groups,<br />
well outside the bounds of nation-state controls.<br />
Turning from Risk Avoidance to Risk Management<br />
and Acceptance<br />
Given the rapid pace of change that government faces, it is<br />
imperative that agencies turn from a culture of risk avoidance<br />
to one of risk management. A thought-provoking approach<br />
to how this change can occur appears in a Harvard Business<br />
Review article, “Managing Risks: A New Framework,” by<br />
Robert Kaplan and Anette Mikes. Kaplan and Mikes note that<br />
“risk management is too often treated as a compliance issue<br />
that can be solved by drawing up lots of rules and making<br />
sure that all employees follow them.” In addition, many<br />
Accepting Risk as a Condition of Action<br />
Risk is inherent in every facet of society. In our personal lives,<br />
there are risks to life, health, and property. People understand<br />
that such risks are inherent, and in most instances find ways<br />
to reduce the impact of those risks—such as standards for<br />
food inspections, building safer cars and homes, and securing<br />
insurance coverage in the event risk leads to loss.<br />
Risk is Inherent in Achieving Government Missions<br />
In government, risks have been primarily seen as constraints<br />
to minimize, avoid, or hide in a corner. Most federal agencies<br />
tend to pursue risk reduction rather than risk management.<br />
As a result, when something goes wrong—which,<br />
given the world in which we live, will inevitably occur—<br />
agencies, their constituents, and overseers often react to the<br />
immediate problem, rather than understanding in advance<br />
how to develop strategies to respond to issues that will arise.<br />
Few agencies think in advance about how to understand<br />
what may happen in these and other domains, how to<br />
communicate that potential in advance to their employees<br />
and stakeholders, and how to be resilient in the face of<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 59
Forum: Six Trends Driving Change in Government<br />
Kaplan and Mikes observe that “each approach requires<br />
quite different structures and roles for a risk-management<br />
function.” One way to integrate these approaches is to<br />
anchor risk discussions into strategic planning, which already<br />
brings together organizational goals and objectives and<br />
points to positive action rather than constraints—turning<br />
the conversation to a risk strategy that aligns with “the ‘can<br />
do’ culture most leadership teams try to foster when implementing<br />
strategy.”<br />
organizations compartmentalize their risk management functions<br />
along business lines (credit risk, operational risk, financial<br />
risk) and this “inhibits discussion of how different risks<br />
interact.” Such categorizations can miss many kinds of risks<br />
that organizations face.<br />
Kaplan and Mikes developed a three-part framework “that<br />
allows executives to tell which risks can be managed<br />
through a rules-based model and which require alternative<br />
approaches.”<br />
Preventable risks. These are internal and include illegal,<br />
unethical, or inappropriate actions (such as the recent GSA<br />
conference scandal), as well as breakdowns in operational<br />
processes. In the federal government, these are typically<br />
covered by internal control schemes, and can be controlled<br />
or avoided.<br />
Strategic risks. These differ from preventable risks because<br />
they are not necessarily undesirable. For example, developing<br />
a satellite-based air traffic control system may be<br />
seen as taking a strategic risk over the proven, ground-based<br />
radar-controlled air traffic control system.<br />
External risks. Organizations cannot prevent external risks<br />
from happening. So managers need to forecast what these<br />
risks might be and develop ways to lessen their impact. They<br />
cannot be avoided, only managed.<br />
Getting the Word Out About Risk<br />
A key element of addressing risks facing federal agencies<br />
involves effective communication: understanding what risks<br />
might affect an agency’s constituents and proactively getting<br />
the word out about those risks. FEMA, for example, already<br />
exercises this strategy, advising individuals living in hurricane<br />
zones about potential outcomes, so that the public and the<br />
agency are better prepared if and when a storm arrives. If<br />
other agencies were to identify risks that could occur and<br />
similarly communicate them in advance, this would bring<br />
numerous benefits:<br />
• Agencies would go through an exercise of more completely<br />
understanding risks to their constituents.<br />
• The public would have advance word on what might<br />
occur, helping to increase preparedness in the general<br />
population.<br />
• If the risks become realities, the acceptance and public<br />
discourse is framed as one that builds around a sound<br />
response to a problem that has been forecast, rather than<br />
reaction to an unanticipated event.<br />
Conclusion<br />
Operating in a world of increasing complexity, with citizens<br />
who expect better, faster, and more cost-effective<br />
results, it is critical that government executives tackle<br />
risks that can interfere with normal operations head-on.<br />
Partnering with industry, nonprofits, researchers, and citizens<br />
can enable government to incorporate more effective<br />
risk response frameworks into how it does business. By<br />
doing so, agencies can avoid potential risk traps; they can<br />
identify risks in advance, communicate their impacts, and<br />
be resilient in response. Pursuing a serious risk management<br />
approach can go a long way toward driving change<br />
in government.<br />
60<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Forum: Six Trends Driving Change in Government<br />
Trend Three: Innovation<br />
Leveraging Innovation to Drive Transformation<br />
Innovation touches every facet of our lives, from transportation<br />
to communication, from personnel management<br />
to office automation. This is especially evident in the<br />
public sector in how agencies provide services and meet<br />
their missions. As it happens, technology has enabled much<br />
of this innovation, but it also requires smart leaders who<br />
apply these technologies and drive change within their<br />
agencies.<br />
Weaving Innovation into the Fabric of<br />
Government Agencies<br />
Many government leaders have found a way to weave innovation<br />
into the fabric of their agencies. At the federal level,<br />
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has<br />
hired an “entrepreneur-in-chief” while the Department of<br />
State has an Office of Innovation that reports directly to the<br />
secretary. Maryland is just one state with a chief innovation<br />
officer who reports directly to the governor and ensures that<br />
the state government keeps pace with technology and citizens’<br />
emerging needs while using innovative tools to effectively<br />
manage government programs and services.<br />
citizen participation, shares its information more easily, and<br />
delivers services more effectively and efficiently than in the<br />
past. Given such expectations, citizens aren’t interested in<br />
paying more for a more responsive government. In fact, most<br />
want to pay less. To accomplish this kind of government<br />
involves changing some of the fundamental assumptions<br />
and methods of government operation through innovation.<br />
The first task for government executives is to articu late how<br />
pursuing innovation can form a government that meets the<br />
demands and expectations of the 21st century.<br />
The present day differs from the past in two critical ways.<br />
First, today’s citizens have access to powerful mobile<br />
computing, so individual citizens can create, access, and<br />
analyze data at any time. Each individual is able to request<br />
and consume government services at any time and from any<br />
place, and governments need to meet that need.<br />
Second, one result of that access is that citizens are part of<br />
a culture of participation. The social applications that run<br />
on phones, tablets, and now wearable technology impart<br />
the value of participation with every shared picture, every<br />
request for signers of online petitions, and every opportunity<br />
to fund a new prospective product or service before it<br />
hits the market. Governments must therefore make not only<br />
their services, but their very operations open to participation<br />
at any time and place.<br />
The single constant in these examples is that senior government<br />
executives are leveraging innovation to drive change<br />
within government, and leading the charge to incorporate<br />
innovation into government. They are doing so by articulating<br />
the value of innovation, fostering a culture of innovation,<br />
aligning it to mission, defining and measuring success,<br />
and harnessing the benefits of innovation.<br />
Articulating the Value of Innovation<br />
Survey findings and poll results indicate that citizens expect<br />
a government that works dif ferently—one that encourages<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 61
Forum: Six Trends Driving Change in Government<br />
Defining and Measuring Success<br />
The final piece is to define and then measure success. Unlike<br />
in the private sector, success in the public sector cannot<br />
be defined solely through financial data. Even if costs rise<br />
slightly, a program could be successful if it advances other<br />
measurable goals such as reaching identified audiences,<br />
enhancing transparency, or developing new programs to<br />
address emerging mission components, among many others.<br />
For each of these goals, agencies will have to identify<br />
specific metrics at the beginning of any innovation programs.<br />
Metrics may include web analytics, volume and relevance<br />
of online participation, or metrics that pertain specifically to<br />
the agency’s mission: the health of specific populations, for<br />
example, or compliance with new regulations.<br />
Government leaders must harness citizens’ desire to participate<br />
and demonstrate how opening government to that<br />
participation can help deliver better services at lower<br />
cost. This is already being done, of course, at many levels<br />
by involving citizens in co-creation, co-production, and<br />
co-delivery of services and by tapping into the knowledge of<br />
crowds through programs like the Securing Americans Value<br />
and Efficiency (SAVE) Awards.<br />
Fostering a Culture of Innovation<br />
Government leaders must also foster a culture that is not<br />
only open to innovation, but actively encourages it. They can<br />
develop and invigorate such a culture in a number of ways,<br />
including:<br />
• Appeal both to internal and external stakeholders for<br />
innovation<br />
Distributing Innovation<br />
For government leaders to harness the power of innovation,<br />
they must ultimately unleash the creativity and expertise of<br />
the employees in their charge.<br />
Ideally, the mantle of innovation should be taken up<br />
by as many people within the organization as possible.<br />
Innovation can be championed by individuals at any<br />
level, but it is most often effective when it is embraced by<br />
employees at all levels.<br />
Trend Four: Mission<br />
Aligning Mission Support with Mission<br />
Delivery<br />
• Create mechanisms for innovation<br />
• Allow people to fail<br />
• Offer incentives for trying, and even more for succeeding<br />
• Institutionalize successful innovations<br />
Aligning Innovation to Mission<br />
Though it is important to encourage out-of-the-box thinking,<br />
it is equally important to ensure that innovations do not<br />
distract from an agency’s day-to-day mission. With new digital<br />
tools coming into existence every day, the allure of shiny,<br />
new engagement channels never dims. It is incumbent upon<br />
government leaders to act as filters, applying “tests for relevance”<br />
on proposed innovations before even piloting them.<br />
Agency and program leaders depend on a range of mission<br />
support functions, such as finance, technology, acquisition,<br />
or workforce management, to get their jobs done. The<br />
delivery of these functions, however, has changed significantly<br />
over the past quarter-century.<br />
62<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Forum: Six Trends Driving Change in Government<br />
Twenty-five years ago, federal agencies typically did not<br />
have key executives leading mission support functions.<br />
These functions were largely seen as administrative transaction<br />
services. However, ineffective mission support operations<br />
can be quite costly.<br />
Congress Created Chiefs to Improve Management<br />
As a consequence of such persistent failures and a lack of<br />
clear leadership in mission support functions, Congress has<br />
intervened in the management of the executive branch over<br />
the past two decades by raising the profile, formalizing leadership<br />
roles, and defining more authority for many of these<br />
functions. Formalizing these roles mirrored similar trends<br />
in the private sector to create chief financial officers, chief<br />
information officers, chief acquisition officers, and chief<br />
human capital officers. Collectively, these “chiefs” have been<br />
referred to as the “C-Suite” and most recently, Congress<br />
formalized the role of chief operating officers and performance<br />
improvement officers as well.<br />
Three Core Functions<br />
These various chiefs reflect different disciplines that have<br />
their own professional communities and ways of defining<br />
success. Generally, most of these chiefs report to the heads of<br />
their agencies and have at least three core functions:<br />
• Providing services to internal agency customers (such as<br />
hiring or installing computers or providing office space)<br />
• Ensuring compliance with government-wide requirements<br />
(such as merit principles or capital investment guidelines)<br />
• Providing strategic advice to agency leaders (such as strategic<br />
workforce planning or financial risk management)<br />
These functions are not mutually exclusive. In fact, one of<br />
the challenges for federal government chiefs is balancing<br />
these distinct functions.<br />
Developing a Stronger Mission Focus<br />
The increased prominence of internally focused missionsupport<br />
functions has raised concerns among externally<br />
focused mission-oriented line managers in agencies. Mission<br />
managers deliver services to the public, such as air traffic<br />
control, environmental cleanup, export assistance, disability<br />
benefits, or immigration enforcement at the border. These<br />
mission managers rely on, but more importantly can capitalize<br />
on, centrally directed mission-support functions, which<br />
is a trend found in the business sector. Having common<br />
services provided centrally is not only less expensive, but<br />
often results in higher quality. However, one former mission<br />
manager recently noted that in his experience, “the [C-Suite]<br />
community is the biggest obstacle to success.”<br />
For example, a 2009 study by the National Academy of<br />
Public Administration (NAPA) of several mission-support<br />
functions at the Department of Energy (DOE) observed that<br />
these centralized functions in the department are seen as<br />
dysfunctional by line managers, largely because the various<br />
functions do not coordinate with each other. The lack of<br />
coordination within and among these functions results<br />
in “an inwardly focused, regulation-based, transactional<br />
organization.”<br />
The NAPA study concluded that “DOE needs to better integrate<br />
and manage the mission-support offices’ efforts in order<br />
to develop a coordinated approach to providing essential<br />
support services.” In addition, it found the mission support<br />
offices needed to develop a stronger mission focus: “DOE<br />
does not have formal systems to assess how well the missionsupport<br />
offices are meeting the needs of the department and<br />
to hold them accountable for doing so.” Anecdotal evidence<br />
suggests similar perceptions by mission leaders in other<br />
federal departments as well.<br />
Creating Governance Structures That Support<br />
Mission Leaders<br />
In addition to encouraging mission-support chiefs to focus<br />
greater attention on mission delivery, the NAPA study also<br />
recommended that the U.S. Department of Energy create<br />
cross-bureau governance structures. This new structure<br />
would better coordinate mission-support activities by integrating<br />
them more effectively into mission delivery priorities.<br />
These include creating:<br />
• An under secretary for management<br />
• An operations management council<br />
• An enterprise-wide mission-support council<br />
These recommended structures and new roles alone will<br />
not change tendencies found in mission support areas to<br />
act independently. Chiefs have to connect with one another<br />
through formal and informal means, and balance their three<br />
functional roles.<br />
Moreover, Congress recently established another chief—the<br />
chief operating officer (or under secretary for management).<br />
With this role now enshrined in law and possessing statutory<br />
authority, the COO serves as a nexus between policy and<br />
management. Depending on the agency, this role may be<br />
held by the deputy secretary or filled by an under secretary<br />
for management.<br />
Opportunities for Cross-Functional Collaboration<br />
Both mission-support and mission-delivery executives say<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 63
Forum: Six Trends Driving Change in Government<br />
there are opportunities to improve results if they work<br />
together more effectively as a team, both within and across<br />
agencies. One way to do this is have agency executives serve<br />
in both mission-support and mission-delivery roles as a part<br />
of their career development, much like the commercial sector<br />
does. Government executives can develop a better understanding<br />
of enterprise-wide priorities that goes beyond just<br />
mission-level priorities:<br />
• The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is doing just this<br />
within its executive development program.<br />
• USDA’s Departmental Management Operations Council<br />
and the PerformanceStat meetings at the U.S. Department<br />
of the Treasury and the U.S. Department of Housing and<br />
Urban Development use cross-departmental councils that<br />
regularly convene to tackle issues of integration.<br />
Conclusion<br />
This cross-functional mission-support collaboration could<br />
also extend to cross-agency mission-delivery initiatives. For<br />
example, agencies now work across boundaries to solve<br />
major public challenges such as climate change and food<br />
safety. Mission-support services for these initiatives have<br />
previously been ad hoc. The cross-agency mission-support<br />
councils could support these initiatives in innovative ways<br />
that increase efficiency and accountability.<br />
Government executives can harness major technological<br />
shifts and adapt proven public-sector and commercial best<br />
practices to make their agencies more efficient and effective.<br />
Trend Five: Efficiency<br />
Pursuing Cost-Savings Strategies in a<br />
Resource-Constrained Era<br />
Fiscal austerity will be an enduring challenge for public<br />
managers. It can present opportunities to rethink traditional<br />
approaches to mission support and service delivery. In this<br />
environment, identifying innovative ways to reduce costs<br />
across multiple catego ries of government spending (e.g.,<br />
appropriations, user fees) while maintaining and improving<br />
performance will be critical.<br />
New Strategies for Achieving Cost Savings<br />
In 2010, the IBM Center published Strategies to Cut Costs<br />
and Improve Performance. Since its release, the fiscal challenges<br />
facing government executives have become even<br />
more pressing, with an impetus to reduce costs and allocate<br />
savings to mission priorities. Constraints imposed by sequestration,<br />
continuing resolutions, and debt ceilings have made<br />
“doing more with less” and “operating smarter with less”<br />
an ongoing reality. Even if a larger agreement is reached<br />
regarding long-term spending, that agreement is likely to<br />
maintain a tight hold on current discretionary budgets for<br />
agencies.<br />
Across government, new strategies for achieving cost savings<br />
are in high demand. This goes beyond simple cost-cutting<br />
to helping the public sector redirect cost savings into investments<br />
in key priorities, including through gain sharing and<br />
other savings retention approaches. The imperative to do<br />
more with less has never been stronger; government executives<br />
can learn from each other and from the private sector<br />
how to survive and possibly thrive in this environment.<br />
Emerging Opportunities to Save Costs<br />
There are emerging opportunities to save costs through<br />
improvements in how agencies manage technology, process,<br />
organization, and data:<br />
Technology. When used appropriately, technology can<br />
streamline operations and allow employees to shift from<br />
transactional processes to strategic insight and cus tomer<br />
service. Cloud computing allows agencies to spend less<br />
money. Leveraging the cloud can allow agencies to focus<br />
internal resources on making mission and program operations<br />
more efficient and effective even in an environment<br />
where funding is tight.<br />
Process. There are great examples of the power of streamlining<br />
processes such as claims and payment processing,<br />
supply chain management, and emergency/disaster response.<br />
Best practices provide clear lessons in how to increase<br />
mission effective ness at a lower price. For example, applying<br />
shared services to a broader range of government activities<br />
can allow agencies to reduce duplicative back-office operations<br />
across multiple bureaus; this allows for enterprise-wide<br />
64<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Forum: Six Trends Driving Change in Government<br />
management of finance, HR, acquisition, and other mission<br />
support functions.<br />
Organization. The model of an effective organization is<br />
changing as technology and process enable new management<br />
approaches to drive effectiveness. Rather than following<br />
a hierarchical structure where collaboration across boundaries<br />
is difficult, government executives can capitalize on<br />
lessons from entrepreneurial firms and move toward a collaborative,<br />
virtual team model of program management and<br />
service delivery.<br />
Data. Information can also be used strategically to analyze<br />
service patterns to iden tify wasteful processes that can be<br />
streamlined to reduce time and costs (e.g., grant application<br />
processes). Increasingly, agencies are using analytics to<br />
predict and pre vent problems that drain time and resources,<br />
such as identifying improper pay ments in advance rather<br />
than stopping them after the fact. Applying analytics to<br />
administrative data sets can also help determine the costeffectiveness<br />
of alterna tive interventions.<br />
In addition, another IBM Center report, Fast Government:<br />
Accelerating Service Quality While Reducing Cost and Time,<br />
brings fresh insights and illuminating examples on how<br />
government executives, by focusing on time and speed, can<br />
deliver real and lasting benefits through increased mission<br />
effectiveness and lower costs. It outlines strategies and tools<br />
that government executives can leverage to fundamentally<br />
change the way they do business through a focus on cycle<br />
time reduction and elimination of non-value-added activities.<br />
Fast Government examines the role of time in bringing<br />
value to the public sector, and focuses on innovation, disruptive<br />
technologies, predictive analytics, and other ways that<br />
leaders can make government more efficient.<br />
Measuring and Capturing Cost Savings<br />
It is important that government executives establish baselines<br />
from which to measure savings. This involves understanding<br />
total cost of ownership, which is different from and<br />
often more complex in federal agencies than in the private<br />
sec tor. Most government programs run off a cost baseline<br />
that includes a subset of appro priations for the larger department.<br />
Piecing this together to understand current costs is not<br />
a trivial exercise.<br />
Once the baseline is understood, a second challenge<br />
involves developing financial models and methods that<br />
can capture savings off the baseline accurately. The federal<br />
government has experimented occasionally with “share<br />
in savings” contracting. Even if clear savings opportunities<br />
emerge, barriers such as federal budget requirements<br />
impede savings capture and reinvestment. Overcoming<br />
such barriers will require the use of prototypes and pilots to<br />
demon strate the art of the possible, with agencies working<br />
in partnership with their congres sional authorization and<br />
appropriation partners to build support for pilots and understanding<br />
how success can scale more broadly.<br />
Government can also collaborate with industry to draw out<br />
ideas for savings, perhaps using challenges and prizes as<br />
a way to promote innovation. Contracts can be written to<br />
create incentives for industry partners to dedicate a portion<br />
of their activities to inno vative, rapid experimentation,<br />
finding better ways to achieve results while lowering costs.<br />
Conclusion<br />
Given the budget realities of today, it is critical to identify<br />
opportunities for efficiency, measure and capture savings,<br />
and reward those who deliver cost savings. It is essential that<br />
government executives ensure that federal employees are<br />
provided the skills and capabilities to succeed in becoming<br />
more efficient. This can also help identify further ways to<br />
save money and record those savings, and fuel a continuous<br />
drive for cost-effective improvements that bene fit all citizens.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 65
Forum: Six Trends Driving Change in Government<br />
Trend Six: Leadership<br />
Leading Across Boundaries in an Era of<br />
Complex Challenges<br />
Professor Joseph Nye stresses in Leadership, Power and<br />
Contextual Intelligence, “Understanding context is crucial<br />
for effective leadership. Some situations [may] call for autocratic<br />
decisions and some require the [exact] opposite. There<br />
is an infinite variety of contexts in which leaders have to<br />
operate, but it is particularly important for leaders to understand<br />
culture, distribution of resources, followers’ needs and<br />
demands, time urgency, and information flows.”<br />
Leading through Complex, Non-Routine<br />
Challenges<br />
Complex challenges, or so-called wicked problems, tend<br />
to have innumerable causes and are hard to define, making<br />
their mitigation resistant to predetermined solutions or traditional<br />
problem-solving approaches. In certain instances, the<br />
scope, nature, and extent of these challenges eliminate the<br />
notion of quick fixes or one-size-fits-all solutions.<br />
From budget reductions to a struggling economy, disasters<br />
to pandemics, the seemingly intractable challenges facing<br />
government leaders extend far beyond the ability of any<br />
one agency or leader to respond. These are complex, often<br />
non-routine, challenges that are increasingly cross-cutting,<br />
interagency in nature, and go to the core of effective governance<br />
and leadership—testing the very form, structure, and<br />
capacity required to meet them head-on. Many are difficult<br />
to anticipate, get out in front of, and handle. In most manifestations,<br />
they do not follow orderly and linear processes.<br />
The right kind of leadership approach and style can drive<br />
change in government.<br />
Given today’s context, a specific kind of leadership approach<br />
seems most effective. It is an approach that recognizes the<br />
importance of:<br />
• Reaching across agencies<br />
• Connecting networks of critical organizational and<br />
individual actors<br />
• Mobilizing the whole of government’s capabilities<br />
• Achieving a result greater than the sum of the agencies<br />
involved<br />
As Roger Martin, dean of the Rotman School of Management<br />
at the University of Toronto, observes, “There was a time<br />
when leaders shared a sense that the problems they faced<br />
could be managed through the application of well-known<br />
rules and linear logic. Those days are gone. Most of today’s<br />
important problems have a significant wicked component,<br />
making progress impossible if we persist in applying inappropriate<br />
methods and tools to them.”<br />
Understanding Context is Crucial for Effective<br />
Leadership<br />
There are different types of leadership approaches, from transactional<br />
to transforma tive and beyond. A survey of leadership<br />
experts and government leaders interviewed on the IBM Center<br />
for The Business of Government’s radio program makes one<br />
thing clear—there is no one-size-fits-all approach to leadership.<br />
What does seem evi dent is the importance of context in<br />
honing a leadership approach. Effective leaders must possess<br />
and exercise a certain level of contextual intelligence. As<br />
66<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Forum: Six Trends Driving Change in Government<br />
Exemplifying the importance of contextual intelligence, Dr.<br />
Collins recognized that it took a certain leadership to launch<br />
HGP, and another kind to make the changes that took it to a<br />
successful conclusion.<br />
Depending on the challenge faced, government leaders may<br />
need to fundamentally transform how their organizations<br />
operate to meet mission. For example, when facing the challenge<br />
of budget cuts and significant resource reallocation,<br />
transformational change that can deliver mission value more<br />
efficiently will be increasingly important.<br />
Collaborative Leadership in Action<br />
Managed Networks. Ed DeSeve puts a finer point on this<br />
leadership approach in his IBM Center report, Managing<br />
Recovery: An Insider’s View. DeSeve led the implementation<br />
of the $840 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment<br />
Act in 2009, a perfect example of a complex, non-routine<br />
government challenge—the doling out and tracking of significant<br />
amounts of federal dollars. For DeSeve, his success<br />
relied on forging an integrated system of relationships among<br />
federal agencies, state and local entities, and other stakeholders<br />
that reached across both formal and informal organizational<br />
boundaries—what DeSeve calls a managed network,<br />
which is a key tool of collaborative leadership.<br />
Managing “Big Science:” A Case Study of the Human<br />
Genome Project. Dr. Francis Collins rep resents a new type of<br />
leader in government. Before becoming NIH director, Collins<br />
led an international coalition consisting of government organizations,<br />
the private sec tor, and the academic community as<br />
part of the Human Genome Project (HGP).<br />
In Managing “Big Science:” A Case Study of the Human<br />
Genome Project, Professor Harry Lambright highlights that<br />
Collins faced the challenge of reorienting HGP from a<br />
loose consortium into a tight alliance with a small circle of<br />
performers and decision-makers. Instead of relying on the<br />
traditional command-and-control leadership style, Collins<br />
relied on a more collegial, collaborative style. However, as<br />
the project began to evolve, mature, and face direct competition<br />
from an external party, Collins recognized that the<br />
leadership approach of old would no longer be effective.<br />
Establishing the National Center for Advancing Translational<br />
Science. Collins now director of NIH, recognized the need<br />
to more effectively translate NIH’s basic research into actual<br />
medical applications. This was driven by his desire to focus<br />
on outcomes. His vision to establish the National Center for<br />
Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) clashed with the<br />
status quo at NIH. Collins hit the ground running, setting<br />
goals at the outset, having clarity as to means, using the<br />
power of his office effectively, and most importantly forging<br />
collaborative networks and support inside and outside NIH.<br />
He was once again successful.<br />
Conclusion<br />
We are in the midst of an exciting, engaging, yet trying<br />
period marked by uncertainty, significant challenges, undeniable<br />
opportunities, and indelible aspirations. Today’s<br />
most effective government leaders can spark the imagination<br />
to look beyond day-to-day urgencies and reflect on the<br />
serious problems and critical challenges they face today into<br />
tomorrow. Leaders are responsible for envisioning, shaping,<br />
and safeguarding the future, creating clarity amidst uncertainty.<br />
This is no small feat and it is made increasingly difficult<br />
in the 21st century, where rapid, unforeseen change<br />
seems to be the only constant. ¥<br />
TO LEARN MORE<br />
Six Trends Driving Change in Government by Dan Chenok<br />
John M. Kamensky, Michael J. Keegan, and Gadi Ben-Yehuda<br />
The report can be obtained:<br />
• In .pdf (Acrobat) format at the Center website,<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
• By e-mailing the Center at businessofgovernment@us.ibm.com<br />
• By calling the Center at (202) 551-9342.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 67
Viewpoints<br />
Is Moneyball Government the Next Big Thing?<br />
By John M. Kamensky<br />
In early December 2013, I attended a sold-out conference<br />
on performance measurement. It wasn’t the typical government<br />
crowd. The conference was filled with attendees from<br />
nonprofits and foundations, all dedicated to figuring out what<br />
works and putting their money toward programs with the<br />
most promise. In a ballroom abuzz with enthusiasm, I was<br />
particularly impressed with the sophisticated conversations<br />
on advancing evidence-based program decisions.<br />
This enthusiasm goes beyond the nonprofit and public<br />
sector. The private sector uses the term “business analytics”<br />
to describe the use of statistics to inform business decisions.<br />
Over the last few years, a critical mass of stakeholders has<br />
quietly worked to build evidence-based decision-making<br />
into government as well. The media is calling this moneyball<br />
government, after the 2003 best-selling book by Michael<br />
Lewis on creating a winning baseball team through the astute<br />
use of statistics. The common goal is to use performance<br />
data, evidence, and program evaluation to reframe budget<br />
and program decisions in ways that reflect the value being<br />
created, not just the dollars being spent.<br />
For example, a recent Washington Post article highlights the<br />
Department of Education’s Even Start program, created in<br />
1988 to help youths from disadvantaged families do better<br />
in school. By 2004 the program was spending $248 million.<br />
Program evaluation studies from more than a decade ago<br />
found no evidence that Even Start succeeded, so President<br />
Bush, and then President Obama, recommended abolishing<br />
it. The program currently is unfunded.<br />
At the local level, the New York City school system set out<br />
in 2010 to reduce chronic absenteeism, creating a task force<br />
that brought together a dozen city agencies and over 20<br />
community-based and nonprofit organizations to identify and<br />
expand strategies for keeping students in school. According<br />
to a study by the nonprofit America Achieves, the task force<br />
pioneered a new approach to collecting and analyzing realtime<br />
attendance data and evaluating different intervention<br />
Moneyball Government<br />
techniques in 100 schools. The task force identified<br />
successful approaches such as providing in-school mentors.<br />
Students with these mentors spent more than 80,000 additional<br />
days in school compared to students without a mentor.<br />
What’s Driving the Push to Use Evidence?<br />
A number of forces drive advocacy, political, and program<br />
leaders to use performance information, evidence, and<br />
program evaluation in government programs.<br />
68<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Viewpoints<br />
John M. Kamensky is Senior Fellow at the IBM Center for<br />
The Business of Government.<br />
What does a “Moneyball” Government Do?<br />
Governments that use the Moneyball approach:<br />
• Focus on outcomes and lives changed, rather than<br />
simply compliance and numbers served;<br />
• Drive limited taxpayer dollars to solutions that use<br />
evidence and data to get better results;<br />
• Use data and evidence to continuously improve<br />
quality and impact, while also reducing duplication<br />
and cutting red tape that can strangle new ideas;<br />
• Invest in and scale innovations that will make greater,<br />
faster progress on challenges facing young people,<br />
families and their communities;<br />
• Direct public dollars away from policies, practices<br />
and programs that don’t work; and<br />
• Invest in communities that are collaborating and<br />
using data and evidence to achieve significant<br />
community-wide impact.<br />
Source: Moneyball for Government,<br />
http://moneyballforgov.com/the-solution<br />
More data. There is more administrative and other data<br />
available for analysis within and across agencies. Greater<br />
access to data, and greater ability to make sense of both<br />
structured and unstructured data, are raising interest among<br />
decision-makers.<br />
More analytics. There are more sophisticated approaches to<br />
analysis (e.g., not just focusing on the average, but on granular<br />
data interpretation). Stories in the popular media (for<br />
example, Michael Lewis’ book and movie, Moneyball, and<br />
Nate Silver’s book, The Signal and the Noise) and increased<br />
use of analytics and rapid experimentation in the private<br />
sector (for example, Jim Manzi’s book, Uncontrolled), have<br />
raised the attention of public sector decision-makers.<br />
More interest. Congress and local political leaders are more<br />
open to supporting investments in program evaluation and<br />
data analytics, even in an era of tight budgets. Significantly,<br />
there is corresponding increased interest among federal agencies,<br />
which are seeing greater value in performance and evaluation<br />
processes.<br />
More incentives. Encouraging pilots at the state and local<br />
levels, and in Britain, are attracting the interest of policymakers<br />
facing tough austerity tradeoffs and looking for ways<br />
to creatively invest in programs that make a difference, while<br />
identifying programs that do not work.<br />
More leadership. At the federal level, various OMB leaders<br />
over the past decade have consistently championed using<br />
evidence and evaluation in budget decision-making. For<br />
example, then-OMB Director Peter Orszag, a major proponent,<br />
issued directives to agencies to promote the use of<br />
evidence and evaluation. Current OMB Director Sylvia<br />
Burwell has led several large philanthropic foundations that<br />
used evidence and results as key criteria for distributing their<br />
funds, so she too is an advocate. At the local level, mayors<br />
across the country have provided leadership, including New<br />
York City’s Michael Bloomberg, San Antonio’s Julian Castro,<br />
and Baltimore’s Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, among others.<br />
Building an Evidence-Based Culture in<br />
Government<br />
Steps are underway to build a foundation for evidence-based<br />
thinking in the federal government as well as state and local<br />
governments.<br />
Step 1: Build Agency-Level Capacity for Evaluation and<br />
Data Analytics. Agencies are building the infrastructure<br />
necessary to conduct evaluations and analyze data and<br />
evidence. For example, they are creating learning networks<br />
of evaluators from across the government to share best<br />
practices, including developing common evidence standards<br />
and spreading effective procurement practices. There<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 69
Viewpoints<br />
Examples of Evidence-Based Initiatives<br />
So, what are federal agencies, states, and localities actually doing?<br />
An increasing variety of activities—often called “what works” initiatives—are underway<br />
or planned, with the common denominator being decisions based on evidence.<br />
FEDERAL EXAMPLE<br />
Tiered-Evidence Grants<br />
A number of federal agencies are<br />
piloting the use of tiered evidence<br />
grants in a dozen different policy arenas,<br />
including social services, transportation,<br />
workforce development,<br />
education, and foreign aid. Under<br />
this approach, the distribution of<br />
more than $2 billion in grants is prioritized<br />
into three categories:<br />
• Scale-up grants fund expansion of<br />
practices for which there is already<br />
strong evidence. These grants<br />
receive the most funding.<br />
• Validation grants provide funding<br />
to support promising strategies<br />
for which there is currently only<br />
moderate supporting evidence.<br />
These grants receive more limited<br />
funding and support for program<br />
evaluations.<br />
• Development grants provide funding<br />
to support “high-potential<br />
and relatively untested” practices.<br />
These receive the least funding and<br />
support for program evaluations.<br />
STATE EXAMPLE<br />
Washington State Institute<br />
for Public Policy<br />
The Washington State Institute for<br />
Public Policy has developed a system<br />
for calculating the return on investment<br />
from alternative public policy<br />
tools. The system is used by the state<br />
legislature to help make policy decisions<br />
based on performance rather<br />
than anecdote. According to the Pew<br />
Center for the States, the Institute has<br />
developed a unique approach to supporting<br />
the policy decisions by the<br />
state legislature, which includes:<br />
• Analyzing all available research to<br />
systematically identify which programs<br />
work and which do not<br />
• Predicting the impact of policy<br />
options for Washington State by<br />
applying the combined evidence<br />
of all sufficiently rigorous national<br />
studies to the state’s own data<br />
• Calculating various policy options’<br />
potential return on investment,<br />
taking into account both the short<br />
and long term and the effect on<br />
taxpayers, program participants,<br />
and residents<br />
LOCAL EXAMPLE<br />
Social Impact Bonds<br />
According to a report by the Center<br />
for American Progress, New York<br />
City is now piloting the use of social<br />
impact bonds, a new financing<br />
tool for social programs in which<br />
“government agencies contract<br />
external organizations to achieve<br />
measurable, positive social outcomes<br />
on key issues, such as homelessness<br />
or juvenile delinquency.” Service<br />
providers receive payment from the<br />
government upon achievement of<br />
agreed-upon results. In August 2012,<br />
then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg<br />
announced the city’s first impact<br />
bond agreement. According to the<br />
Center’s report: “The city of New York<br />
contracted with MDRC, a nonprofit,<br />
nonpartisan social research organization,<br />
to reduce the rate of recidivism<br />
by at least 10 percent over<br />
four years among annual cohorts<br />
of about 3,000 young men exiting<br />
Rikers Island. The working capital<br />
for the intervention—$9.6 million<br />
over four years—is being provided by<br />
Goldman Sachs, structured as a loan<br />
to MDRC.”<br />
70<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Viewpoints<br />
are also multi-agency collaborations around enforcement<br />
programs, economic development activities, and financial<br />
literacy efforts. In addition, some agencies are creating<br />
departmental-level evaluation posts, such as the Department<br />
of Labor’s Chief Evaluation Office, or empowering existing<br />
evaluation offices.<br />
Step 2: Invest in Increasing the Amount of Evidence and Data.<br />
Set-asides of existing program funding are being proposed<br />
to support program evaluations. For example, a reserve fund<br />
of up to 0.5 percent would be created at the Department of<br />
Education, and the Department of Labor’s reserve fund, overseen<br />
by the department’s Chief Evaluation Office, continues<br />
to be permitted to use up to 0.5 percent of the department’s<br />
appropriations for evaluation. In addition, the 2014 budget<br />
proposes $2 million for a new Data-Driven Innovation initiative<br />
within OMB to help agencies expand the use of innovation<br />
and evidence to support outcome-focused government.<br />
Step 3: Make Greater Use of Existing Administrative Data.<br />
Efforts are underway to take administrative data already being<br />
collected and link it across agencies to help them better<br />
understand cross-agency outcomes. For example, states and<br />
localities could link data from early childhood programs<br />
to data from juvenile justice systems and K-16 education<br />
systems to produce statistical snapshots that previously might<br />
The Role of Nonprofits and Philanthropy<br />
Nonprofits and foundations are enthused by government’s<br />
growing interest in the use of evidence and<br />
evaluation. They are chiming in either to support<br />
government initiatives or to undertake their own.<br />
Some nonprofits and foundations advocate evidencebased<br />
decision-making in different policy arenas,<br />
while others advocate different tools or techniques<br />
for program evaluation. Other nonprofits are actually<br />
applying evidence-based approaches in their delivery<br />
of services. Significantly, as government at all levels<br />
adopts these approaches, the nonprofit and foundation<br />
communities are enthusiastically chipping in to help.<br />
America Achieves<br />
With some political savvy and bipartisan firepower,<br />
this new nonprofit is an advocate for evidencebased<br />
policy. It is sponsoring an initiative to improve<br />
“outcomes for young people, their families, and<br />
communities by driving public resources toward<br />
evidence-based, results-driven solutions.” It has developed<br />
a scorecard that assesses individual agencies’<br />
capacity and use of evidence and program evaluation.<br />
It has piloted the scorecard on several agencies,<br />
with more on the way, to highlight progress. It is also<br />
conducting advocacy and sponsoring research at the<br />
local level. A recent study of initiatives in six cities<br />
focused on “the importance of building and using<br />
evidence of what works in making smart decisions<br />
about investing public resources.”<br />
Pew Center for the States<br />
The Pew Charitable Trusts is cosponsoring a Results<br />
First Initiative with the MacArthur Foundation. One<br />
element of this effort emphasizes the use of cost-benefit<br />
analyses and evidence-based budgeting approaches.<br />
For example, one of the initiative’s projects features<br />
work with about a dozen states to replicate Washington<br />
State’s successful approach to introduce cost-benefit<br />
analyses into state legislative decision-making through<br />
its policy institute.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 71
Viewpoints<br />
only have been available through costly long-term tracking<br />
surveys. States and localities are leading by example in this<br />
area by participating in a foundation-funded initiative called<br />
“actionable intelligence for social policy” that links “data<br />
from across multiple systems so that researchers and government<br />
decision-makers can work together to analyze problems”<br />
in ways that safeguard privacy.<br />
Step 4: Create Incentives to Use Evidence. In addition to<br />
building technical capabilities, OMB seeks to create incentives<br />
for agencies to actually use evidence when making<br />
program and funding decisions. One approach is to streamline<br />
access to waivers of administrative requirements in<br />
exchange for grantee commitments to collect data and<br />
conduct analyses. A second approach is to create performance<br />
incentives for states and localities to use money from<br />
existing formula grants to support evidence-based practices.<br />
For example, the mental health block grant program would<br />
require states to target at least five percent of their funding to<br />
“the most effective evidence-based prevention and treatment<br />
approaches,” according to OMB. A third approach is to make<br />
matching grants to grant-making intermediaries based on<br />
evidence of the effectiveness of the programs to be funded.<br />
For example, the $70 million Social Innovation Fund in the<br />
Corporation for National and Community Service makes<br />
matching grants to grant-making intermediaries, leveraging as<br />
much as $150 million in non-federal cash grants.<br />
Step 5: Create Agency-Level “What Works” Repositories.<br />
According to OMB, agencies are also expanding their “what<br />
works” repositories, such as:<br />
• Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse<br />
• Department of Justice’s CrimeSolutions.gov<br />
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services<br />
Administration’s National Registry of Evidence-Based<br />
Programs and Practices<br />
Conclusion<br />
Jeffrey Liebman, Harvard professor and an early architect<br />
of the evidence-based approach in the Obama administration’s<br />
OMB, illustrates the essence of the moneyball government<br />
movement. He reflects on his efforts: “fiscal pressures<br />
make the need for more-effective government more acute.”<br />
He goes on to say the goal is to “produce more value with<br />
each dollar the government spends” by reallocating funds<br />
from less-effective programs to more-effective programs.<br />
He closes by saying “We need to improve performance by<br />
setting outcome-focused goals, then using leadership strategies<br />
… to make the changes to systems necessary to achieve<br />
those goals.” Liebman is not alone in his assessment, as any<br />
number of governors or mayors might have made the same<br />
observations. ¥<br />
• Department of Labor’s Clearinghouse of Labor Evaluation<br />
and Research<br />
72<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Viewpoints<br />
Modernizing the Budget Process to Reflect Modern<br />
Technology Realities<br />
By Daniel Chenok<br />
Fiscal constraints will challenge government for the foreseeable<br />
future. While this might seem daunting, budget pressures<br />
can foster opportunities to innovate, offering powerful<br />
incentives to rethink traditional approaches to mission<br />
support and service delivery. Within this context, it is critical<br />
to identify innovative ways to reduce costs while maintaining<br />
and improving performance. In addition, rethinking how to<br />
finance information technology (IT) and other investments<br />
can help agencies leverage rapidly evolving offerings in areas<br />
ranging from cloud and “as a service” computing models<br />
to real-time review and response to cybersecurity threats.<br />
Finally, government can reap the benefits of innovation and<br />
efficiency through a more refined approach to measuring and<br />
capturing cost savings.<br />
Innovation in Cost Reduction: Lessons from<br />
the States<br />
Federal leaders can learn much from state experiences.<br />
Earlier this year, the IBM Center released Managing Budgets<br />
During Fiscal Stress: Lessons for Local Government Officials<br />
by Jeremy M. Goldberg, University of San Francisco, and<br />
Max Neiman, University of California at Berkeley. This<br />
report describes how California’s budget experiences over<br />
the past several years can provide lessons learned and roadmaps<br />
for other federal, state, and local governments, who<br />
face fiscal constraints. Like many local governments across<br />
the nation, cities and counties in California have been<br />
impacted heavily by the economy in recent years. The<br />
report makes recommendations for local governments<br />
across the nation. These include:<br />
• Identify and address structural deficits in a finely grained<br />
manner, leaving no major budget category unexamined.<br />
For federal budgets, this includes programmatic areas as<br />
well as functional categories—appropriated dollars, working<br />
capital and franchise funds, and even user fees.<br />
• Foster citizen engagement to encourage widespread dissemination<br />
of fiscal information, thus enhancing the legitimacy<br />
of public policy choices. Significantly, this recommendation<br />
complements findings that innovation can be a key lever<br />
to thrive in a cost-constrained environment. It encourages<br />
employees and citizens to identify new ways of doing business<br />
that do not require spending on outdated processes<br />
without questioning whether they are still needed.<br />
Budgeting For the Fast Pace of<br />
Technological Change<br />
The traditional federal budget process takes up to 30<br />
months. Agencies start to plan their request in spring before<br />
presenting a budget. The president presents a budget the<br />
next winter, then Congress begins enactment the following<br />
October: almost 18 months after the initial planning or later<br />
given the many continuing resolutions as outlined in the IBM<br />
Center report The Costs of Budget Uncertainty: Analyzing the<br />
Impact of Late Appropriations by Professor Phil Joyce at the<br />
School of Public Policy within the University of Maryland.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 73
Viewpoints<br />
Daniel Chenok is Executive Director of the IBM Center for The Business of<br />
Government. His e-mail: chenokd@us.ibm.com.<br />
Finally, after all this the agency often spends much of their<br />
budget toward the end of the next fiscal year (30 months<br />
after initial planning).<br />
In an Internet age, when technological advances are made in<br />
months rather than years, the traditional budget process lacks<br />
the flexibility agencies need to capture the benefits of innovation.<br />
Fortunately, there are established ways that agencies<br />
can work with Congress to enhance their ability to leverage<br />
new commercial technologies. Agencies can use “working<br />
capital funds” or “franchise funds.” These approaches often<br />
allow dollars to be carried over, across years, enabling more<br />
flexibility in spending.<br />
Today, a number of agencies use these techniques to provide<br />
shared services to other federal agencies. The agencies<br />
that provide shared services retain a constant capital flow<br />
to support continued delivery of quality shared services;<br />
also, agency buyers use working funds to make an investment<br />
that could not have been foreseen during long-term<br />
budget planning and/or where the timing of the investment<br />
requires a flow across fiscal years that is known in advance.<br />
Technologies offered through “as a service” models, such as<br />
cloud-based services purchased at regular intervals based on<br />
buyer demand, can be tailored to an agency’s current needs.<br />
Of course, pursuing such a step requires early and ongoing<br />
transparency with agency stakeholders (including OMB,<br />
Congress, GAO, and inspectors general) as to the means,<br />
risks, and benefits of using such an approach.<br />
Agencies can apply these techniques in a variety of<br />
settings—through pilots on projects funded by annual<br />
appropriations or greater use of flexible spending accounts.<br />
Agencies can also collaborate with industry to identify ideas<br />
for savings, perhaps using challenges and prizes to promote<br />
innovation. Contracts can be written to create incentives<br />
Franchise Funds<br />
Franchise funds are government-run, self-supporting, businesslike enterprises managed by federal employees. Franchise<br />
funds provide a variety of common administrative services, such as payroll processing, information technology support,<br />
employee assistance programs, public relations, and contracting.<br />
Franchise fund enterprises are a type of intragovernmental revolving fund. Such funds all have similar legal authority and<br />
operations and generally provide common administrative services. An intragovernmental revolving fund is established<br />
to conduct continuing cycles of businesslike activity within and between government agencies. An intergovernmental<br />
revolving fund charges for the sale of goods or services and uses the proceeds to finance its spending, usually without the<br />
need for annual appropriations.<br />
The original operating principles for franchise funds included offering services on a fully competitive basis, using a<br />
comprehensive set of performance measures to assess the quality of franchise fund services, and establishing cost and<br />
performance benchmarks against their competitors—other government organizations providing the same types of services.<br />
The Government Management Reform Act of 1994 authorized the Office of Management and Budget to designate six<br />
federal agencies to establish the franchise fund pilot program.<br />
Source: GAO documents<br />
74<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Viewpoints<br />
for industry partners to pursue innovative activities that may<br />
involve rapid experimentation, and ultimately are focused on<br />
finding better ways to achieve results while lowering costs.<br />
Measuring and Capturing Cost Savings<br />
For any steps government takes to improve efficiency and<br />
value, it is important that executives establish baselines to<br />
measure the cost savings of those steps. To understand how<br />
much can be saved, it is important to understand the full<br />
baseline costs, which in government are different and often<br />
more complex than in the private sector. Most government<br />
programs run off a cost baseline that includes a subset of<br />
appropriations for the larger department, salary and expense<br />
accounts not associated with the program, and sometimes<br />
working capital or franchise funds. Piecing these sources<br />
together to understand current costs is not a trivial exercise.<br />
Once the baseline is understood, a second challenge involves<br />
developing financial models and methods that can capture<br />
savings off the baseline accurately. The federal government<br />
has experimented occasionally with “share in savings”<br />
contracting as a way to operationalize this measurement. This<br />
is a framework that incentivizes companies to achieve the<br />
measured savings over time, from which contract payments<br />
are made.<br />
Even if clear savings opportunities emerge and there is financial<br />
transparency for the opportunity, barriers to savings<br />
capture and reinvestment exist. Federal budget law requires<br />
that agencies have sufficient funds on hand to cover the<br />
costs of a contract upfront (including termination costs).<br />
This requirement makes the use of a gain-sharing approach<br />
less attractive. In addition, federal agencies must generally<br />
spend all of their money in a given fiscal year, while savings<br />
often take months or years to materialize. Overcoming such<br />
barriers will likely require the use of prototypes and pilots to<br />
demonstrate the art of the possible, building support for pilots<br />
and understanding how success can scale more broadly. ¥<br />
Editor’s Note: An expanded version of this article will appear<br />
in The Public Manager.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 75
Viewpoints<br />
Learning to Trust Open Data<br />
By Gadi Ben-Yehuda<br />
Joel Gurin recently released a book enthusiastically titled<br />
Open Data Now. Gurin, the former chief of consumer<br />
and governmental affairs for the Federal Communications<br />
Commission, joins a growing chorus calling on the federal<br />
government to live up to the spirit of President Obama’s 2009<br />
Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government.<br />
Champions of open data exist both within government—Mr.<br />
Gurin and the Department of the Treasury’s Marcel Jemio, for<br />
example—and within industry, including organizations like<br />
Socrata, 1776, and XBRL.US. They note that opening government<br />
data directly spurs economic activity, enables services<br />
Americans depend on every day, and increases the efficiency<br />
of and trust in government.<br />
But when vast stores of data are already “open”—accessible<br />
to the public, machine-readable, and in a non-proprietary<br />
format—what are the next big steps for open data advocates?<br />
One obvious step is opening ever-greater troves of data and<br />
switching government data’s default setting from closed to<br />
open. Another is improving the quality of data already available,<br />
most notably by ensuring the availability and quality of<br />
metadata.<br />
Why Open Data?<br />
Perhaps the biggest success of open data was achieved by<br />
accident, and scarcely a panel can be convened or article<br />
written without referencing it. In the 1980s, the United States<br />
launched satellites into space so the military could have<br />
precise location data for training, monitoring, and missions.<br />
Nearly two decades later, ordinary citizens were given access<br />
to that data stream. The $26.67 billion GPS market is possible<br />
only because of that open location-data stream.<br />
There are other examples of open data spurring economic<br />
activity. Health data released from the Department of Health<br />
and Human Services (HHS) is already powering apps, and HHS<br />
regularly participates in “Health Datapaloozas” to bring its data<br />
to private-sector developers. Data from the National Oceanic<br />
and Atmospheric Administration undergirds almost all weather<br />
apps on the market. The Department of Labor publishes data<br />
enabling an app that helps with financial decisions.<br />
Economics, important as they are, represent only one part<br />
of the story. Another part is the trust in government essential<br />
to a democracy. Opening the government’s data means<br />
everyone benefits from their government. Everyone becomes<br />
a stakeholder and sees the value they personally derive from<br />
their government’s activities. And opening the data about<br />
how government operates allows everyone to understand<br />
how public money is spent and see the alignment between<br />
public priorities and public expenditures.<br />
Numbers Don’t Lie<br />
The popular saying is that “numbers don’t lie,” but it can be<br />
countered with the equally popular “lies, damned lies, and<br />
statistics.” When it comes to big numbers, this is even more<br />
true, as humans are famously bad at grasping the meaning of<br />
large numbers.<br />
76<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Viewpoints<br />
Gadi Ben-Yehuda is the Innovation and Social Media Director for the IBM<br />
Center for The Business of Government.<br />
Few likely know that better than Earl Devaney, a former<br />
inspector general for the Department of the Interior and<br />
chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency<br />
Board. Mr. Devaney was asked by a congressional oversight<br />
panel to estimate how much Recovery Act money would<br />
be lost to fraud, waste, and abuse. A 2009 study found that<br />
those losses typically consumed between five and seven<br />
percent of a government program’s budget. While that may<br />
not sound like much, the Recovery Act had a budget of $787<br />
billion, which grew to $831 billion through subsequent legislation.<br />
So the raw number for waste? Between $40 and $55<br />
billion projected to be lost. Both numbers are accurate, but<br />
each tells a different story.<br />
What makes the Recovery Act such a good example is<br />
not the amount of money it was projected to lose, but the<br />
amount of money it did lose. Mr. Devaney writes in Fast<br />
Government, “The remarkable success the [operations<br />
center] has had in minimizing fraud and waste is evidenced<br />
by the numbers: Less than one-half of one percent of the<br />
nearly 277,000 contracts, grants, and loans awarded under<br />
the Recovery Act are under investigation. This pales in<br />
comparison to the five-to-seven percent figure normally associated<br />
with losses for any large government program.”<br />
And the important difference between this program and most<br />
others was that the financial data for the Recovery Act was<br />
designed to be open from the start. The GPS industry and the<br />
Recovery Board examples speak to the first goal of open data<br />
advocates: opening more stores of data. How many industries<br />
are simply waiting for businesses large and small? How<br />
much more effective will current industries and markets be<br />
when they have access to data that is currently inaccessible<br />
to them? Further, open data advocates point to the increased<br />
efficiencies that could be realized if more people had access<br />
to more data.<br />
And “more data” is where the proponents of metadata find<br />
common cause with their data-set-oriented comrades.<br />
The Importance of Metadata<br />
Marcel Jemio, the chief data architect in the Department<br />
of the Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service, is a cheerleader<br />
for metadata. He uses the metaphor of apple varieties<br />
(discussed below) to illustrate the value of metadata. He<br />
says that from metadata, people can derive context, understanding,<br />
quality, security, analytics, worth, trust, and ultimately,<br />
innovation.<br />
To understand the importance of metadata, think of a digital<br />
photograph with the caption “Sun Rising over Miami Beach.”<br />
The metadata for digital photographs is called “EXIF” and<br />
it has certain attributes: the kind of camera that captured<br />
the image, the time it was taken, the f-stop and aperture,<br />
whether a flash was used, sometimes even the geolocation.<br />
If, looking at the EXIF metadata, one saw that the picture<br />
was taken at 8:00 PM with a camera located 20 miles east of<br />
Miami (that is: from a boat), one would know that it was not<br />
sunrise at all, but sunset. The photographer’s veracity would<br />
be called into question, and their other work would be<br />
subjected to further scrutiny. This is why Mr. Jemio is right to<br />
say that metadata can give context (it is sunset, not sunrise),<br />
and trust (in the form of verifiability).<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 77
Viewpoints<br />
within those are regional differences and other distinguishing<br />
qualities that describe a specific fruit. These metadata give<br />
context, allow for analysis, instill trust, provide specificity,<br />
and most important, make it more likely that people can use<br />
the data in ways that add value both for themselves and for<br />
the larger economy.<br />
Why the Future Is Open<br />
Two developments point to a bright future for open data<br />
advocates. The first is the proliferation of tracking devices<br />
and software in every facet of American society. The<br />
complementary development is the growing sophistication<br />
in understanding both raw data and the visualizations built<br />
on that data.<br />
There are other examples of metadata adding value to data<br />
sets. One company that puts EXIF metadata to fascinating—<br />
and meaningful—use is OKCupid. In a 2010 blog post<br />
titled “Don’t Be Ugly By Accident!,” the site’s data analysts<br />
“aggregate[d]11.4 million opinions on what makes a great<br />
photo.” They then analyzed the responses and determined<br />
which brands of cameras took the best pictures, what time<br />
of day was optimal, what f-stop made people look more<br />
attractive, and how the use of flash was likely to return a<br />
better picture. This analysis was performed not using the<br />
data—the image—but using metadata. And with that analysis,<br />
people could create better data; that is, they could take<br />
better pictures!<br />
It is easy to extrapolate meaningful government uses from<br />
this. Metadata can accompany any data. Take produce,<br />
specifically apples. While famously not comparable to<br />
oranges, apples seem like they should be comparable to<br />
one another, yet there are many varieties of apples and even<br />
Data trackers are quietly moving into every part of our lives:<br />
“Automatic” is a device that plugs into a car’s computer and<br />
relays real-time data about fuel efficiency, engine operations,<br />
and vehicle location. Body trackers have gone mainstream,<br />
and more people are counting their steps, monitoring their<br />
heartbeats, and using WiFi scales to see not only weight, but<br />
body composition. Even school report cards are using data<br />
visualization, not simply reporting raw data in the form of<br />
letter grades or percentages. And as people grow accustomed<br />
to seeing data in all parts of their lives and appreciate how<br />
it is helping them make better decisions, they will press for<br />
open data from their government.<br />
Appropriately, the public is also learning how to interpret<br />
data with more nuance and sophistication. One concern<br />
about examining and releasing data is what it will reveal.<br />
People and organizations don’t always accomplish their<br />
goals, and when they do, it may be with some degree of<br />
waste or inefficiency. But performance is increasingly seen<br />
through the lens of data visualizations and dashboards, and<br />
people can see that sometimes they do not meet all their<br />
targets. They also see that success is often a sliding scale, not<br />
a threshold to be crossed.<br />
All this points to a future in which more people will clamor<br />
for data and there will be less concern about releasing it.<br />
And as the government accedes to the requests for more and<br />
better data, both the government and the citizens it serves<br />
will be better off. ¥<br />
78<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Perspectives: Federal Acquisition and<br />
Complex Contracting<br />
By Michael J. Keegan<br />
Introduction: Perspectives on Federal<br />
Acquisition and Complex Contracting<br />
Contract expenditures represent 16 percent of total federal spending. In fiscal year 2012,<br />
the federal government acquired $517 billion worth of products (“products” includes goods<br />
and services) through contracts. Purchases range from simple products like office supplies<br />
or landscaping to advanced weapon systems and program management services.<br />
Given what’s at stake, it is critical for government executives to understand one of the<br />
most complex bureaucratic processes in government—the federal procurement system.<br />
Understanding how this system works is a key ingredient to success in government, and<br />
improving it is crucial in this era of tight budgets.<br />
As the challenges confronting the federal government become more<br />
complicated, so will the types of services and goods needed to address<br />
them. Increasingly, products or services cannot be clearly or easily<br />
defined in advance and their quality is difficult to verify after delivery.<br />
These are called complex products, and their acquisition requires<br />
sophisticated contracting approaches.<br />
• Why do federal agencies need to procure goods and services?<br />
• What are the basic phases of the federal acquisition lifecycle?<br />
• What are the challenges of acquiring complex products?<br />
• What lessons can be learned from the Coast Guard’s Deepwater<br />
program?<br />
• How can government executives most effectively manage complex<br />
acquisitions?<br />
We explore these questions and so much more through the work of the research team<br />
composed of Professors Trevor Brown, Matt Potoski, and David Van Slyke, authors of<br />
several IBM Center reports and the recent book, Complex Contracting: Government<br />
Purchasing in the Wake of the US Coast Guard’s Deepwater Program.<br />
Deepwater was a major “system of systems” acquisition to upgrade and integrate the Coast<br />
Guard’s sea and air assets. Brown, Potoski, and Van Slyke discuss the promise and perils of<br />
government contracting while providing wide-ranging, practical advice on federal acquisition,<br />
with a specific emphasis on complex acquisition.<br />
Professor Trevor Brown, of the John Glenn School of Public Affairs at The Ohio State<br />
University, and Professor David Van Slyke, of the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public<br />
Affairs at Syracuse University, joined me on The Business of Government Hour to share<br />
their perspectives on federal acquisition and complex contracting. The following is an<br />
edited excerpt of our conversation.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 79
Perspectives: Federal Acquisition and<br />
Complex Contracting<br />
Perspectives on Federal Acquisition and Complex<br />
Contracting with Professors Trevor Brown and<br />
David Van Slyke<br />
By Michael J. Keegan<br />
Federal Agencies Contract for Goods and<br />
Services<br />
Federal agencies need critical goods and services to perform<br />
their core missions. A recent IBM Center report, A Guide for<br />
Agency Leaders on Federal Acquisition, highlights the Black<br />
Hawk helicopter in the interdiction of Osama Bin Laden.<br />
Without the Black Hawk, the mission doesn’t succeed. In the<br />
absence of th[e Healthcare.gov] website working successfully,<br />
the Affordable Care Act doesn’t work successfully. Even more<br />
narrowly, with the website you’re trying to target a specific<br />
group of people. In the case of the Affordable Care Act, it’s<br />
healthy young people. You need [healthy young people] to<br />
enter the insurance pool, and a slick, fancy, user-friendly<br />
website—an access point—is one way to attract them. If this<br />
cohort doesn’t sign up in significant numbers, a critical component<br />
of that insurance pool is lost; then prices are going to rise.<br />
Within this context, [you are] not simply purchasing a website.<br />
You’re buying an integral part of your program. This example<br />
illustrates perfectly what acquisition is now for federal agencies;<br />
it enables mission success and program performance.<br />
It’s important to get these purchases right and that requires<br />
strategic decision-making. Acquisition is not just buying<br />
stuff; it’s about thinking through the purpose and end of what<br />
you are buying and why. Are you buying only products, or<br />
buying the ability to do something that the government itself<br />
lacks the expertise, capability, or capacity to execute?<br />
Basic Phases of the Federal Acquisition<br />
Lifecycle<br />
Though an expert may tell you there are hundreds of steps in<br />
this process, I’ll break it down simply into three phases—preaward,<br />
award, and post-award.<br />
The pre-award phase includes identifying the product’s<br />
charac teristics, assessing the market for the product, and<br />
consulting the regulatory guidance on how to solicit the<br />
product. The first step in any acquisition is to define what’s<br />
Trevor Brown, Ph.D.<br />
David M. Van Slyke, Ph.D.<br />
needed and determine whether a product procured from the<br />
market can fulfill that need.<br />
The award phase includes tasks associated with actually<br />
purchasing the product: running the solicitation, evaluating<br />
proposals, and negotiating the terms of the purchase with<br />
whatever vendor is selected.<br />
The post-award phase includes all tasks associated with<br />
executing the contract, notably monitoring vendor performance,<br />
evaluating and testing the product upon delivery,<br />
implementing any relevant incentives, providing compensation,<br />
renegotiating contract terms, and terminating or<br />
renewing the contract.<br />
During post-award, things become a little less clear, and<br />
there’s much more discretion. During this phase, government<br />
managers decide how to engage the awardee and how often,<br />
how to set and negotiate the rules of the relationship and the<br />
exchange, and how to work together.<br />
80<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Perspectives: Federal Acquisition and Complex Contracting<br />
Library of Acquisition Research from Brown, Potoski, and Van Slyke<br />
The following highlights the IBM Center research on federal acquisition performed by Professors Brown, Potoski, Van Slyke,<br />
either individually or as a group.<br />
A Guide for Agency Leaders on<br />
Federal Acquisition<br />
Contracted Versus Internal Assembly<br />
for Complex Products: From<br />
Deepwater to the Acquisition<br />
Directorate in the U.S. Coast Guard<br />
The Challenge of Contracting for Large<br />
Complex Projects: A Case Study of the<br />
Coast Guard’s Deepwater Program<br />
Much of this research contributed to the work culminating in the publication of their Complex Contracting: Government<br />
Purchasing in the Wake of the US Coast Guard’s Deepwater Program, published by Cambridge University Press.<br />
Of the three phases, the award phase gets most of the attention.<br />
We hear about the RFP, the bid, the award decision,<br />
and how the contract is structured. We tend to hear less<br />
about the pre-award or the post-award phase. Yet in both,<br />
management is critical. Buying is managing. The whole<br />
procurement process is … about managing relationships<br />
within established rules (e.g., Federal Acquisition Regulation)<br />
toward an ultimate end.<br />
Evaluating an Acquisition<br />
The FAR sets the rules on what’s permissible in contracting. It<br />
specifies the goals of federal acquisition. Buried in there are<br />
two approaches to setting the criteria by which we would<br />
evaluate an acquisition. One is what’s called “best value.” It<br />
typically involves three criteria, the sort of trinity of contracting—cost,<br />
performance, and schedule or delivery:<br />
• Cost: how much does it cost? Did it come in at the price<br />
we expected?<br />
• Performance: does it do the things we want it to do?<br />
• Schedule: did it come in on time?<br />
In a best value acquisition, a procurement official is allowed<br />
to balance each proposal along the three criteria and make<br />
tradeoffs.<br />
The FAR also specifies “lowest price technically acceptable”<br />
(LPTA). All three criteria—cost, quality and schedule—are<br />
still in play, but here, the argument is, if we can precisely<br />
define the product, we can say, as specifically as possible,<br />
here are the performance criteria. It’s technically acceptable.<br />
Well, then, we’re going to focus on price. So we’re going to<br />
minimize our selection to: does it cost the lowest amount<br />
to produce? So there, it’s a narrower set of criteria that<br />
define why we select one bid over another. Depending on<br />
what we’re purchasing, it may make more sense to use one<br />
or the other. If we’re buying copy paper, we use the LPTA<br />
approach, as directed in the FAR just focusing on cost. When<br />
buying information technology, given various factors, you are<br />
to pursue the best value approach.<br />
Often, what seems to be missing in the process is: does the<br />
product ultimately fulfill the mission requirements of the<br />
agency that’s purchasing it? It’s important to follow the rules<br />
while also delivering what is needed when it’s needed, and<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 81
Perspectives: Federal Acquisition and Complex Contracting<br />
ultimately ensuring that the purchase enables an agency to<br />
meet its mission more effectively.<br />
Procuring Complex Products<br />
Complex exchanges are characterized by two conditions:<br />
uncertainty about the product’s cost and how it will perform,<br />
and specialized investments that lock in the buyer and seller.<br />
The purpose of a contract is to promote a win-win exchange<br />
by preventing the buyer and seller from doing things that<br />
would lead to win-lose or lose-lose outcomes.<br />
Contracts for complex products transform a market exchange<br />
into an interdependent relationship. The combination of an<br />
incomplete contract, uncertainty about the product and its<br />
costs, and the need for specialized investments sets up a<br />
potentially precarious relationship. Focusing on rules that<br />
structure and relationships that define can ameliorate the<br />
conditions that mark these complex exchanges.<br />
Overview of U.S. Coast Guard’s<br />
Deepwater Program<br />
The U.S. Coast Guard has a complicated set of missions. By<br />
many accounts, the Coast Guard is the standard-bearer for<br />
“do more with less.” It is resourceful, mission-driven, actionoriented,<br />
and inventive. The combination of limited fleet<br />
resources, mission focus, and a bias for action compels the<br />
Coast Guard to ride its assets hard. By the 1990s, its fleet<br />
and assets showed that wear. Admiral Jim Loy, the commandant<br />
in the mid-90s, began thinking strategically about how<br />
to upgrade, modernize, and integrate a system of assets.<br />
The Coast Guard’s Deepwater program is a story of how<br />
a federal agency responded to an opportunity to upgrade<br />
its decaying capital stock—its fleet of air and sea assets—<br />
by leveraging political interest in harnessing private-sector<br />
approaches to public problems. It embraced a system-ofsystems<br />
contracting strategy in which a single lead systems<br />
integrator (LSI) would design the fleet as a whole (e.g., how<br />
many of the different types of ships and aircraft would be<br />
in it), detail the performance specifications of each (e.g.,<br />
how fast and far they would go), supply the communications<br />
structure to tie them all together, and then manage the<br />
contract process for buying them.<br />
Part of the reason the Coast Guard opted for an LSI to<br />
perform contract management was because it lacked the<br />
capacity itself. The Deepwater program involved a high<br />
degree of uncertainty about the system’s components, specifications,<br />
and costs. Specialized investments were required to<br />
produce and deliver the system. Given these characteristics,<br />
it is an excellent illustration of a complex acquisition.<br />
We wanted to understand the Deepwater case better,<br />
draw out lessons. It was a great journey of inquisitiveness<br />
into something that on its face looked simply like a failed<br />
procurement, but was much more. There were innovations<br />
in contract design, procurement processes, and supplier<br />
relations. Some aspects did not work … the reasons for<br />
that are discussed in detail in our reports and our book. To<br />
that end, we owe the IBM Center nothing but thanks for its<br />
support of our original research in this area. Our two reports<br />
for the Center set the foundation for our book, Complex<br />
Contracting: Government Purchasing in the Wake of the US<br />
Coast Guard’s Deepwater Program.<br />
The Three Phases of the ICGS–Deepwater<br />
Relationship<br />
The Coast Guard envisioned the multi-decade, multi-billion<br />
dollar Deepwater program as the solution to its decaying<br />
fleet of air and sea assets and inadequate command and<br />
communications systems. By pitching a novel procurement<br />
approach—the use of a private LSI to design, purchase, build,<br />
and integrate a system-of-systems—the Coast Guard secured<br />
authorization and funding. In selecting the Integrated<br />
Coast Guard Systems, a partnership of two leading defense<br />
82<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Perspectives: Federal Acquisition and Complex Contracting<br />
contractors, to serve as the LSI, the Coast Guard hoped to tap<br />
the expertise and experience of two of the world’s preeminent<br />
defense contractors. The result would be sparkling new<br />
boats, planes, helicopters, and information technology that<br />
would dramatically enhance the Coast Guard’s ability to<br />
perform their wide-ranging missions.<br />
In reality, the ICGS–Deepwater relationship moved through<br />
three phases. In the first phase, the “honeymoon,” the Coast<br />
Guard and ICGS embraced each other as partners. Each<br />
party took meaningful steps to make the partnership work,<br />
sometimes at a sacrifice to their own, immediate interest.<br />
In the second phase, as the volume of contract and production<br />
activity accelerated, things became foggier. The Coast<br />
Guard and ICGS each did things during this period that<br />
appeared consummate, but at other times did things that the<br />
other party could interpret as perfunctory.<br />
Finally, in the third phase—the divorce—the fog cleared for<br />
both sides. The challenges of trying to determine if the other<br />
party was behaving consummately or perfunctorily were too<br />
great, and the likelihood of receiving consummate behavior<br />
in return was diminishing. Both the Coast Guard and ICGS<br />
decided to cut their losses and look out for their own interests,<br />
both short and long term. This proved insufficient to<br />
cement the partnership and change the relationship from a<br />
tragedy of failed collective action to a cooperative success.<br />
A Series of Missteps: the Unraveling of the<br />
Deepwater Program<br />
Success hinged on the Coast Guard and ICGS managing<br />
Deepwater’s complexity: crafting rules to incentivize<br />
consummate behavior in numerous areas where the contract<br />
could not detail product specifications, and structuring a<br />
relationship so the shadow of the future created incentives<br />
for win-win cooperation. Success would require the Coast<br />
Guard to communicate its needs, ICGS to present product<br />
options to meet those needs, and both to jointly make decisions<br />
and shoulder costs in the contract’s cooperative spirit.<br />
If all went well, a win-win outcome would result: the Coast<br />
Guard would receive an affordable product that enhanced its<br />
ability to perform its mission. ICGS would receive compensation<br />
above its costs and the prospect of future business.<br />
A series of early missteps had cascading consequences that<br />
brought down the once promising partnership. Two central<br />
governance rules were improperly designed and implemented<br />
and failed to establish the incentives to contribute to<br />
the contract’s goals. The IPTs (integrated project teams) got<br />
underway without clear rules for decision authority and cost<br />
responsibility.<br />
The performance incentive system was likewise ambiguous<br />
since Deepwater’s assets—the desired outputs of the<br />
program—would not be completed until years later. Absent<br />
the guidance of clear rules, each side struggled to determine if<br />
the other’s behavior was in the partnership’s cooperative spirit.<br />
Lessons Learned from the Deepwater<br />
Program<br />
There have historically been two approaches to acquiring<br />
complex products: rule-driven and relationship-driven. The<br />
former focuses almost exclusively on following the rules<br />
while the latter relaxes the rules while building trust among<br />
the parties.<br />
Some look at Deepwater as an example of too much focus<br />
on the relationship. Our view is, we have to have rules that<br />
promote cooperation. You can’t write everything down at<br />
the outset, but you can put in certain governance rules that<br />
promote cooperation of all parties in gray areas.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 83
Perspectives: Federal Acquisition and Complex Contracting<br />
Second, you need to structure a relationship that creates opportunities<br />
for trust and cooperation building over time. When<br />
faced with a choice, you’re going to preserve the relationship<br />
rather than choose a short-term, personal benefit. We lay out in<br />
our book a series of criteria for good rules that promote cooperation<br />
and good relationships that enhance that cooperation.<br />
The third part is creating the conditions under which both<br />
parties … build a mutual understanding of what it means<br />
to be cooperative. If I receive something that doesn’t meet<br />
expectations, there are agreed-upon, established processes<br />
and mechanisms that allow us to remedy the situation.<br />
Our book guides the reader through this general framework<br />
of crafting the right rules, setting up the right relationships,<br />
and building that mutual understanding that can only be<br />
born over time.<br />
There was much discussion about banning the use of lead<br />
system integrating in the wake of Deepwater. That’s foolish.<br />
You need a general contractor. A great example of this is the<br />
Healthcare.gov website. A principal failure is the absence<br />
of an LSI. Not one of those 55 vendors was specified as the<br />
one who was going to have to put all of that stuff together.<br />
The presumption of all the vendors was that’s the Department<br />
of Health and Human Services’ job … but they don’t have<br />
the capacity to perform the integration functions. Maybe in<br />
the future we’ll live in a world where the federal government<br />
will build that capacity, the systems integrators and the<br />
program managers … [until then], agencies are going to have<br />
to buy it.<br />
Complex Contracting: Government Purchasing in the Wake<br />
of the US Coast Guard’s Deepwater Program.<br />
System-of-systems acquisitions are not doomed to fail<br />
The Deepwater contract did not fail to achieve the win-win<br />
because the Coast Guard sought to buy its assets through<br />
a system-of-systems program. Federal government agencies<br />
regularly purchase products made up of integrated and technically<br />
sophisticated components. The challenges of complex<br />
contracting arise when either the finished product or its<br />
component parts are difficult to write down contractually<br />
and require specialized investments. System-of-systems and<br />
complex products are not necessarily synonymous.<br />
Lead systems integrators do not doom complex<br />
contracts<br />
The Deepwater program did not fail because it relied on<br />
an LSI. Just as government agencies buy system-of-systems<br />
products all the time, they also use LSIs to do the work of<br />
acquiring and integrating system components. The challenge<br />
in working with an LSI to procure a complex product<br />
is to find ways to facilitate cooperation where the contract’s<br />
terms fail to fully define and incentivize the parameters of a<br />
win-win outcome. For Deepwater, the root of the problem<br />
was not the reliance on an LSI, but a contract that was<br />
ill-suited to the complexity of what the Coast Guard was<br />
buying. The Coast Guard and ICGS struggled to quickly<br />
establish governance rules like the integrated project teams.<br />
We highlight the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers as a successful<br />
procurement of a complex product. Here you have a<br />
very challenging market situation in which there is only<br />
one purchaser and a single provider. This has been a very<br />
successful long-term relationship between the buyer and<br />
the vendor. A tremendous effort has gone into identifying<br />
the rules right, setting up contractual vehicles that promote<br />
cooperative relationships, entering into a relationship, and<br />
building that relationship.<br />
Prospects for Successful Complex<br />
Contracting<br />
Complex contracts can be successful (Nimitz) or they can fail<br />
(Deepwater). Our aim is to offer a theory for how to improve<br />
the prospects for successful complex contracting. Our analysis<br />
of what worked and what did not in Deepwater suggests<br />
some guidance for the practice of complex contracting. You<br />
can find a fuller description of these insights in our book,<br />
84<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Perspectives: Federal Acquisition and Complex Contracting<br />
Contracts for complex products require internal contract<br />
management capacity<br />
Just as successful procurements for complex products require<br />
the active participation of users and manufacturers, they<br />
also require enough highly trained contract professionals<br />
to fully manage the process. Contract managers have principal<br />
responsibility for translating what the buyer wants into<br />
contract terms to convey to the seller, and then ensuring the<br />
seller delivers. Contract management capacity stems in part<br />
from the contract managers’ experience and expertise—their<br />
knowledge of the product and the steps they can take within<br />
the boundaries framed by public laws like the FAR. Capacity<br />
is also in part a result of the sheer number and continuity of<br />
contract managers on a particular procurement.<br />
The Deepwater program was plagued by insufficient contract<br />
management capacity within the Coast Guard and ICGS.<br />
Contract managers on both sides rotated in and out of assignments,<br />
exacerbating the lack of clarity about decision-making<br />
processes within the IPTs and undermining the relationship<br />
building needed to foster a virtuous cycle of reciprocal<br />
cooperation. For example, in 2004 the GAO estimated that<br />
one-fifth of the acquisition positions needed to staff the<br />
Deepwater program were unfilled.<br />
Well-functioning IPTs, with clear distributions of decision<br />
authority and cost responsibility, would have helped avoid<br />
much of the confusion about which side was responsible for<br />
making decisions.<br />
Successful procurements for complex products require<br />
user and producer input<br />
Buyers and sellers of complex products need information.<br />
Two types of information are particularly critical in complex<br />
contracting: what will product users do with the product,<br />
and what steps do product manufacturers need to take to<br />
construct the product. One of the principal goals of an IPT is<br />
to bring together the two groups of people (users or buyers;<br />
makers or sellers) to produce this information. Deepwater’s<br />
IPTs suffered from insufficient involvement of both Coast<br />
Guard users and manufacturers from IPTs in the decisionmaking<br />
process for many complex contracts components.<br />
The building acquisition workforce has to be a priority.<br />
“Insourcing” (or the use of government personnel to perform<br />
functions that contractors have performed on behalf of federal<br />
agencies) may be a priority with the current administration, but<br />
even there resources need to be made available for training,<br />
development, and capacity building. You need to have the<br />
people in house who are competent and able to do it. ¥<br />
Trevor L. Brown is Associate Professor at the John Glenn<br />
School of Public Affairs at The Ohio State University in<br />
Columbus.<br />
David M. Van Slyke is Professor in the Department of<br />
Public Administration and International Affairs at the<br />
Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at<br />
Syracuse University.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 85
Forum: Six Trends Driving Change<br />
in GovernmentManagement<br />
This article is adapted from Jennifer Bachner, Predictive Policing: Preventing Crime<br />
with Data and Analytics, (Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business of<br />
Government, 2013).<br />
Predictive Policing: Preventing Crime<br />
with Data and Analytics<br />
By Jennifer Bachner<br />
The history of quantitative crime analysis spans centuries.<br />
Crime mapping first appeared in the 19th century. In 1829,<br />
an Italian geographer and French statistician designed the first<br />
maps that visualized crime data. The maps included three<br />
years of property crime data as well as education information<br />
obtained from France’s census. The maps revealed a positive<br />
correlation between these two layers of information; areas<br />
with higher levels of education experienced a higher incidence<br />
of property crimes.<br />
The discipline of crime analysis emerged following the<br />
formation of London’s Metropolitan Police, the first organized<br />
law enforcement service. The service’s detective branch,<br />
formed in 1842, was tasked with using pattern recognition to<br />
prevent and solve crimes. Formal police departments were<br />
established throughout the U.S. in the 1850s, though their<br />
use of analytical techniques lagged behind London’s.<br />
In 1900, the U.S. federal government began collecting<br />
national data that aided the development of crime statistics.<br />
Mortality statistics, which indicate the cause of death,<br />
were used to calculate homicide rates. Additional measures,<br />
such as prison rates and arrest data, were collected by cities<br />
and states during the 1920s. In 1930, the Federal Bureau<br />
of Investigation (FBI) was given the authority to collect and<br />
disseminate crime data. The FBI continues to publish Crime<br />
in the United States annually, and this comprehensive publication<br />
served as the chief data input for crime analysis<br />
models in the latter half of the 20th century.<br />
With the advent of affordable computers, both police organizations<br />
and scholars began to explore automated crime<br />
mapping. Academic researchers investigated the relationship<br />
between environmental characteristics and the incidence for<br />
crime. Sociologists, for example, used mapping to uncover<br />
a quantifiable, causal relationship between the presence of<br />
taverns and the incidence of violent and property crimes.<br />
Police forces initially hoped crime mapping would serve as<br />
a means of improving resource allocation’s efficiency. The<br />
technical and personnel demands of mapping, however,<br />
prevented police departments from integrating this tool into<br />
everyday police work until recently.<br />
Today, the availability of massive data sets, data storage,<br />
sophisticated software, and personnel that can both perform<br />
analyses and communicate actionable recommendations<br />
to officers in the field has rendered crime analysis a central<br />
component of modern policing. Further, collaborative efforts<br />
between police officers, scholars, and businesses have led<br />
to the development of analytical techniques that have strong<br />
theoretical foundations; accompanying tools, such as software<br />
programs, enable their widespread use.<br />
The Role of Predictive Analytics in Crime<br />
Prevention<br />
Crime prevention, defined as efforts to restrict crime from<br />
occurring, is generally considered to encompass three pillars:<br />
• Primary prevention strategies attempt to minimize the risk<br />
factors associated with criminal behavior. These programs,<br />
often housed in schools and community centers, are<br />
intended to improve the health and well-being of children<br />
and young adults.<br />
• Criminal justice strategies address known offenders; juvenile<br />
correctional facilities and prison rehabilitation aim to<br />
prevent convicted criminals from offending again.<br />
• Law enforcement strategies focus on decreasing the<br />
probability that crime occurs in a particular area. This is<br />
achieved by reducing the opportunity for criminal acts<br />
and increasing the risk of arrest. Predictive analytics is one<br />
law enforcement strategy to accomplish this form of prevention.<br />
By compiling and analyzing data from multiple<br />
sources, predictive methods identify patterns and generate<br />
recommendations about where crimes are likely to occur.<br />
The reliance on statistics and automated mapping, termed<br />
CompStat, has been widespread since 1995, when it was<br />
first implemented by the New York City Police Department.<br />
This philosophy has since been adopted by nearly every<br />
86<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Management<br />
Jennifer Bachner is the Program Coordinator and Lecturer in Governmental<br />
Studies for the M.A. in Government in the Johns Hopkins University<br />
Center for Advanced Governmental Studies. Her current work examines<br />
the implications of data and analytics on governance, the use of emerging<br />
technologies in online education, and partisanship metrics in Congress.<br />
Her dissertation work, which she has presented at national conferences<br />
and research universities, analyzes youth political engagement.<br />
law enforcement agency in the country. Under the original<br />
framework of CompStat, crime data are collected and<br />
analyzed—primarily using geographic information systems<br />
(GIS)—to improve accountability and resource allocation. By<br />
mapping the distribution of criminal activity across low-level<br />
geographic units (e.g., city blocks and individual buildings),<br />
police can deploy officers to high-crime areas and track<br />
changes over time.<br />
Whereas traditional uses of CompStat are fundamentally<br />
reactive, the goal of predictive policing is proactive—to<br />
prevent crime from occurring in the first place. Predictive<br />
policing is therefore a component of intelligence-led policing<br />
that is focused on what is likely to occur rather than what has<br />
already happened. It is the frontier of crime prevention, and<br />
the data and methods required for this approach have only<br />
recently been developed and employed.<br />
Predictive Methodologies<br />
There are three categories of analysis techniques that police<br />
departments use to predict crime:<br />
• Analysis of space<br />
• Analysis of time and space<br />
• Analysis of social networks<br />
These categories are not intended to be all-inclusive, as the<br />
number of methodologies available to analysts is large and<br />
increasing. Instead, the following provides an overview of<br />
the different types of analysis commonly undertaken and the<br />
advantages and disadvantages of each.<br />
Predictive Methodology One:<br />
Analysis of Space<br />
One of the original uses of crime mapping is the identification<br />
of criminal hot spots, namely areas in which there is a<br />
greater likelihood of crime than in the surrounding areas. In<br />
a retrospective context, hot spot detection has increased our<br />
understanding of the characteristics associated with highcrime<br />
areas, such as transportation routes, entertainment<br />
establishments, and a high population density. In terms of<br />
predictive policing, hot spot detection can inform short-term<br />
decision-making about resource allocation and long-term<br />
policies related to crime reduction.<br />
It is important to keep in mind that a hot spot is a perceptual<br />
construct. Because geographical space is inherently continuous,<br />
the placement of a boundary to delineate a hot spot is<br />
somewhat arbitrary. The final location, size, and shape of a<br />
hot spot are influenced by judgments made by the analysts,<br />
such as:<br />
• Which criminal incidents are included in the analysis<br />
• Whether the hot spots are determined by the concentration—or<br />
clustering—of past criminal incidents, environmental<br />
characteristics associated with crime, or both<br />
• The amount of time captured by the analysis (e.g., one<br />
year of crime data vs. five years of crime data)<br />
• The weighting scheme applied to past criminal incidents<br />
Predictive Methodology Two:<br />
Analysis of Time and Space<br />
Various statistical methods to analyze clustering are all aimed<br />
at identifying areas with high crime levels. In a forecasting<br />
context, clustering methods detect locations or areas where<br />
crime is likely to occur based on where crime has occurred<br />
in the past and, in the case of risk-terrain modeling, environmental<br />
characteristics. These methods, however, do not<br />
take advantage of temporal patterns in crime. Although some<br />
clustering algorithms weight recent events more heavily in<br />
generating forecasts, they do not illustrate how the incidence<br />
of crime changes over time. Clustering does not illuminate<br />
movement in criminal activity.<br />
In practice, clustering without much regard to the temporal<br />
dimension of criminal activity is often sufficient. Hot-spot<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 87
Management<br />
maps are easy to read and can help officers make quick,<br />
informed decisions about how to allocate their time during<br />
a shift. Some tasks, however, demand attention to temporal<br />
patterns. If a police department has observed a rash of<br />
robberies and is attempting to predict the next incident in the<br />
string, it is critical to identify both the spatial and temporal<br />
path taken by the suspected offender.<br />
CrimeStat III, a software program developed by sociologist<br />
Ned Levine and the National Institute of Justice, allows<br />
users to analyze both the spatial and temporal components<br />
of crime patterns. If the analyst is interested in a descriptive<br />
summary of a sequence of events, they can compute a<br />
spatial-temporal moving average (STMA). An STMA permits<br />
examination of the path a criminal has taken. It is calculated<br />
using the average time and location for a subset of incidents.<br />
For each incident, the averages are calculated using the incidents<br />
that occurred just before and just after. A subset generally<br />
includes three, five, or seven incidents. The resulting<br />
map includes a line through the incidents, which marks that<br />
“average” path taken by the offender.<br />
To forecast when and where the next crime in a sequence<br />
will occur, an analyst can perform a correlated walk analysis<br />
(CWA). A CWA examines the temporal and spatial relationships<br />
between incidents in a given sequence to predict the<br />
next incident. The first step in performing a CWA is to determine<br />
if there is a systematic pattern in an observed sequence<br />
of criminal incidents. This is accomplished by computing the<br />
correlation between intervals.<br />
Predictive Methodology Three:<br />
Analysis of Social Networks<br />
The chief purpose of the previous two categories of methods<br />
discussed is the targeting of geographic locations in which<br />
to focus time and resources. Social network analysis (SNA)<br />
is a third category of methods on the cutting edge of crime<br />
analysis, but it is primarily used to detect persons of interest,<br />
as opposed to locations of interest. Through SNA, police can<br />
identify individuals that are central to criminal organizations,<br />
such as gangs and drug networks, and develop effective interdiction<br />
strategies.<br />
The relevance of social networks to criminological analysis is<br />
well-established. Organized crime, such as drug trafficking,<br />
gang violence, and serial robbery, requires the creation and<br />
maintenance of various relationships. A drug-dealing network,<br />
for example, may include suppliers, distributors, smugglers,<br />
buyers, and money-launderers. Further, criminal networks are<br />
embedded in the social context in which they operate; they<br />
are nourished by, and victimize, members of the community,<br />
including family, friends, and retailers. SNA is a tool<br />
police agencies can use to map these numerous interpersonal<br />
connections and mine them for actionable information.<br />
The building blocks of a social network are relationships<br />
between two actors (either individuals or entities). Actors are<br />
referred to as nodes and the relationships between them are<br />
termed links or edges.<br />
In crime-fighting applications, social network analysis is<br />
frequently used to identify central nodes—individuals who<br />
have a high level of connectivity within the network.<br />
Using centrality measures, an analyst can identify individuals<br />
of interest in the context of a given problem. If a police<br />
agency seeks to acquire information about a network without<br />
dismantling it, contacting an actor with a high level of closeness<br />
might be effective. Alternatively, a goal of inserting<br />
information into a network might best be achieved using<br />
an actor with a high betweenness measure. If an agency’s<br />
mission is to take custody of a network’s leaders or central<br />
actors, the measure of degree may be most useful.<br />
Places on the Frontier of Predictive<br />
Policing<br />
Santa Cruz, California<br />
The Santa Cruz Police Department (SCPD) was one of the<br />
first in the nation to employ predictive policing in its daily<br />
operations. The software in use was developed by researchers<br />
at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Santa Clara<br />
University, with input from crime analysts from SCPD. The<br />
program was first implemented in July 2011. In July 2012,<br />
the program moved from its experimental phase into full<br />
operational use.<br />
The core of the SCPD program is the continuous identification<br />
of areas that are expected to experience increased levels<br />
of crime in a specified time frame. A computer algorithm<br />
draws upon a database of past criminal incidents to assign<br />
probabilities of crime occurring to 150x150 meter squares<br />
on a grid on a map of Santa Cruz. The database includes<br />
the time, location, and type of each crime committed. In the<br />
calculation of probabilities, more recent crimes are given<br />
greater weight. The program then generates a map that highlights<br />
the 15 squares with the highest probabilities. Prior to<br />
their shifts, officers are briefed on the locations of these 15<br />
squares and encouraged to devote extra time to monitoring<br />
these areas. During their shifts, officers can log into the webbased<br />
system to obtain updated, real-time, hot-spot maps.<br />
88<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Management<br />
The department opted to use 15 squares after experimenting<br />
with different numbers; analysts observed a dropoff in probability<br />
after 15. Further, the department has the resources<br />
to devote extra personnel time to 15 squares. Larger departments<br />
identify a far greater number of high-risk squares. The<br />
Los Angeles Police Department, for example, generates 20<br />
high-risk squares for each of its 19 divisions.<br />
The developers of the software took great care to ensure<br />
its accessibility by officers with minimal technical training.<br />
The program is relatively simple to use and its output (maps<br />
with square hot spots) can be tailored to specific crime types<br />
and times of day. Moreover, the department has adopted<br />
the perspective that predictive policing tools are intended to<br />
empower officers, not replace them. Officers are not required<br />
to base their decision-making solely on the hot-spot maps.<br />
Instead, officers are encouraged to view the maps as additions<br />
to their existing toolkits.<br />
SCPD has achieved a high level of officer buy-in with respect<br />
to predictive policing. Zach Friend, a crime analyst with<br />
SCPD, emphasizes that for predictive policing to take root<br />
in a department, there cannot be top-down implementation;<br />
it cannot be imposed on unwilling officers and treated as a<br />
replacement for experience and intuition. Friend draws an<br />
analogy to fishing, explaining that predictive methods can tell<br />
officers where the best fishing holes are located but not how<br />
to cast a line or bait a hook. And once officers begin using<br />
the predictive tools, they usually observe positive results.<br />
Officers who use the tools see reductions in crime on their<br />
beats, and these success stories motivate other officers to do<br />
so as well.<br />
It is critical that SCPD find efficient ways to reduce crime,<br />
as their current staff level is 20 percent lower than in 2000.<br />
Further, the department is not expected to increase the size<br />
of its staff in the foreseeable future. As a result, the department<br />
must take steps to ensure its officers are each achieving<br />
the most benefit possible. The software itself is affordable and<br />
requires minimal training. Further, predictive methods supplement<br />
experience, thereby standardizing the talent level in a<br />
police department between seasoned officers and novices. By<br />
Santa Cruz PredPol’s Crime Probability Predictions<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 89
Management<br />
simply being in the right place at the right time, as dictated<br />
by a hot-spot map, novice officers can make a valuable<br />
contribution to reducing crime.<br />
The department currently assesses changes in crime rates<br />
to determine whether or not the program is working.<br />
Preliminary evidence indicates that the program has been<br />
successful, particularly with respect to burglaries. A comparison<br />
of burglaries in July 2011 (when the program was first<br />
implemented) to July 2010 indicates a 27 percent decline<br />
(down to 51 from 70). Aggregating over the six months<br />
prior to implementation (January 2011 to June 2011) and<br />
comparing this number to the amount of burglaries in the<br />
same time period in 2012 (January 2012 to June 2012)<br />
reveals a 14 percent decline (down to 263 from 305). It is<br />
not surprising that SCPD has experienced the most success<br />
with preventing burglaries, as this type of crime lends itself<br />
to prediction. Potential burglars carefully design their plan<br />
of attack, often taking into consideration the environmental<br />
characteristics of the geographical area.<br />
In contrast to Santa Cruz, other departments instead measure<br />
success using arrest rates. The concern with this measure is<br />
that predictive policing is intended to reduce the incidence<br />
of crime through deterrence. When potential criminals see<br />
police officers monitoring an area, they are less inclined to<br />
commit an offense. It is, of course, quite difficult to measure<br />
deterrence, as we cannot calculate how many crimes would<br />
have occurred if not for the increased police presence. ¥<br />
TO LEARN MORE<br />
Predictive Policing:<br />
Preventing Crime<br />
with Data and Analytics<br />
by Jennifer Bachner<br />
The report can be obtained:<br />
• In .pdf (Acrobat) format<br />
at the Center website,<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
• By e-mailing the Center at<br />
businessofgovernment@us.ibm.com<br />
• By calling the Center at (202) 551-9342<br />
90<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Forum: Six Trends Driving Change<br />
in Government Management<br />
This article is adapted from Daren C. Brabham, Using Crowdsourcing In Government,<br />
(Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government, 2013).<br />
Using Crowdsourcing In Government<br />
By Daren C. Brabham<br />
There is growing interest in “engaging the crowd” to identify<br />
or develop innovative solutions to public problems. This<br />
trend has been inspired by similar efforts in the commercial<br />
world to design innovative consumer products or solve<br />
complex scientific problems, ranging from custom-designing<br />
T-shirts to mapping genetic DNA strands. The Obama administration,<br />
as well as many state and local governments, have<br />
adapted these crowdsourcing techniques with some success.<br />
Crowdsourcing is an online, distributed problem-solving<br />
and production model that has grown in use in the past<br />
decade. While many of the exemplar cases of crowdsourcing<br />
highlighted in the scholarly research have been for-profit<br />
companies or ventures managed by for-profit companies,<br />
crowdsourcing has been gaining traction as a public participation<br />
tool for governance and planning, as well as a method<br />
for building common resources or processing large batches of<br />
data to streamline government functions.<br />
Simply put, crowdsourcing happens when:<br />
• An organization has a task it needs performed<br />
• An online community voluntarily performs the task<br />
• The result is mutual benefit for the organization and the<br />
online community.<br />
An important distinction between crowdsourcing and other,<br />
similar forms of online participatory culture and user-generated<br />
content activities is that crowdsourcing entails a mix of<br />
top-down, traditional, hierarchical management process and<br />
a bottom-up, open process involving an online community.<br />
In crowdsourcing arrangements, the locus of control must<br />
reside between organization and online community rather<br />
than primarily in one or the other (see figure). An example of<br />
a high degree of organizational control that made insufficient<br />
use of the online community’s input is the “vote for your<br />
favorite flavor” marketing contest, such as Mountain Dew’s<br />
DEWmocracy campaign. And examples of a high degree of<br />
online community control with insufficient organizational<br />
directive are Wikipedia or open-source software projects<br />
such as Mozilla Firefox.<br />
It is important to distinguish crowdsourcing as a process,<br />
rather than a tool. Crowdsourcing is an online process for<br />
connecting online communities and organizations in pursuit<br />
of a product or solution to a problem. Crowdsourcing can<br />
be accomplished through any number of new media tools,<br />
including wikis, blogs, websites, social networking sites (e.g.,<br />
Facebook, Twitter), mobile apps, mapping software, and so<br />
on. Many tools enable communication, and so many tools<br />
can make crowdsourcing possible.<br />
When an organization embarks on a crowdsourcing venture,<br />
it is important to consider first the kind of problem it wants to<br />
solve and the kinds of solutions it wants to receive.<br />
The author has developed a problem-based, four-part<br />
typology for crowdsourcing. This typology is problem-based<br />
in the sense that a practitioner can use it to assess what<br />
kind of problem he or she needs solved, identify whether<br />
crowdsourcing may help solve the problem, and decide<br />
Crowdsourcing as a Blend of Traditional Top-Down<br />
Production and Bottom-Up User Production.<br />
A top-down,<br />
hierarchical process<br />
TRADITIONAL PRODUCTION<br />
Locus of control is<br />
in the organization<br />
Examples:<br />
• In-house product<br />
development<br />
• Simple voting<br />
marketing campaigns<br />
(e.g., DEWmocracy)<br />
Source: Brabham et al., 2013<br />
A shared top-down<br />
and bottom-up process<br />
CROWDSOURCING<br />
Locus of control is<br />
between organization<br />
and online community<br />
Examples:<br />
• Peer to Patent<br />
• Amazon Mechanical<br />
Turk<br />
• InnoCentive<br />
• Threadless<br />
USER PRODUCTION<br />
A bottom-up,<br />
grassroots process<br />
Locus of control is in<br />
the online community<br />
Examples:<br />
• Wikipedia<br />
• YouTube<br />
• Open Source<br />
Software<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 91
Management<br />
Daren C. Brabham is an assistant professor in the Annenberg School for<br />
Communication & Journalism at the University of Southern California, as<br />
well as the founding editor of Case Studies in Strategic Communication.<br />
He was the first to publish scholarly research using the term crowdsourcing<br />
in 2008 in an article in Convergence.<br />
which type of crowdsourcing approach is most useful. You<br />
first need to determine whether a problem at hand is (a) an<br />
information management problem, where the challenge is to<br />
locate or analyze existing knowledge; or whether it is (b) an<br />
ideation problem, where the challenge is to develop entirely<br />
novel ideas or solutions.<br />
These four problem-based crowdsourcing approaches—<br />
the Knowledge Discovery and Management approach,<br />
the Distributed Human Intelligence Tasking approach, the<br />
Broadcast Search approach, and the Peer-Vetted Creative<br />
Production approach—cover the range of problem-solving<br />
activities suitable for government to crowdsource (see Table 1).<br />
Table 1: A Typology of Crowdsourcing Problem Types for Governance<br />
Type How it Works Kinds of Problems Examples of Uses in Government<br />
Type One:<br />
Knowledge<br />
Discovery and<br />
Management<br />
Type Two:<br />
Distributed<br />
Human<br />
Intelligence<br />
Tasking<br />
Type Three:<br />
Broadcast<br />
Search<br />
Type Four:<br />
Peer-Vetted<br />
Creative<br />
Production<br />
Organization tasks crowd<br />
with finding and collecting<br />
information into a common<br />
location and format<br />
Organization tasks crowd<br />
with analyzing large<br />
amounts of information<br />
Organization tasks crowd<br />
with solving empirical<br />
problems<br />
Organization tasks crowd<br />
with creating and selecting<br />
creative ideas<br />
Ideal for information gathering,<br />
organization, and reporting<br />
problems, such as the creation of<br />
collective resources<br />
Ideal for large-scale data analysis<br />
where human intelligence is<br />
more efficient or effective than<br />
computer analysis<br />
Ideal for ideation problems with<br />
empirically provable solutions,<br />
such as scientific problems<br />
Ideal for ideation problems where<br />
solutions are matters of taste or<br />
market support, such as design or<br />
aesthetic problems<br />
Example: SeeClickFix; USGS’s Did You<br />
Feel It?; USPTO’s Peer to Patent<br />
Possible Uses: Reporting conditions and<br />
use of public parks and hiking trails;<br />
tracking use of public transit; cataloguing<br />
public art projects and murals for<br />
historical boards<br />
Example: Transcribing digital scans of old<br />
handwritten census records<br />
Possible Uses: Language translation for<br />
documents and websites; data entry;<br />
behavioral modeling<br />
Example: White House SAVE Award;<br />
NASA’s use of InnoCentive for a solar<br />
flare prediction formula<br />
Possible Uses: Finding better algorithms<br />
for timing traffic signals; improving<br />
actuarial formulas for Social Security<br />
Example: Next Stop Design bus<br />
stop shelter design competition; ITS<br />
Congestion Challenge for alleviating<br />
traffic congestion<br />
Possible Uses: Designs for public<br />
structures and art projects; urban plans;<br />
transit plans; policy proposals; school<br />
redistricting plans<br />
Source: Adapted from Brabham, 2012a<br />
92<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Management<br />
Type One: Knowledge Discovery and<br />
Management<br />
In type one crowdsourcing, government agencies can use<br />
online communities as a way to extend their abilities, relying<br />
on communities to bring new information into play in efficient<br />
ways that lead to better decisions and resource allocation.<br />
In this arrangement, an organization issues a clear<br />
information management task to an online community with<br />
clear instructions for how that task is to be performed, and<br />
the online community responds by finding and reporting that<br />
information in the specified format.<br />
An example of the type one approach is the U.S. Geological<br />
Survey’s (USGS) Community Internet Intensity Map, known<br />
more fondly as the Did You Feel It? map. Did You Feel It? is<br />
a website that automatically maps reports of user-submitted<br />
seismic activity. When the first tremors of an earthquake are<br />
felt, citizens visit the site and report their locations and an<br />
estimate of the intensity of the tremors. In combination with<br />
a network of sensors around the world, these user-submitted<br />
reports allow USGS to assemble a more nuanced map of the<br />
intensity of an earthquake’s activity, deepening the agency’s<br />
understanding of how earthquakes work and informing emergency<br />
response planning and modeling budgets for disaster<br />
relief. Where SeeClickFix allows citizens to fill information<br />
gaps for city maintenance departments and improve government<br />
efficiency, USGS’s Did You Feel It? project allows citizens<br />
to fill information gaps about the impact of earthquakes<br />
that sensors cannot fully capture.<br />
Type Two: Distributed Human Intelligence<br />
Tasking<br />
Type two crowdsourcing extends the data-analytic capabilities<br />
of government, decomposing and distributing large<br />
batches of information to an online community that performs<br />
small tasks, often for small financial rewards. Similar to type<br />
one crowdsourcing, type two crowdsourcing deals with<br />
information management problems, except with type two<br />
the challenge lies in how to process a batch of data that is<br />
already in hand. Type one crowdsourcing is for finding and<br />
assembling information, while type two crowdsourcing is for<br />
efficiently processing information.<br />
For example, the U.S. Census Bureau released raw digital<br />
image files from 1940 Census records and made them available<br />
to the public for the first time. The handwriting from<br />
seven-decades-old scanned documents required manual transcribing,<br />
since computerized optical character recognition<br />
(OCR) was not feasible. Taking a cue from Luis von Ahn et<br />
al.’s (2008) human computation reCAPTCHA system, which<br />
revolutionized the digital transcription of books by weaving<br />
transcription micro-tasks into security tests on several social<br />
network sites and blog comment functions, McHenry,<br />
Marini, Kejriwal, Kooper, and Bajcsy (2011) proposed that<br />
the government use a crowdsourcing approach to employ<br />
an online community in the rapid, accurate, inexpensive<br />
transcription of the Census records. The way such a system<br />
works is by decomposing the massive data set—the entire<br />
corpus of scanned records—into smaller tasks and distributing<br />
them online to people willing to transcribe a few words<br />
or sentences for small monetary rewards, say, transcribing a<br />
dozen words for a few pennies.<br />
Type Three: Broadcast Search<br />
Broadcast search crowdsourcing applications help government<br />
agencies find the needle in the haystack, the one<br />
scientific mind that can see a solution in a difficult ideation<br />
problem, by broadcasting a challenge widely on the Internet.<br />
Scientifically oriented government agencies like the National<br />
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S.<br />
Geological Survey, agencies that deal with actuarial formulas,<br />
and other engineering agencies could take the most advantage<br />
of broadcast search crowdsourcing ventures, opening<br />
the problem-solving process to an online community often<br />
motivated by their enjoyment in solving difficult problems.<br />
In broadcast search, an organization poses a challenge to an<br />
online community, often with detailed scientific parameters in<br />
the form of a problem brief, and the online community offers<br />
up complete, original solutions to address the problem.<br />
Many broadcast search crowdsourcing initiatives, as well<br />
as type four crowdsourcing (peer-vetted creative production)<br />
initiatives, take the form of contests or competitions,<br />
and prizes are common for winning ideas. The America<br />
COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 added a provision<br />
for prize competitions to an existing technology innovation<br />
act, giving federal agencies the authority to offer<br />
prizes as incentives to spur innovation (Executive Office of<br />
the President, 2012). At the same time, Challenge.gov was<br />
launched as a flexible platform for a wide variety of government-sponsored<br />
innovation competitions and challenges,<br />
even using the language of seekers and solvers used by broadcast<br />
search crowdsourcing companies like InnoCentive. This<br />
legal and technological infrastructure has been responsible<br />
for a number of U.S. government-sponsored broadcast search<br />
and type four competitions from agencies as diverse as the<br />
Department of Health and Human Services and NASA.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 93
Management<br />
Type Four: Peer-Vetted Creative Production<br />
Not all ideation problems have empirically “right” answers.<br />
Policy, aesthetic, and design problems are matters of subjective<br />
taste or public support. For these ideation problems,<br />
this approach to crowdsourcing is most appropriate. In type<br />
four crowdsourcing, an organization issues a challenge to<br />
an online community, the community replies with possible<br />
solutions, and the community is also empowered to choose<br />
among the submitted solutions, often through a commenting<br />
and voting mechanism.<br />
The most prominent, classic business case of this form of<br />
crowdsourcing is Threadless, a clothing company whose<br />
members submit graphic T-shirt designs and vote on the<br />
designs of peers. Threadless prints the top-rated designs and<br />
sells them back to the online community.<br />
With support from the U.S. Federal Transit Administration<br />
and in cooperation with the Utah Transit Authority (UTA),<br />
the Next Stop Design project ran in 2009–2010 as an<br />
attempt to replicate the business case of Threadless in a<br />
transit planning context. At Next Stop Design, participants<br />
were asked to respond to the challenge of designing an ideal<br />
bus stop shelter for a real transit hub in the UTA system.<br />
In just a few months and with no tangible reward offered,<br />
nearly 3,200 participants registered on the site, submitting<br />
260 high-quality architectural renderings for bus stop<br />
shelter designs and casting more than 10,000 votes in the<br />
competition.<br />
Conclusion<br />
For a term that did not exist seven years ago, crowdsourcing<br />
has enjoyed quite an enthusiastic embrace by government<br />
agencies in the U.S. and abroad. In the U.S., there have<br />
been high-dollar calls for proposals from the Departments<br />
of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the Defense Advanced<br />
Research Projects Agency (DARPA); the National Science<br />
Foundation; NASA; the Broadcasting Board of Governors;<br />
the Department of the Interior; the Department of Veterans<br />
Affairs; and other agencies that specifically use the word<br />
crowdsourcing, demonstrating a level of commitment to<br />
continue funding these innovative processes. Around the<br />
world, other governments have invested in crowdsourcing,<br />
too, and so has the United Nations, which held a meeting<br />
in 2012 to explore crowdsourced crisis mapping for disaster<br />
relief. Considering the common criticism that government<br />
moves slowly and is notoriously unwilling to take risks, the<br />
rate at which crowdsourcing has taken hold in government,<br />
in spite of its many risks, is perhaps a signal that there is a<br />
sea change happening in the business practices of government<br />
and the way citizens engage with elected officials and<br />
public administrators. In the spirit of participatory democracy,<br />
this is no doubt a good sign. ¥<br />
TO LEARN MORE<br />
Using Crowdsourcing In<br />
Government<br />
by Daren C. Brabham<br />
The report can be obtained:<br />
• In .pdf (Acrobat) format<br />
at the Center website,<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
• By e-mailing the Center at<br />
businessofgovernment@us.ibm.com<br />
• By calling the Center at (202) 551-9342<br />
94<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Forum: Six Trends Driving Change<br />
in Government Management<br />
This article is adapted from Andrea Strimling Yodsampa, Coordinating for Results:<br />
Lessons from a Case Study of Interagency Coordination in Afghanistan, (Washington,<br />
DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government, 2013).<br />
Coordinating for Results: Lessons from a Case Study<br />
of Interagency Coordination in Afghanistan<br />
By Andrea Strimling Yodsampa<br />
Interagency coordination is an essential element of effective<br />
public leadership. Few agencies have the funding, expertise,<br />
or influence to achieve their goals single-handedly.<br />
Moreover, complex problems require interdisciplinary—and<br />
hence interagency—solutions. To succeed, public executives<br />
and managers must leverage the financial, human, and<br />
organizational resources of multiple agencies. This requires<br />
coordination.<br />
Coordination, however, is easier said than done. Agencies<br />
differ in their goals, priorities, and cultures. They compete<br />
for resources and turf. And they have different interests and<br />
concerns relative to coordination itself. Coordination also<br />
takes time and money; coordination processes must compete<br />
for resources with other mission needs and priorities.<br />
Compounding these challenges, executives and managers<br />
rarely have line authority over agencies and individuals with<br />
whom they must coordinate.<br />
In the face of these challenges, how can executives and<br />
managers deliver consistent coordinated results? Those<br />
who have led or served on interagency teams often argue<br />
that coordination is driven by personalities and relationships.<br />
Personalities and relationships do matter, of course.<br />
Public executives and managers must pay careful attention<br />
to the composition of interagency teams. But they must not<br />
stop there. Attitudes and relationships are deeply affected<br />
by organizational factors. Therefore, public executives and<br />
managers must institutionalize systems and processes that<br />
foster the attitudes, relationships, and behaviors conducive to<br />
coordination.<br />
A case study of U.S. stabilization and reconstruction efforts in<br />
Afghanistan from 2001 to 2009 illuminates concrete examples<br />
of successful coordination amidst extensive coordination<br />
failures. It then identifies the organizational systems and<br />
processes that made those successes possible.<br />
While the Afghan context was unique in many respects, the<br />
agencies on the ground faced many of the same challenges<br />
domestic agencies face in attempting to coordinate. The<br />
lessons about interagency coordination therefore are broadly<br />
relevant.<br />
Background<br />
The U.S. experience in Afghanistan demonstrates that coordination<br />
is possible even in the most challenging of contexts.<br />
Civil-military coordination in Afghanistan was immensely<br />
difficult. The Department of Defense, Department of State,<br />
and USAID differed not only in their priorities and timelines,<br />
but also in their organizational cultures, lexicons, and operating<br />
norms.<br />
Power disparities, reflected in DoD’s overwhelming financial<br />
and human resources on the ground, contributed to longstanding<br />
mistrust and tension between civilians and military.<br />
Add to this the fact that they were working seven days a<br />
week in complex, volatile, and often dangerous conditions,<br />
and a perfect storm for interagency conflict and competition<br />
ensued. In such a context, it is not surprising that coordination<br />
often floundered.<br />
What is significant is that civilians and military on the ground<br />
delivered some important coordinated results. These coordinated<br />
results, in turn, advanced agency missions, saved<br />
resources, and contributed to the achievement of U.S. and<br />
multinational goals in Afghanistan.<br />
The case study shows that when coordinated results were<br />
achieved, it was because civilians and military put in place<br />
organizational systems and processes conducive to coordination.<br />
When coordination failed, it was because critical factors<br />
necessary for consistent coordinated results were lacking.<br />
While these lessons emerged in a unique context, they<br />
are relevant to public executives and managers seeking to<br />
enhance coordination in any issue area or context.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 95
Management<br />
Andrea Strimling Yodsampa is Senior Researcher/Program Manager, The<br />
Fletcher School, Tufts University. She is a social scientist, practitioner, and<br />
consultant specializing in interagency, civil-military, and public-private<br />
cooperation. In addition to her work at Tufts University, she serves as<br />
a consultant and senior social scientist on DoD-sponsored “innovative<br />
research” efforts on interagency assessment and planning.<br />
Findings: Systems and Processes to<br />
Enhance Coordination<br />
Finding One: Co-location and convening provide opportunities<br />
for face-to-face interaction that facilitate joint analysis<br />
and planning and foster relationship development and<br />
mutual learning.<br />
Co-location of civilians and military at the U.S. embassy in<br />
Kabul and at various levels of the military structure in the<br />
field, including the provincial reconstruction teams, facilitated<br />
information sharing and joint analysis and planning<br />
and enabled civilians and military to learn from one another<br />
and develop a greater appreciation of each agency’s comparative<br />
advantages. Co-location of the senior civilian and military<br />
leaders at the embassy in the second phase also served<br />
as a powerful symbol of high-level commitment to coordination,<br />
reverberating to lower levels of their respective chains<br />
of command.<br />
When co-location was not possible, convening of civilians<br />
and military provided opportunities for regular, in-person interaction<br />
and thus facilitated information sharing, joint analysis<br />
and planning, relationship development, and mutual learning.<br />
The benefits of regular convening were evident in the<br />
Bagram process, where civil and military leaders met<br />
monthly for a full day. As one military officer puts it: “The<br />
process worked very well because it put the embassy,<br />
USAID, [and the military] in the same room, at the same<br />
lunch table, working the same things. The synergy from<br />
doing that, versus talking with someone you don’t know on<br />
the other end of the phone, paid huge dividends.” Another<br />
official agrees: “Before you can collaborate, you must coordinate.<br />
Before that, you must know the names of people.<br />
Before that, you must break down some barriers so that<br />
you’re not separate vessels.”<br />
Finding Two: Regular information sharing and joint analysis<br />
and planning enable participants to develop a shared assessment<br />
of the situation, identify common goals, and agree on a<br />
division of labor.<br />
The experience in Afghanistan shows that regular, structured<br />
opportunities for information sharing and joint analysis and<br />
planning are necessary to develop a shared assessment of the<br />
situation, identify common goals, and agree on a division of<br />
labor that leverages complementary resources and capabilities<br />
in support of shared goals.<br />
In the early stages of U.S. reconstruction efforts in<br />
Afghanistan, the lack of a joint interagency plan and associated<br />
lack of information sharing caused numerous coordination<br />
failures, including situations in which civilians and<br />
military inadvertently worked at cross-purposes, wasting<br />
resources and undermining effectiveness.<br />
As time went on, civilians and military instituted systems and<br />
processes for joint analysis and planning. Examples include<br />
the Joint Interagency Task Force established at the embassy,<br />
the focused planning for priority sectors that contributed<br />
to coordination in road construction, the Bagram process,<br />
and the Civil-Military Action Group. These systems and<br />
processes made possible concrete coordinated results. They<br />
also fostered mutual learning and the development of strong<br />
working relationships, creating foundations for enhanced<br />
coordination moving forward.<br />
Finding Three: Facilitative leadership is necessary to convene<br />
and lead effective joint analysis and planning processes.<br />
One of the most significant challenges public executives and<br />
managers face in coordinating across agency lines is lack of<br />
line authority over many of the stakeholders involved. To be<br />
successful, executives and managers must exercise facilitative<br />
leadership, or leadership without authority.<br />
96<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Management<br />
In Afghanistan, civilians and military reported up different<br />
chains of command. Facilitative leadership was the glue<br />
that held the joint analysis and planning processes together<br />
and enabled them to succeed. In some cases, it was people<br />
in formal leadership roles who exercised facilitative leadership.<br />
General David Rodriguez, for example, had direct<br />
authority over military officers who served under him, but not<br />
over the many civilians involved in the Bagram process. To<br />
be effective convening and leading that process, in concert<br />
with his civilian counterparts, he had to exercise facilitative<br />
leadership.<br />
The military is an intensely hierarchical system, and directive<br />
leadership is the norm. Thus, it is telling that a number of<br />
senior military officers who served in Afghanistan emphasize<br />
their learning about the importance of facilitative leadership.<br />
Facilitative leadership need not be limited to people in formal<br />
leadership positions. Interagency processes are complex, and<br />
facilitation of joint analysis and planning processes is necessary<br />
to keep the dialogues focused and on track. During<br />
the technical working group breakout sessions at Bagram,<br />
civilian participants selected to serve as ad hoc facilitators<br />
were credited with contributing to the effectiveness and efficiency<br />
of the process.<br />
Finding Four: Delegation of decision-making is essential, but<br />
it must be paired with professional incentives to coordinate<br />
and accountability for results.<br />
The case study shows that delegation of decision-making<br />
authority to the field, combined with incentives to coordinate<br />
and accountability for downstream results, is necessary for<br />
consistent coordinated results.<br />
In Afghanistan, the lack of decision-making authority on the<br />
part of many USAID officers in the field undermined coordination.<br />
Without the ability to make decisions and allocate<br />
resources, USAID officers were unable to respond quickly<br />
and in concert with their military counterparts to emerging<br />
challenges and opportunities.<br />
Delegation of decision-making authority without the requisite<br />
incentives and accountability systems, however, was counterproductive.<br />
In Afghanistan, military officers in the field were<br />
authorized to allocate significant amounts of money to development<br />
projects in the provinces under the Commanders’<br />
Emergency Response Program. However, incentives emphasized<br />
spending money quickly, rather than taking the time to<br />
coordinate with civilians, and military officers were rarely held<br />
accountable for the downstream effects of their spending.<br />
The high level of decision-making authority, combined with<br />
perverse incentives and insufficient accountability, led to a<br />
go-it-alone attitude at many provincial reconstruction teams<br />
that resulted in wasteful duplication of efforts and working at<br />
cross-purposes with civilians.<br />
The military was not alone in struggling with perverse incentives<br />
and insufficient accountability. USAID officers in the<br />
field also faced pressure to spend money quickly. And, civilians,<br />
like their military counterparts, were not held sufficiently<br />
accountable for the downstream effects of their<br />
decisions. The vast flow of resources to civilian and military<br />
efforts in Afghanistan, the incentive to spend money quickly,<br />
and the lack of accountability for downstream results led to<br />
ongoing coordination failures, wasting resources and undermining<br />
the effectiveness of U.S. and multinational reconstruction<br />
efforts. ¥<br />
TO LEARN MORE<br />
Coordinating for Results:<br />
Lessons from a Case Study of<br />
Interagency Coordination in<br />
Afghanistan<br />
by Andrea Strimling<br />
Yodsampa<br />
The report can be obtained:<br />
• In .pdf (Acrobat) format<br />
at the Center website,<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
• By e-mailing the Center at<br />
businessofgovernment@us.ibm.com<br />
• By calling the Center at (202) 551-9342<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 97
Research Abstracts<br />
Recently Published IBM Center Reports<br />
Realizing the Promise of Big Data<br />
Kevin C. Desouza<br />
Big data is receiving increasing attention as a term, but lacks a commonly understood definition.<br />
Kevin Desouza provides a clear, useful introduction to the concept. He writes, “Big data<br />
is an evolving concept that refers to the growth of data and how it is used to optimize business<br />
processes, create customer value, and mitigate risks.” Over the last year, Professor Desouza<br />
conducted extensive interviews with chief information officers (CIOs) across the United States<br />
at the federal, state, and local level. The goal was to better understand the implementation challenges<br />
facing CIOs and their organizations as they undertake big data projects. Desouza presents<br />
10 key findings from his interviews along with detailed descriptions of the three key stages in<br />
implementing a big data project: planning, execution, and post-implementation.<br />
Engaging Citizens in Co-Creation in Public Services<br />
Satish Nambisan and Priya Nambisan<br />
This report presents an innovative framework for analyzing citizen “co-creation,” which refers to<br />
the development of new public services by citizens in partnership with governments. Through the<br />
lens of real-world cases, the authors highlight four roles that citizens can play in the co-creation<br />
of public services: explorer, ideator, designer, and diffuser. Additionally, the authors offer four<br />
strategies for government leaders who wish to encourage citizen co-creation. This report offers<br />
insight into how governments can improve services through co-creation and co-delivery.<br />
Eight Actions to Improve Defense Acquisition<br />
Jacques S. Gansler and William Lucyshyn<br />
This report presents eight significant actions the federal government can take to improve the federal<br />
acquisition process, focusing on Department of Defense (DoD) acquisitions due to the agency’s<br />
dominant share of the federal budget. Emphasizing the urgency of acquisition reform given<br />
budgetary constraints and security challenges, the authors set forth a comprehensive roadmap for<br />
improving acquisitions at DoD and across the government.<br />
98<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Research Abstracts<br />
Incident Reporting Systems: Lessons from the Federal Aviation Administration’s Air<br />
Traffic Organization<br />
Russell W. Mills<br />
This report provides a case study of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Air Traffic Organization<br />
(ATO) incident reporting systems. The author describes the introduction of voluntary selfreporting<br />
of errors by air traffic controllers and the use of increasingly sophisticated electronic<br />
tracking equipment. This improved data collection dramatically increased reported operational<br />
errors, allowing ATO to implement corrective actions. While this promoted a safer air traffic<br />
system, it created political problems for the agency. ATO overcame these political problems by<br />
creating a new risk-based reporting system.<br />
Cloudy with a Chance of Success: Contracting for the Cloud in Government<br />
Shannon H. Tufts and Meredith Leigh Weiss<br />
The authors present a detailed analysis of 12 major issues that need to be addressed in all cloud<br />
contracts, based on an analysis of five public-sector cloud service contracts in North Carolina.<br />
The authors developed a series of recommendations to guide government organizations in writing<br />
and negotiating cloud service contracts. This report serves as an important resource for government<br />
managers as they increasingly move activities to the cloud.<br />
Using Crowdsourcing In Government<br />
Daren C. Brabham<br />
The growing interest in “engaging the crowd” to identify or develop innovative solutions to public<br />
problems has been inspired by similar efforts in the commercial world. The Obama administration<br />
and many state and local governments have been adapting these crowdsourcing techniques with<br />
some success. By understanding the different types of crowdsourcing and the different approaches<br />
they require, public managers will have a better chance of success. The author provides a strategic<br />
view of crowdsourcing and identifies four specific types: knowledge discovery and management,<br />
distributed human intelligence tasking, broadcast search, and peer-vetted creative production. He<br />
focuses on the strategic design process and sets forth 10 emerging best practices for implementing a<br />
crowdsourcing initiative.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 99
Research Abstracts<br />
Recently Published IBM Center Reports<br />
Federal Ideation Programs: Challenges and Best Practices<br />
Gwanhoo Lee<br />
Ideation platforms are modern tools for collecting and synthesizing group knowledge into actionable<br />
next steps. The reward is potentially high, especially for large organizations in both the<br />
private and public sector. Included are examples of how four federal agencies are using off-theshelf<br />
tools and proprietary applications to harness the knowledge of crowds and help agencies<br />
fulfill their mission. In addition to the four case studies, Professor Lee presents strategies and<br />
tactics that can help agencies develop and implement successful ideation programs.<br />
Six Trends Driving Change in Government<br />
Dan Chenok, John M. Kamensky, Michael J. Keegan, and Gadi Ben-Yehuda<br />
Government leaders face serious challenges. In a special report, Six Trends Driving Change in<br />
Government, the Center has identified a set of trends that correspond to these challenges and<br />
drive government change. These trends—both separately and in combination—paint a path<br />
forward in responding to the ever-increasing complexity that government faces. These trends<br />
include: performance, risk, innovation, mission, efficiency, and leadership.<br />
Coordinating for Results: Lessons from a Case Study of Interagency Coordination<br />
in Afghanistan<br />
Andrea Strimling Yodsampa<br />
This report discusses interagency coordination through vivid examples of coordinated initiatives<br />
between U.S. civilian and military efforts in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2009. These initiatives<br />
succeeded when the civilian and military institutions leveraged their joint funding sources and<br />
networks to achieve common goals. When agencies collaborate, they still maintain their organizational<br />
autonomy and independence of action, but they deliberately align resources, capabilities,<br />
strategies, and implementation in support of shared goals. This report offers recommendations on<br />
how agencies can ensure effective coordination.<br />
100<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
Research Abstracts<br />
Predictive Policing: Preventing Crime with Data and Analytics<br />
Jennifer Bachner<br />
This report highlights compelling examples of how new crime-focused data analytics are turning<br />
traditional police officers into “data detectives.” It presents case studies of the experiences of<br />
Santa Cruz, California; Baltimore County, Maryland; and Richmond, Virginia, in using predictive<br />
policing as a new and effective crime-fighting tool. The report also offers recommendations for<br />
municipalities and law enforcement agencies that are considering investing time and resources in<br />
a predictive policing program.<br />
Collaboration Between Government and Outreach Organizations: A Case Study<br />
of the Department of Veterans Affairs<br />
Lael Keiser and Susan M. Miller<br />
This report addresses the role of outreach organizations in assisting government agencies to<br />
determine benefit eligibility of citizens applying for services. The authors interviewed dozens of<br />
managers from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and outreach organizations to determine<br />
the effectiveness of their collaboration in serving veterans. They found “there is indeed<br />
effective collaboration” and that these organizations serve a key role for veterans in processing<br />
their claims. However, the report identifies variations in the efficacy of the relationships between<br />
VA and outreach organization staffs and identified best practices for promoting efficient<br />
collaboration.<br />
A Guide for Agency Leaders on Federal Acquisition<br />
Trevor L. Brown<br />
This report answers seven key questions that government executives should know about the<br />
procurement process. An improved federal acquisition process is crucial in this era of tight budgets,<br />
and a key ingredient to a successful tenure in government. In addition to answering the seven key<br />
questions, this report also outlines the three acquisition challenges that government executives now<br />
face. These include navigating the regulatory and oversight landscape, mitigating acquisition risk<br />
through contract design, and improving the acquisition workforce. It concludes setting forth strategies<br />
for overcoming each challenge.<br />
SPRING 2014 IBM Center for The Business of Government 101
How to Order Recent Publications<br />
To obtain printed copies free of charge, please specify the number of copies needed and return this form to the Center either:<br />
BY MAIL<br />
BY E-MAIL<br />
IBM Center for The Business of Government<br />
600 14th Street, NW<br />
Second Floor<br />
Washington, DC 20005<br />
Order requests can be e-mailed to the Center at: businessofgovernment@us.ibm.com<br />
Name_______________________________________________________________________________________________________<br />
Title___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________<br />
Organization_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________<br />
Address_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________<br />
City _______________________________________________________________________ State __________________________ Zip _____________________<br />
Telephone ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________<br />
E-mail_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________<br />
Publications can also be downloaded in Acrobat format from the Center’s website: www.businessofgovernment.org.<br />
REPORT TITLE<br />
QUANTITY<br />
Realizing the Promise of Big Data<br />
Engaging Citizens in Co-Creation in Public Services<br />
Eight Actions to Improve Defense Acquisition<br />
Incident Reporting Systems: Lessons from the Federal Aviation Administration’s Air Traffic Organization<br />
Cloudy with a Chance of Success: Contracting for the Cloud in Government<br />
Using Crowdsourcing In Government<br />
Federal Ideation Programs: Challenges and Best Practices<br />
Six Trends Driving Change in Government<br />
Coordinating for Results: Lessons from a Case Study of Interagency Coordination in Afghanistan<br />
Predictive Policing: Preventing Crime with Data and Analytics<br />
Collaboration Between Government and Outreach Organizations: A Case Study of the Department of Veterans Affairs<br />
A Guide for Agency Leaders on Federal Acquisition<br />
102<br />
www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
The Business of Government
CONNECTING<br />
RESEARCH TO PRACTICE<br />
businessofgovernment.org<br />
Five Easy Ways to Connect<br />
Reports<br />
Magazine Radio Blog<br />
Books<br />
Reports Books Magazine Reports Radio Radio Radio Blog Blog Blog Books Books Books Magazine Magazin
600 14th Street, NW<br />
Second Floor<br />
Washington, DC 20005<br />
LISTEN TO<br />
THE BUSINESS OF<br />
GOVERNMENT HOUR<br />
weekly conversations<br />
with government leaders<br />
Mondays at 11:00 am<br />
Wednesdays at Noon<br />
Federal News Radio, WFED<br />
(1500 AM)* or on the web at<br />
federalnewsradio.com<br />
* Washington, D.C. area only<br />
About the IBM Center for The Business of Government<br />
The IBM Center for The Business of Government connects public<br />
management research with practice. Since 1998, we have helped public<br />
sector executives improve the effectiveness of government with practical<br />
ideas and original thinking. We sponsor independent research by top<br />
minds in academe and the nonprofit sector, and we create opportunities<br />
for dialogue on a broad range of public management topics.<br />
For additional information, contact:<br />
Daniel Chenok<br />
Executive Director<br />
IBM Center for The Business of Government<br />
600 14th Street, NW<br />
Second Floor<br />
Washington, DC 20005<br />
The Center is one of the ways that IBM seeks to advance<br />
knowledge on how to improve public sector effectiveness.<br />
The IBM Center focuses on the future of the operation and<br />
management of the public sector.<br />
(202) 551-9342<br />
e-mail: businessofgovernment@us.ibm.com<br />
website: www.businessofgovernment.org<br />
About IBM Global Business Services<br />
With consultants and professional staff in more than 160 countries<br />
globally, IBM Global Business Services is the world’s largest consulting<br />
services organization. IBM Global Business Services provides clients<br />
with business process and industry expertise, a deep understanding<br />
of technology solutions that address specific industry issues, and the<br />
ability to design, build, and run those solutions in a way that delivers<br />
bottom-line business value. For more information visit www.ibm.com.