BoG Spr-Sum 2012

businessofgovernment.
org
spring/summer 2012
The Business of Government

3 From the Executive Director 4 From the Managing Editors Desk 6 Conversations with Leaders
Gene Dodaro Michael J. Astrue Erin Conaton Admiral Robert Papp Letitia Long
31 Profiles in Leadership
Malcolm Jackson Michael Kane Steven Kempf
Michael J. Astrue
U.S. Social Security Administration
Erin Conaton
U.S. Air Force
Seth Diamond
New York City Department of Homeless Services
40 Insights
Leading New York Citys Response to the Challenge of Homelessness Revitalizing Public Service
51 Perspectives
Getting Big Things Done in Government
58 Forum
Governing to Win Enhancing National Competitiveness
Gene Dodaro
U.S. Government Accountability Office
Malcolm Jackson
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Michael Kane
U.S. Department of Energy
80 Viewpoints
Reform of the Federal IT Budget Increasing Strategy, Decreasing Complexity
83 Management
A Managers Guide to Evaluating Citizen Participation Using Wikis in Government: A Guide for Public Managers
96 Research Abstracts
Steven Kempf
U.S. General Services Administration
Letitia Long
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
Admiral Robert Papp

U.S. Coast Guard
INFORMATIVE INSIGHTFUL IN-DEPTH
the BuSIneSS oF GovernMent hour
Conversations with government executives
Sharing management insights, advice, and best practices Changing the way government does business
on the AIr
Mondays at 11:00 am Wednesdays at noon Federal news radio, WFeD (1500 AM)*
on the WeB
Download current and archived shows: businessofgovernment.org
Radio Blog Books Radio
Magazine B
* Washington, D.C. area only
Table of Contents
From the Executive Director

By Jonathan D. Breul ................................................................................3
From the Managing Editors Desk

By Michael J. Keegan ................................................................................4
Conversations with Leaders

Gene Dodaro Comptroller General, u.S. Government Accountability Office ................ 6 Michael J. Astrue Commissioner, u.S. Social Security Administration ............................... 11 Erin Conaton undersecretary of the u.S. Air Force ...................................................... 16 Admiral Robert Papp Commandant, united States Coast Guard ............................................. 21 Letitia Long Director, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency ................................ 26
Profiles in Leadership
By Michael J. Keegan Malcolm Jackson Assistant Administrator, Office of environmental Information & Chief Information Officer, u.S. environmental Protection Agency ......... 31 Michael Kane Chief Human Capital Officer, u.S. Department of energy ..................... 34 Steven Kempf Commissioner, Federal Acquisition Service u.S. General Services Administration .................................................... 37
Insights
Leading New York Citys Response to the Challenge of Homelessness: Insights from Seth Diamond, Commissioner, New York City Department of Homeless Services ................................................................ 40 Revitalizing Public Service: Insights from max Stier President and CeO, Partnership for Public Service ....................................... 46
Perspectives: Getting Big Things Done in Government

Edited by John M. Kamensky ................................................................. 51
SPRING/SummeR 2012
IBm Center for The Business of Government
Table of Contents (continued)
Forum: Governing to WinEnhancing National Competitiveness

Introduction........................................................................................... 58 How Can Our Nation Better Compete to Win in the Global economy Today? .............................................................. 59 Governance Is the New Competitiveness Imperative ............................. 64 Creating a Strategic Approach to Budget Decisions ............................... 69 use Technology to enhance Productivity ............................................... 73 Rethink Government Purchasing and Supply Chains ............................. 76

A Publication of the IBM Center for The Business of Government
Jonathan D. Breul Executive Director John M. Kamensky Senior Fellow Daniel Chenok Senior Fellow Frank Strickland, Jr. Senior Fellow Michael J. Keegan Managing Editor The Business of Government magazine and Host/Producer, The Business of Government Hour Ruth Gordon Business and Web Manager Gadi Ben-Yehuda Social Media Director Shenna A. Humphrey Executive Assistant
IBM Center for The Business of Government 600 14th Street, NW, Second Floor Washington, DC 20005
For subscription information, call (202) 551-9342. Web page: www.businessofgovernment.org. Copyright 2012 IBM Global Business Services. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, by microfilm, xerography, or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright owner. This publication is designed to provide accurate information about its subject matter, but is distributed with the understanding that the articles do not constitute legal, accounting, or other professional advice.
Viewpoints
Reform of the Federal IT BudgetIncreasing Strategy, Decreasing Complexity By Dan Chenok ......................................................................................80
Management
A managers Guide to evaluating Citizen Participation By Tina Nabatchi ....................................................................................83 using Wikis in Government: A Guide for Public managers By Ines Mergel .......................................................................................91
Research Abstracts
Social Security in the BRIC Countries .................................................... 96 A managers Guide to evaluating Citizen Participation .......................... 96 A Leaders Guide to Transformation ....................................................... 96 From Data to Decisions: The Power of Analytics ................................... 97 A Best Practices Guide for mitigating Risk in the use of Social media .. 97 How to Order Recent Publications ........................................................98
www.businessofgovernment.org
From the Executive Director

Since the IBm Center for The Business of Government was created over 14 years ago, it has been our goal to help public-sector leaders and managers address real-world problems by sponsoring independent, third-party reports from top minds in academe and the nonprofit sector. Our aim is to produce research and analysis that help government leaders more effectively respond to their mission and management challenges. The IBm Center is named The Business of Government because its focus is on the management and operation of government, not the policies of government. Public-sector leaders and managers need the best, most practical advice available when it comes to delivering the business of government.
Jonathan D. Breul is executive Director of the IBm Center for The Business of Government and a Partner, IBm Global Business Services. His e-mail: jonathan.d.breul@us.ibm.com.
We seek to bridge the gap between research and practice by helping to stimulate and accelerate the production of actionable research. To do so, we solicit proposals that will result in reports with insightful findings and actionable recommendations. Our reports communicate what works and show busy government leaders and public managers how The Business of Government can be improved. This fall will be dominated by the presidential election and a number of major issues involving the federal deficit and the impending austerity facing government operations in this decade. Four significant events occur between the election and the end of the year: the Bush tax cuts will expire, the temporary payroll tax reduction will expire, the debt ceiling will be hit once again, and the automatic sequester required by the Budget Control Act of 2011 will take effect. The lame-duck Congress and a president who may or may not be lame-duck will be forced to deal with these events. How this process will play out remains to be seen. In many respects, identifying sources of savings (whether policy changes or operational improvements) is the easy part. The challenge will be to turn these ideas into action. This will be where government leaders and managers come in. They will be the ones who do the heavy lifting to implement major program adjustments and cutbacks, to harness major technological shifts and not just cut costs, but also adopt innovative practices to make government far more productive.
SPRING/SummeR 2012
From the Managing Editors Desk
By Michael J. Keegan
Michael J. Keegan is managing editor of The Business of Government magazine and Host/Producer of The Business of Government Hour. His e-mail: michael.j.keegan@ us.ibm.com.
This edition of The Business of Government magazine provides a glimpse into the many challenges, risks, and opportunities facing todays government executives. more importantly, it introduces a select group of government leaders who offer their insights, outline successes, and tell us how they, in their own unique way, are making a difference in an era of fiscal austerity. Todays conditions require government executives to go beyond simply doing more with lessto find smarter ways of doing business, using resources more efficiently, and investing them more wisely. The dramatic nature of this historical moment cannot be overstated. It is fully revealed by the depth of the vicissitudes being faced. How government leaders respond matters and the conditions require more than vague changes. It is to be understood that todays actions affect future choices and lost opportunities result in ubiquitous costs. In the end, it is not necessarily retrieving something ideal from the past, but discovering a new path forward in the present. The issue also continues and expands on the core mission of the IBm Center, which is to connect public management research to practice. Whether its getting big things done in government, enhancing national competitiveness, revitalizing public service, reforming the federal IT budget, or evaluating citizen participation and using wikis in government, we bring together thoughtful perspectives from some of the leading practitioners and academics in the field.
Forum on Enhancing National Competitiveness

In the march 2012 Harvard Business Review article, The Looming Challenge to u.S. Competitiveness, michael Porter and Jan Rivik point out that the u.S. faces a deeper, more fundamental challenge than recovering from a recession of unusual depth and durationthat is, its ability to be competitive globally. To restore its competitiveness, America needs a long-term strategy, counsel Potter and Rivik. With the recent release of Governing to Win: Enhancing National Competitiveness Through New Policy and Operating Approaches, Chuck Prow has compiled some 13 insightful essays by leading thinkers and practitioners that can contribute to laying out that long-term strategy. Given todays fiscal realities, Prow explains, the nation must explore alternative policy approaches and ways for government to do business. He notes that the alternatives outlined in his new book can catalyze national competitiveness in an environment where major new investments will be difficult. This forum excerpts selected essays from the book that explore the insights forming the larger vision of the work. These essays paint outlines of both opportunities and challenges that the present period provides to government executives.
Perspectives on Getting Big Things Done in Government

Two professional associations, the American Society for Public Administration and the National Academy of Public Administration, have joined to sponsor a series of forums addressing the management challenges likely to face whomever is sworn in as president in January 2013. One of these forums examined the leadership challenges associated with getting big things done on the order of the manhattan Project, Interstate Highway System, and the race to the moon, and explored lessons from past experiences. The panel comprised three observers/participants in the implementation of large-scale federal initiativesProfessor Timothy Conlan, Dwight Ink, and Professor Harry Lambright. They share their perspectives and offer lessons that can assist future government leaders charting a path toward the future.
From the Managing Editors Keyboard

With each magazine, we feature conversations with government executives who are making a difference. They share their in-depth reflections on the work they do and the efforts they lead. In this edition, Gene Dodaro, comptroller general of the united States and leader of the u.S. Government Accountability Office, discusses GAOs efforts to not only help position the government to better manage risks that could compromise the nations security, health, and solvency, but also to identify opportunities for managing government resources wisely for a more sustainable future. Michael Astrue, commissioner, u.S. Social Security Administration, seeks to enhance SSAs ability to meet its mission, eliminating claim backlogs, improving services, and demonstrating the nexus between adequate funding and the ability to deliver real and measurable progress. Erin Conaton, undersecretary, u.S. Air Force, discusses the strategic vision for todays Air Force, managing in an era of fiscal constraint, and improving its operations and becoming more efficient and agile. Admiral Robert Papp, commandant, u.S. Coast Guard, outlines his efforts to steady the service while ensuring it is ready for today and prepared for tomorrow. Letitia Long, director, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, closes this edition of our conversations, outlining how NGA is putting the power of geospatial intelligence into the hands of its users.
Over the last six months, weve interviewed a host of government executives. In this issue, we introduce you to three leaders who are changing the way government does business. They joined me on The Business of Government Hour to discuss critical issues facing their agencies. Malcolm Jackson, chief information officer, u.S. environmental Protection Agency, focuses on his effort to leverage information technology to enhance mission effectiveness. Michael Kane, chief human capital officer, u.S. Department of energy, outlines his efforts to tackle human capital challenges facing his department. Steven Kempf, commissioner, Federal Acquisition Service (within the u.S. General Services Administration), details his leading of an agency that provides centralized acquisition solutions to federal agency customers.
Insights
In this edition of Insights, we present two distinct discussions that provide insight into tackling the challenge of homelessness and revitalizing public service. Seth Diamond, commissioner, New York City Department of Homeless Services, provides insights into leading the citys response to the challenge of homelessness. Max Stier, president and CeO, Partnership for Public Service, offers insights into his organizations mission to revitalize public service. To close this edition, we offer overviews of our most recent Center reports. If you have yet to read these reports, we encourage you to do so by going to businessofgovernment.org and becoming a friend of the Center. We hope you enjoy what is offered in this edition of The Business of Government magazine. Please let us know what you think by contacting me at michael.j.keegan@us.ibm.com. I look forward to hearing from you.
SPRING/SummeR 2012
A Conversation with Gene Dodaro, Comptroller General, u.S. Government Accountability Office
Faced with seemingly intractable issues such as the evergrowing deficit, economic uncertainty, unemployment, and aging infrastructure, todays government leaders are presented with many difficult choices that go to the core of effective public management. Pressures to reduce the federal deficit will mean a greater need for analyses of programs and their effectiveness, as well as a reduction in improper federal payments and closing the gap between taxes owed and paid. GAO is uniquely positioned to help address the nations challenges and identify opportunities. GAO seeks not only to help position the government to better manage risks that could compromise the nations security, health, and solvency, but also to identify opportunities for managing government resources wisely for a more sustainable future. How is GAO working to put the country back on a sustainable fiscal path? How is GAO overseeing federal programs and operations to ensure accountability to the American people? Gene Dodaro, comptroller general of the United States and leader of the U.S. Government Accountability Office, joined me on The Business of Government Hour to explore these questions and so much more. The following provides an edited excerpt from our interview. MJK
On the History and Mission of the U.S. Government Accountability Office

GAO was founded in 1921 as part of a package of budgetary and accounting reforms that were put in place following the large debt accumulated after World War I. In the beginning, GAOs role was to examine vouchers on government payments and purchases. Following World War II as the government grew and expanded, these functions were transferred to the executive branch. GAO began more comprehensive financial auditing. As the government continued to evolve with the war on poverty and the Great Society programs of the 1960s, GAO began doing program evaluations: looking at how programs operate, whether theyre operating as intended, and [whether they] can be made more efficient and effective. These evaluations are what we are famous for today.
GAO is organized along subject area lines, covering the full range of the federal governments responsibilities. For example, we have teams focused on national defense, health care, transportation, natural resources and the environment, et cetera. We also have teams focused on technical disciplines such as financial management, auditing, and accounting, and information technology. We have a division focused on economics and one on science, technology and engineering. We have a full range of issues set up both for subject areas and technical disciplines. Our work is carried out in multidisciplinary teams. Its very important to ensure the quality and the sophistication of our work. Our budget is over $500 million a year. We have about 3,000 people in the organization.
Our evolution has continuedwe now provide a full range of management evaluations of core functions necessary to carry out the missions of todays government agencies. GAO has a very multidisciplinary workforce right now and our evolution continues based upon the needs of the government and the needs of our primary clients, the Congress.
On Being Comptroller General and Leading GAO

As comptroller general, I provide the strategic direction and leadership for the GAO. As its chief executive, its my job to make sure we carry out our mission effectively, which is to support the Congress in carrying out its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people. We do that through the production of hundreds of reports and testimonies each year to the Congress that are also made available to the public. Its very important that we have good quality assurance systems around those reports, so my job is to ensure that that happens and that we have the skilled workforce necessary to carry out these responsibilities. I also provide testimony to the Congress before various Congressional committees, particularly on GAOs more important broad-based work during the year. As comptroller general, I also set government auditing standards and internal control standards for the federal government. I have very important representational responsibilities both for domestic accountability purposes, such as chairman of the National Intergovernmental Audit Forum, and also internationally as the u.S. Representative to the International Organization of National Audit Offices, which is comprised of approximately 189 countries around the world. Its very important that GAO be viewed as independent, nonpartisan, professional, objective, fact-based, and providing a full range of professional services to the Congress that are respected by both parties and both chambers of Congress. Its very important that we not only identify problems, but bring solutions to those problems to help policymakers and leaders in the executive branch, as well as Congress, to take the necessary actions to improve government for the benefit of the country.
of all the standing Congressional committees to understand their priorities; the insights gathered from this interaction then inform our efforts. Our second challenge centers on the budgetary realities of today. All of government is facing budgetary challenges; GAO is no exception. Were working through those issues very carefully to make sure that we maintain the high quality of our work to the Congress, work on items of highest priority, and also minimize any adverse effects on the very dedicated and talented GAO workforce. Third, I would say a big challenge is succession planning. Weve been working very hard on this issue over the last decade. Well continue to be able to do that because we need to have the right skilled workforce; we need to have the right people in the right job. Having the right people in the right job is about 75% of success. I spend a great deal of time tackling these challenges.
On the Strategic Vision of GAO

[Although]we are a legislative branch agency and exempt from many of the management reforms and legislative requirements applicable to executive branch agencies, we voluntarily comply with these requirements. We need to hold ourselves accountable in the same way other federal agencies do. As part of that, weve developed a strategic plan that serves the Congress and the nation. It sets out our vision for a fiveyear period that outlines the issues were pursuing to support
On Challenges Facing the U.S. Government Accountability Office

Its very important for us to focus on the areas of highest priority for the u.S. Congress and key national issues. Our workload is a very important challenge as were asked by Congress to do anywhere from 900 to 1,000 evaluations annually. We obviously have to set priorities appropriately. To do this effectively, I meet with chair and ranking members
SPRING/SummeR 2012
the Congress in carrying out its responsibilities and helping to provide leadership for the country. Weve set broad goals rooted in some of the constitutional responsibilities of the Congress. For example, we want to provide timely and quality service to the Congress and the federal government to address current and emerging challenges to the wellbeing and the financial security of the American people. This includes everything from health care to education to transportation, et cetera, across the full breadth of the governments responsibilities. The second goal is to address the changing security threats and the challenges of global interdependence, and this includes areas of national defense, homeland security, [and] international affairs, for example. The third broad goal is to help the government transform itself to improve its programs and activities to meet 21st-century challenges. Here we provide a lot of help in terms of implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA], many other management reforms across government, the application of new technologies to improve government services and operations, and to develop governments management capacities to be commensurate with the challenges that the federal government faces right now and going forward. Our last and final goal is to improve ourselves on a continuous basisto make sure that we are an organization that has the capacity to deliver on its mission. Our strategic plan was informed by certain trends we identified as shaping the country and its place in the world. We spent time making sure we understand the trends because
we believe they will shape the types of challenges the federal government will face and the decisions that policymakers might have to make now and into the future. These trends encompass the evolving national security threats, the fiscal sustainability challenges facing the u.S. government, economic recovery and growth issues, global interdependence, science and technology breakthroughs, [and the] shifting role of government. The last trend focuses on the shifting demographic and societal changes facing the country. With the retirement of the Baby Boom generation, there are far fewer workers now per retiree. This reality changes not only the financial status of entitlement programs, but also brings about other important changes. These demographic and societal changes are very important to understand because they present serious policy ramifications.
On Fiscal Sustainability and Debt Challenges

This is a very important issue. For years GAO has done longrange simulations of the federal governments fiscal path in order to illustrate what the long-term effects may be of policy decisions. even prior to this last recession, GAO warned that the federal government was increasingly on an unsustainable fiscal path [and] that significant deficits and debt were accumulating. The recession itself affected the governments finances and the governments policy response to the recession added to the governments debt burden, as well. The Budget Control Act of 2011 has sought to improve the federal governments fiscal situation. It calls for $2.1 trillion of cuts between 2013 and 2021; these will help improve the situation in the short term, but even with these changes,
Debt Held by the Public as Percent of GDP
Historical and Current Policy Projections for the Composition of Non-Interest Spending
Its very important that GAO be viewed as independent, nonpartisan, professional, objective, fact-based, and providing a full range of professional services to the Congress that are respected by both parties and both chambers of Congress. Gene Dodaro
in the longer term serious issues remain and need to be addressed. The Budget Control Act also provided a backup in the event the so-called Super Committee did not reach consensus. That would be a $1.2 trillion sequestration or changes in the caps over the next 10 years. This part will go forward, but obviously there are many implementation issues associated with that, and Congress always has the flexibility to deal with these matters going forward. We will continue to do our long-range simulations to help support the Congress in making difficult tradeoffs, [and] try to identify ways to save money, to enhance revenues, and help Congress evaluate policy options for dealing with this long-term fiscal issue.
On Eliminating Overlap, Duplication, and Fragmentation in Government Programs

GAO has a statutory requirement to produce an annual report on overlap and duplication in the federal government. On February 28, 2012, [we] released the second annual report to Congress in response to the statutory requirement that GAO identify and report annually on federal programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives, either within departments or government-wide, which have duplicative goals or activities. We believe this work can help to inform government policymakers as they address the fiscal pressures facing the federal government. We issued the first report in this series in march 2011, which presented 81 opportunities to reduce potential government duplication, achieve cost savings, or enhance revenue. For example, we identified that each [military service] had [its] own military command, and that there had been options explored by the Pentagon to try to streamline this process that could have led to savings of anywhere from $200 million to $400 million a year. We also identified other opportunities for cost savings or revenue enhancements, for example, with our growing tax gap where theres a difference of about $385 billion between whats owed and collected. Weve found overlap and duplication in dozens of programs that focused on teacher quality, economic development, and surface transportation.
On the Changing Dynamic of Global Interdependence

This is a very important trend that presents significant ramifications for the federal government. A prime example is in the financial institutions and financial markets sector. The recent financial crisis, above all, illustrated the extent to which economies, trade, and information flows have become linked. We saw [this] when the federal government needed to change its federal regulatory regime in order to deal with these problems; the failure to do so led to some of the issues that caused the turmoil in the financial markets. Going forward, there are new capital requirements that are international standards we have to implement. This interdependence goes beyond the global financial markets and flows of capital. It involves how we deal with ensuring food safety for our public. most of the seafood, fruits, and vegetables now come from foreign sources. In the medical products area its been estimated by the FDA that 80% of the ingredients for prescription drugs come from foreign manufacturers. The assurance and oversight systems were originally set up for domestic production. Given this situation, weve put the oversight of food safety, medical products, and the modernizing of the financial regulatory system on our high-risk listissues and programs we monitor.
On Achieving a Clean Financial Audit for the Federal Government

This is a very important area that Ive been working on for many years. Its very good that theres progress at individual departments and agencies, with 21 out of 24 receiving an unqualified audit opinion. When we first started this, implementing it across government in 1996, only six of 24 were able to get a clean opinion. Theres been great progress, but there are very important large agencies, such as the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, which have yet to receive clean opinions.
SPRING/SummeR 2012
The first main impediments to getting an opinion on government-wide consolidated statements are focused on making improvements in the Department of Defense. DoD owns so much property and their budget, expenditures, and operations are so large that theyre a very material item to the consolidated financial statements of the federal government. The second impediment involves eliminating intra-governmental transactions among departments and agencies. Reconciling agency fund balance with the Treasury has been an issue thats been very nettlesome and difficult to remedy. The third impediment is the process of preparing the financial statements; Treasurys compilation process to make sure that it is consistent with the underlying financial statements at departments and agencies hasnt yet been able to be done without material changes to the financial statements or adjustments in the numbers. There are many activities underway to make the necessary improvements. The Congress has levied some tough requirements on DoD to improve its financial statements and be auditable by 2017. The Secretary of Defense has said they want to be auditable in their statement of budgetary resources by 2014; DoD has a plan underway to be able to do this that is focused on improving the departments budgetary numbers and the existence and completeness of
their records on military equipment. Both elements are critical to their operations. Treasury has a number of activities underway with OmB to deal with intra-governmental eliminations and preparing the financial statements. Im hopeful that well see continued progress on these items before the end of my tenure.
On the Future
We need to continue doing the most important work necessary for the country. People come to GAO and stay because of the interesting work that we do and the ability to make a difference on key national issues. It is very important; it goes back to my earlier discussions about prioritizing our work and working with the Congress to make sure that were working on the most important issues. Federal managers and public servants can step up during these periods in a number of ways. First, pay attention to people; pay attention to the workforce. When there are difficult challenges a workforce can feel devalued and dispirited. You need to engage the people in the process to help them manage the changes, and not let the changes manage them. Second, step up efforts to fix high-risk or longstanding problems in federal agencies that drain resources unnecessarily away from productive means. Public service is a tremendous way to give back to your country. Its the reason that I was drawn to the federal government many years ago and why Ive stayed in the federal government. Its a very rewarding career; people should think about pursuing a career in public service at any point in their career whether they start out as an entry level person, come in as a mid-career manager, or senior manager in government. We need to do the best we can to make sure we have the strongest country possible now and into the future.
To learn more about the u.S. Government Accountability Office, go to www.gao.gov/. To hear The Business of Government Hours interview with Gene Dodaro, go to the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org. To download the show as a podcast on your computer or mP3 player, from the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org, right click on an audio segment, select Save Target As, and save the file. To read the full transcript of The Business of Government Hours interview with Gene Dodaro, visit the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org.
10
A Conversation with michael J. Astrue Commissioner, u.S. Social Security Administration

For over 75 years, the U.S. Social Security Administration, or SSA, has touched the lives of virtually every American, whether it is after the loss of a loved one, at the onset of a disability, or during the transition from work to retirement. The profound demographic and systemic forces at work in the early 21st century have shaken the core belief that the programs administered by the Social Security Administration will be there for future generations. It is at this critical juncture in history that SSA seeks to enhance its ability to meet its mission, eliminating claim backlogs, reversing negative trends, improving services, and demonstrating the nexus between adequate funding and the ability to deliver real and measurable progress. What is the Social Security Administration doing to reduce disability backlogs? How is SSA improving service and stewardship efforts? What does the future hold for the United States Social Security Administration? Michael Astrue, commissioner of the U.S. Social Security Administration, joined me on The Business of Government Hour to explore these questions and so much more. The following provides an edited excerpt from our interview.MJK
On Managing the Mission of the U.S. Social Security Administration

SSA was founded in 1935; its one of the largest federal agencies. We have about 65,000 federal employees and about 16,000 state employees. SSA has about 1,500 physical facilities composed of both field and hearing offices. most of the people who work for the agency are on the front line, trying to help people in field offices. In FY 2011, we paid over 60 million people a total of about $770 billion in Social Security benefits and SSI payments. Our responsibilities are very operational. Since SSA became an independent agency issues on solvency are more properly handled by the secretary of the treasury. The SSA commissioner has a six-year term. Its considered a soft term rather than a hard termmeaning that when my
term is over January 19th, 2013, I dont have to leave immediately; Im allowed to stay until a successor is confirmed. I think that reflects Congresss intent to try to maintain continuity.
On Crafting a Realistic Strategic Vision in an Era of Fiscal Austerity

One of the areas where Ive been able to make a significant contribution was to change the legislative strategy [on agency funding]. SSA is a wonderful place; we have some of the most motivated and can-do staff available. For a long time, we went up to Congress with that can-do attitude asking for what we thought we needed. The response would be, well, thats nice, but can you do it with minus 5%? Our answer was, well, itd be harder, but were a can-do agency, well do it! On a certain level we ended up hurting the agency and the people we serve.
SPRING/SummeR 2012
11
of measuring backlog. It doesnt matter how many people are in line in the grocery store. What matters is how long it takes to actually check out. We deliberately made our progress on backlog reduction harder in the name of quality. We looked at our studies, and decided that if a judge was processing more than a certain number of cases he just couldnt be adjudicating it in a quality manner. We believed that the judges who were exceeding the threshold weve established had to be cutting corners. Theres no absolute numbers you can look at to measure that kind of quality, but that was a qualitative judgment that was made with very careful research. Putting quality over quantity was absolutely the right thing for us to do.
On the Disability Program

I think the first thing is to realize we really have two programs. We run one of the nations largest entitlement programsthe Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program. We also administer the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, which provides financial support to aged, blind, or disabled adults and children with limited income and resources. The basic standard is a person who has medical impairments that prevent them from doing work for a period of 12 months or more. What weve tried to do is to use much more up-to-date medical information. When I started, we had regulations for significant areas of medicine that had not been updated
We had a three-year stretch where we did, I believe on average, better than any of the other large domestic agencies. Congress heard the concerns, decided that we were right, and responded. The last couple years, you know, its been mostly across-the-board funding cuts. I think that hurts us disproportionately for a couple reasons. One is, Congress put what was essentially operating money into the Recovery Act and then didnt count that as part of our baseline going forward. Second, we dont really have very much other than buildings and people in terms of expenses. If youre a grantmaking agency you can do 3% fewer grants and 3% less money; youve got some flexibility. At SSA, we dont have that flexibility. We have entitlements; we have people; and we have buildings. Congress is having trouble understanding the wreckage being caused with these kinds of reductions in staffing at SSA. We have no real choice but to consolidate facilities. When we do become leaner and more efficient, it affects Congressional districts, so were having a lot of unpleasant conversations with the Congress because we are consolidating facilities. Its been a very difficult couple of years.
Social Security Revenues, 2011

Interest on Social Security Assets $114 billion (14%) Reimbursement from the General Funds of the Treasury $103 billion (13%) Income Taxes on Social Security $24 billion (3%) Social Security Payroll Contributions $564 billion (70%)
Source: The 2012 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds
On the Measuring of Success: Quality over Quantity

You have to be careful about managing just to metrics because that can result in unintended consequences quality is always important and it may not always show up in metrics. Weve made very conscious decisions to focus on quality and the measures that enable us to ensure quality. For instance, pending cases is an overrated way
12
Weve also introduced two ways to fast-track disability claims which have dramatically improved the system. Its particularly urgent to expedite approval of cases that, given the nature or severity of the claimants diagnosis or conditions, are likely approvals. These fast-track initiatives have been two of our greatest successes in recent years. Michael J. Astrue
since the 1970s. I knew from my experience in the biotech industry that the world changes much more quickly. Were trying to keep all this medical information updated, at least every five years, and more often if we can. Weve also been able to fast-track rarer diseases and conditions by identifying them earlier in the process. many of these conditions are devastating. Were bringing them to the front end of the process. Were doing about 6% of our cases in this manner and they are generally decided [in] between 10 to 15 days on average. This is a major improvement. Previously, wed ask for an enormous amount of medical evidence, vocational evidence, and if the disease or condition were obscure wed consult specialists to advise us. In most cases, it was a wasted effort. Going in this direction has represented one of the great successes of SSA; weve received awards and other agencies are starting to look at if there are ways they can duplicate our approach where applicable. The states perform the first two levels of review before we get into hearings and appeals. The best way to solve any backlog is to catch errors earlier in the process. Were doing a pretty good job in this area. Were using sophisticated software for structured reviews and disability determination at the state level. Its a system we call electronic Claims Analysis Tool (eCAT) and its proving to be extremely valuable to improving the quality of our disability determinations. eCAT aids examiners in documenting, analyzing, and adjudicating the disability claim in accordance with regulations. Weve also introduced two ways to fast-track disability claims which have dramatically improved the system. We consider it particularly urgent to expedite approval of cases that, given the nature or severity of the claimants diagnosis or conditions, are likely approvals. Our two initiatives, Quick Disability Determinations (QDD) and Compassionate Allowances (CAL), use technology to identify claimants with the most severe disabilities and allow us to expedite our decisions on those cases. These fast-track initiatives have been two of our greatest successes in recent years. The QDD process uses a computer-based predictive model
to identify cases where a favorable disability decision is highly likely. The CAL process helps us quickly identify medical conditions that invariably qualify under the listings of impairments based on minimal objective medical information. For example, if you have the same form of rare brain cancer that Senator Kennedy had (which my father also died of), there is no survival. Once the diagnosis is confirmed, the claimant should be given benefits as quickly as possible, so thats what we do. Today, about 1% of our cases (and growing more rapidly) are compassion allowances. About 5% are QDD cases. It was largely my back-of-the-envelope estimate with our 2008 plan that we could do 6% to 9% of our cases that way. It looks like were going to hit the upper end of that range. We are
On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signs the Social Security Act in the Cabinet Room of the White House.
SPRING/SummeR 2012
13
working with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) using sophisticated programs and templates to identify diseases and conditions that look very similar on key dimensions with our current compassion allowances; its a very productive partnership and from it we have identified about 25 additional conditions suitable for fast-track review.
in a better way early in the process everything will not only work faster, but the quality will be higher.
On Program Integrity
We had been moving backwards for a number of years in terms of accuracy and program integrity. Were still not back to where wed like to be, but at least were moving in the right direction. So some of it is our bread and butter performing continuing disability reviews, looking periodically at people on the roles and [confirming eligibility]. Despite our budget issues, we have increased our continued disability review pretty much year by year. Were not up at the optimal level yet, but its better and you can see the impact on the bottom line. Weve saved the taxpayers for full medical reviews about $10 for every administrative dollar we spend. When we just do a work review its about $7 for every dollar we spend. We have some new initiatives that are very exciting. For the disability program where assets are an issue, we have a new system that can check bank records
On Leveraging Health IT
We have been very excited by health IT from the get-go. The Recovery Act encouraged us to spend approximately $25 million getting ready for the use of health IT. Weve done pilots working with med Virginia. Weve worked with a couple of the smaller entities around the country that are pretty much already there in terms of supplying electronic medical records. Its worked extremely well from our vantage point, but it hasnt been without some bumps along the way. For example, the information we were receiving also contained extraneous reimbursement information and other information we had to screen out. Doing this properly required that we redesign some of our business processes. In the end, we were cutting our review times [in] the neighborhood of about 40% as a result of the use of health IT. I think we can do better over time. The problem for us right now is that very few insurers are that far along. There was significant money from the Recovery Act directed to the private sector to accelerate the adoption and use of health IT. When health IT comes to fruition its going to be amazing how much things change. Well start to see what this will do for us and I think itll be very impressive. Im also slightly frustrated because five years ago I thought all this improvement would happen on my watch, but thats not going to be the case. Once it ramps up, three years from now instead of setting 270 days as our norm for hearing an appeal maybe 200 days will be realistic. Today, we do 60 to 100 days for state first-level review. With the expanded use and adoption of health IT, we might be able to see 40 to 60 days. The whole process may speed up. We may be able three years from now to talk about eliminating the second step in the states because not only will we do things faster with health IT, itll be much more accurate, and we might not need a second-step review. This isnt a foregone conclusion presently, though it is important to keep in mind that not only is chasing down medical records one of SSAs biggest costs, an incomplete medical record is our biggest source of error. A lot of the time we dont even know that a medical record is incomplete. If you get the information exchanged
Commisioner of Social Security Michael Astrue (L), speaks alongside Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis (R) and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius (not shown), as the Social Security Board of Trustees holds a press conference at the U.S. Treasury Department in Washington, D.C., May 13, 2011, announcing that their annual report estimates that the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust funds will be exhausted by 2036, one year earlier than projected last year.
14
very efficiently to identify unreported assets. The numbers may fluctuate as the system fully matures, but right now were getting in the ballpark of a 20-to-1 return for taxpayers using this approach. Were looking at the feasibility of doing similar review on real property; it is one of the advantages of having access to all the databases out there. We have the ability to prevent fraud using tools and technology not available three or four years ago.
efficiently, making sure theyre secure in the workplace, and as we make changes, to explain what were doing and why.
On His Legacy as SSA Commissioner

Ive spent almost 14 years in the federal government now, and Ive seen many agency heads at the end focusing on establishing their legacy. Ironically, being too worried about ones legacy can result in creating a negative legacy. Weve done some very important things on my watch, such as fast-tracking the disability programs with the introduction of high-quality electronic services, and changing the direction of the physical IT infrastructure to make sure that the checks continue to go out on a regular basis; these are incredibly important. We started some longer-term projects that wont be finished on my watch. Were using a 1938 tool that labor stopped updating effectively in 1977 for a lot of our vocational decisions. Previous commissioners were discouraged about taking that on because its a very long-term and expensive project. So even under duress, with a lot of competing demands for resources, I just thought it was important to start that. Weve been working on it for a number of years. We probably wont see any benefit in the agency for two more years, but I think its important that we replace the dictionary of occupational titles. Theres a whole set of things that weve moved forward on that I think for the better or worse will be my legacy. In the last year, I want to move these longer-term projects closer to completion, as well as continue to drive the backlogs down. It isnt a smart thing to start anything tremendously new or ambitious in your last year unless you absolutely need to do it.
On Forging Partnerships and Collaboration

With all due respect to a number of the agencies we partner with, I think the one that has been the most remarkable and most helpful for us is the National Institutes of Health. Regarding SSAs fast-track disability programs, NIH has a senior person attend SSA hearings to help us work through the testimony, ask the right questions, and think about the diseases and conditions in the right way. Recently, NIH has engaged in a remarkable research program profiling the diseases and conditions that can currently receive fast-track review and comparing them to other diseases and conditions. The end result of the research program is to identify other diseases or conditions that might be added to SSAs fast-track review process. In the beginning, there were many low-hanging fruits. Just last year, we had 100 diseases and conditions on the fasttrack list. Im hoping to double that in the next couple years, but its getting slower and harder. NIH provided its preliminary results and it rocked my head back. They had 25 diseases and conditions [most of which] are going to be compassion allowances. There may be tens of thousands of Americans who by the end of the year will be getting the benefit of SSAs fast-track process because of this partnership with NIH. NIH has been absolutely topnotch, and I cant say enough good things about what theyve done for us.
SAuL LOeB/AFP/Getty Images.
On Working at SSA
Traditionally, we have been a great place to work. In recent years, we had slipped slightly out of the top 10 of the best places to work [in federal government] as identified by the Partnership for Public Service. Were happy to be back and aspire to do even better. There are many things I cannot change, but the biggest accomplishment that weve made in terms of employee satisfaction is enhancing our communication. In most cases, I cant change working conditions very quickly. What I can do is let our folks know there are people at headquarters who are very committed to supporting what they are doing; we are concerned that theyre doing their work well, doing it
To learn more about the u.S. Social Security Administration, go to www.SSA.gov. To hear The Business of Government Hours interview with michael J. Astrue, go to the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org. To download the show as a podcast on your computer or mP3 player, from the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org, right click on an audio segment, select Save Target As, and save the file. To read the full transcript of The Business of Government Hours interview with michael J. Astrue, visit the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org.
SPRING/SummeR 2012
15
A Conversation with erin Conaton undersecretary of the u.S. Air Force

The United States military must adapt to a world of dynamic threats and hazards. For the U.S. Air Force, this does not mean change for changes sake, but purposeful transformation with strategic intent, always focusing on the first priority, which is duty to the country and mission execution. In a nutshell, it means fly, fight, and win. Of course, building the worlds foremost air, space, and cyberspace force requires substantial investment, providing the best possible value to the American people. To that end, the U.S. Air Force must balance capabilities between current combat operations and the need to address emerging threats and challenges, with the ultimate aim to be lean, lethal, and agile. What is the strategic vision for todays U.S. Air Force? How is the Air Force managing in an era of fiscal constraint? What is the Air Force doing to improve its operations and become a more efficient and agile force? Erin Conaton, undersecretary of the U.S. Air Force, joined me on The Business of Government Hour to explore these questions and so much more. The following provides an edited excerpt from our interview. MJK
On the History and Evolving Role of Undersecretary of the U.S. Air Force
The u.S Air Force was created as part of the National Security Act in 1947. Since its inception, the Air Force has had an undersecretary. It was interesting; in preparing for this conversation I went back to look at what the responsibilities of the undersecretary of the Air Force were in 1947. It involved such areas as procurement, industrial mobilization, material requirements, and atomic energy. Its interesting to see how we have evolved as an organization over time. For example, there was a period from about 2002 to 2007 when the undersecretary was very focused on the space mission. Those in the undersecretary job at that time were triple-hatted: they were undersecretary of the Air Force, the DoD executive agent for space, and the director of the National Reconnaissance Office. From 2007 until I arrived in 2010, there was no undersecretary of the Air Force. In 2010, we re-envisioned this role. At the broadest level, my responsibilities encompass organizing, training, and equipping the people and the equipment of the united States Air Force in partnership with Secretary of the Air Force michael Donley. I am acting secretary on his behalf when necessary. I am also the Air Forces chief management officer, which was a recent role established by Congress. Then I have some specific responsibilities as the senior energy and sustainability official for the Air Force and also as the Air Force focal point for space.
On the U.S. Air Forces Strategic Vision

The new defense strategy calls for the u.S. to maintain its military capability across a range of conflicts. All the lessons that weve learned in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 10 years, we see those continuing to be brought to bear as we conclude the conflict in Afghanistan, but also as we undertake counterterrorism operations against al-Qaeda and its affiliates globally.
16
Were going to be prepared to deal with aggression in any corner of the globe to ensure that the united States maintains its freedom of movement in those areas of the world where a potential adversary might want to keep us out. We know that we have to do all this while we do other things, like maintaining our nuclear capability as a nation. Its particularly important to the Air Force. We maintain two legs of the so-called triad, which is the three different ways of delivering a nuclear weapon. While the administration obviously believes that we should be moving to a world without nuclear weapons, the Air Force is dedicated to being good stewards of the national nuclear capability for as long as it is part of our national arsenal. First and foremost, we continue to strengthen our nuclear enterprise: our inspection rates are much better, the training our people receive is outstanding, and weve been able to stand-up a new CommandAir Force Global Strike Commandwith a dedicated focus on our nuclear enterprise. The Air Force also has a lot of very aging platforms. For example, our tanker fleet is almost 50 years old on average. Our fighters and bombers, while younger, are also decades old. So one of the challenges we face is pursuing our modernization programs in the face of todays budgetary realities. Were very excited that the acquisition process is complete for our tanker program and were able to move forward to actually procure those. Were also moving ahead with the F-35, the joint strike fighter, which is the future of our fighter force. But weve got a lot of other modernization efforts waiting in the wings; some have to do with our nuclear weapons, helicopter fleet, and training aircraft we use to make sure our pilots are ready to get into these advanced platforms. Our modernization efforts are critically important to ensuring that the young men and women who serve as airmen have the best and most capable equipment they need to be successful on any battlefield of the future. Our nations Air Force is the envy of the world, and we are committed to ensuring that the united States remains the worlds greatest air and space power.
AT&T and above Ford. Our Air Force installations are about 10 million acres, about two times the size [of] my home state of New Jersey. Our facilities footprint is about 626 million square feet; thats roughly the size of Wal-mart globally. When we think about managing an enterprise of that scale, its a little eye-popping. One big challenge is managing in this new budgetary reality: How do we move into this new budgetary context while doing right by our people? The individuals who serve in the u.S. Air Force, whether in uniform or as civilians, represent the backbone of the service and we owe it to them to act in a [manner] that really honors the service of those who are with us. Another significant challenge involves maintaining our operational excellence in an era of budget reduction. The focus on budgets is a recurring theme here, but its how we maintain all the good stuff that we want to do even in a time of fiscal constraint. This uncertainty has required us to change the way we do business and become smarter and more cost-effective. The third biggest challenge I think we face is time, time on the calendar, time to get into the whole range of issues we might get into. As I was thinking about this I made a list of five or six other things that I think are in the number three place, which just demonstrates that the scope of the issues in front of us guarantee that youre not going to be bored on any given day at the office.
On Challenges Facing the Undersecretary of the Air Force

I would like to give context on the scope of the enterprise that we deal with as an Air Force. In terms of people, were about 332,000 active duty, 153,000 civilians, and then another 170,000 or so in our reserve component. If you add that all up, the Air Force employs more people than Citigroup and uPS combined. With $115 billion in our budget, wed be number seven on the Fortune 500 list, above
SPRING/SummeR 2012
17
On Strengthening the U.S. Air Forces Space Posture

The u.S. military continues to rely heavily on our space programs for a whole variety of activities that allow us to be effective on the battlefield. The u.S. Air Force provides that space capability. Strengthening our space posture is critical to the full variety of missions that we take on from the counterterrorism fight on the low end to the anti-access/area-denial challenge on the high end. Our operators have over 80 consecutive successful satellite launches, which is really remarkable. I have nothing but great praise for the tremendous space operators and industry partners who have enabled us to be so successful over time. To that end, were also transforming our acquisition process. As part of the FY12 budget, we put forward the evolutionary Acquisition for Space efficiency (eASe) approach; its name is not as important as what it does, which is to get the best price for the taxpayer as well as provide stability of contract on the satellite vendor side. In the end, it means we block purchase satellites using fixed-price contracts with continued investment in research and development, and a funding profile through advanced appropriations over multiple years.
Were also trying to get a handle on our launch enterprise. I mean I talked about how successful it is operationally, and its outstanding but its expensive. Its been getting more expensive over time. Were taking a twofold approach here. We developed the new entrants criteria for competitors who would like to get into this business of space. We are basically telling those new providers whod like to get into this business exactly what they need to do to be considered qualified. Weve set a clear path on how to get certified in this area; we think that competition over time will not only be good for the Air Force, but also will be good for the taxpayer by potentially bringing overall costs down. At the same time, we recognize that in the near term we only have one provider, and were buying from that provider in an incredibly inefficient way. Were looking at buying a consistent number of boosters per year in order to gain stability to the current provider and to ensure we get the best price possible until such time as new competitors are in this business space.
On Transforming the Way the Air Force Does Business

I joke sometimes that being chief management officer means that every hard issue finds its way into my office. But I know Im not alone in that. Were driving improvements in our
18
NASA
When you are at an inflection point like this, where youre coming out of a conflict, like we are, and as your budgetary situation changes, its a time of great stress as well as opportunity. There is an opportunity for leaders to encourage innovative thinking. Erin Conaton
business processes, systems, and technologies. We are always thinking about how to improve our business processes and improve the organization. I have responsibility for building budgets and for management of those programs that have an impact on the business side of our institution. most recently, I have also worked extensively pursuing the efficiency initiative championed by former DoD Secretary Gates that enabled us to move about $33 billion from support activities into key war-fighting capabilities. This was a huge effort that took the teamwork of the entire Department of the Air Force. As chief management officer, Im really at the head of the pyramid, if you will, trying to make sure that we actually realize these efficiencies and understand their second-order impacts. The best example I can offer involves the use of our big transport planes or the refueling planes. We spent time benchmarking ourselves against best practices in the commercial airline industry. We found that if we could fly smarterget rid of excess weight, use power more wisely, and fly in ways that are more efficientwe could identify about $715 million worth of fuel efficiencies over a five-year period. We took a similar approach on the information technology side, pursuing data centers consolidation and other activities being done in the private sector. We are also focused on the accelerated drive toward audit readiness. Audit readiness is not just about the financial management community. Its about every functional part of the Air Forcea responsibility throughout the service. Weve ensured that the performance plan[s] of our most senior career civilians ha[ve] audit readiness factored into them. Theres no doubt that the acceleration to 2014 is going to be very challenging for us. Were working to empower and enable our chief financial officer, Dr. Jamie morin, and his team as they seek to meet Secretary Panettas goals around audit readiness. We are working closely with our Navy and Army colleagues and across the entire DoD sharing best practices. Were all dealing with pretty similar issues. Weve also received significant support from DoD undersecretary Bob Hale and others adding needed resources to ensure that
we stay on target. It will be very difficult, but DoD senior leadership is deeply committed to getting there. In the end, we developed pretty realistic ideas and approaches, but now we have to make them reality. Weve spent the better part of the last year looking in a very strategic way at what functions we must take care of first. We approached this new reality very strategically, but changes of such a magnitude are not without pain; its been very difficult.
On Diversifying Energy Sources

We are the largest consumer of energy in the federal government; were about 11% of the total aviation fuel market. We burn more fuel than u.S. Airways and Fedex combined, so we are running a significant mission-driven operation. The use of this fuel enables equipment and people to get where they need to be to save lives on the battlefield. We do have an energy strategy that has three components. The first is reducing demand; we have identified goals to reduce fuel consumption. On the supply side were trying to diversify our supplies of energy sources. What weve said to industry is that by 2016 it is our goal to procure 50% of our fuel from alternative sources, provided industry can deliver it at a competitive price. Were talking with the alternative fuels industry about their progress with viable alternatives and what can be done to incentivize the development. Ninety-nine percent of our aircraft fleet is certified on the so-called Fischer-Tropsch fuel sources. Were about 90% there in terms of biofuels; were doing some limited testing on what they call the third major pathway, which is the conversion of alcohol into jet fuel to assess its viability as an alternative fuel source.
On Taking Care of Service Members and their Families

Improving the lives of our airmen and their families is one of the top five priorities for the u.S. Air Force. When you ask me about the greatest challenges were facing Id put people first. Honestly, our success rests on having the right people. This is an area of continued focus. Looking at the budgetary
SPRING/SummeR 2012
19
life. We are also committed to the programs that support the families on the home front. We recognize that this is a family undertaking; though our airmen are the ones who raise their right hand and swear an oath, it is that entire family thats supporting them and allowing them to be successful.
On the Future
Going forward, the biggest challenge is the budgetary situation. Secretary of Defense Panetta and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have laid out a very clear strategic vision; it provides us a roadmap. When you are at an inflection point like this, where youre coming out of a conflict, like we are, and as your budgetary situation changes, its a time of great stress as well as opportunity. There is an opportunity for leaders to encourage innovative thinking. This shouldnt be a period of dread for federal service. I dont think there is any more rewarding career than the work that we do; it is a really rewarding job, particularly in the Department of Defense, because you know every day that what youre doing is supporting men and women in a real fight. I find that to be a really easy thing to get up out of bed and do in the morning. Editor's Note: Since this conversation, President Obama has nominated Ms. Conaton to be undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, which is pending Senate confirmation.
environment going forward, weve been committed to sustaining programs that support our airmen and their families. We may be a smaller force over time, but we want to ensure that the folks who remain with us have the best that we can possibly offer. Were focused on the impact of continuous deployment and building resilience in our force. We are making sure that our service members and their families have all available resources provided to them during deployment and upon return from deployments. We have the Comprehensive Airman Fitness program that encompasses a range of activities designed to improve the capabilities of our Air Force family. The goal of Comprehensive Airman Fitness is to help our Airmen, Air Force civilians, and family members become more resilient and better equipped to deal with the rigors of military life. Weve also established the Deployment Transition Center at Ramstein [Air Base], Germany. Our active duty service members [returning from deployment] go through Ramstein either to take a military flight home or to go through the commercial airport at Frankfurt. The transition center provides an opportunity for service members coming from combat to transition more easily into a civilian
To learn more about the u.S. Air Force, go to www.af.mil.
To hear The Business of Government Hours interview with erin Conaton, go to the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org.
To download the show as a podcast on your computer or mP3 player, from the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org, right click on an audio segment, select Save Target As, and save the file. To read the full transcript of The Business of Government Hours interview with erin Conaton, visit the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org.
20
A Conversation with Admiral Robert Papp Commandant, united States Coast Guard
The United States Coast Guard has ensured the safety, security, and stewardship of the nations maritime domain for more than 220 years. Since its inception, the Coast Guard continues its rich tradition of being an adaptable, highly responsive force whose multi-mission authority, breadth of assets, geographic footprint, and unique competencies have made it an essential component in the nations national security portfolio. In fact, the demand for the Coast Guards unique capabilities has never been greater. Facing new challenges has required the Coast Guard to organize more efficiently and manage operations more effectively. What is the U.S. Coast Guards strategic direction? How will steadying the service make the U.S. Coast Guard ready for today and prepared for tomorrow? Admiral Robert Papp, commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, joined me on The Business of Government Hour to explore these questions and so much more. This conversation is based on that interview.MJK
On the History and Evolving Mission of the U.S. Coast Guard

I like to describe the Coast Guard as a series of mergers and friendly takeovers over a course of two centuries. We actually started back in 1790. We were the brainchild of Alexander Hamilton, who was the first secretary of the treasury. The service received its present name in 1915 under an act of Congress that merged the Revenue Cutter Service with the Life-Saving Service, thereby providing the nation with a single maritime service dedicated to saving life at sea and enforcing the nations maritime laws. We kept our military character; during World War II we added the Light House Service aids to navigation, and then the Bureau of marine Inspection and Navigation which gave us our merchant mariner licensing, ship inspection, [and] ship safety responsibilities. We have added responsibilities throughout our history starting out in the Department of the Treasury, moving to the Department of Transportation in 1967, and now being an integral component of the u.S. Department of Homeland Security since 2003. The Coast Guard is certainly unique as we have a dual military and law enforcement role. We have about 42,000 uniformed active duty people right now. We have 8,000 civilians, 8,000 Coast Guard reservists that we can call up in emergencies. We have this other unique organization called the Coast Guard Auxiliary that is a volunteer organization. They are a force multiplier for us at virtually no cost to taxpayers, so were very proud of them. Our budget is roughly a $10 billion budget.
On the Challenges of Leading the U.S. Coast Guard

Im a service chief similar to the other service chiefs (i.e, commandant of the marine Corps, chief of staff of the Air Force, chief of staff of the Army, and the chief of Naval Operations); our primary role is to organize, train, and equip our service to be prepared for the duties that the country gives us. Theres one difference for the commandant of the Coast Guard though. The other service chiefs organize, train, and equip, but the forces are transferred operationally to the combatant commanders.
SPRING/SummeR 2012
21
The second challenge involves our recapitalization efforts. About 10 years ago, we embarked on a significant recapitalization initiative seeking to replace our aging fleet and aircraft. Weve just about renovated our entire aviation fleet. Our ships are the most in need of recapitalizing, but they are also the most expensive to tackle. Our major ships are in excess of 40 years of age. The u.S. Navy generally plans on a 25-year service life for its ships, but the Coast Guard, unfortunately, generally runs its ships to a service life of about 40 years. my third challenge has to do with emerging missions. The foremost in my mind is our expanding responsibilities in the Arctic. It is expected that Shell Oil may start drilling in the Chukchi Sea and the Beaufort Sea this summer. If so, our responsibilities in the Arctic will increase with no commensurate increase in resources.
On the Importance of Steadying the Service

Im the only service chief that commands all Coast Guard operations. In practice this is exercised through two area commandersAtlantic and Pacific commanders. Two vice admirals carry out the day-to-day operations of the Coast Guard, but I still hold the responsibility for it. The top challenge we face is how do you continue to provide the services that the American public has come to expect from their Coast Guard and quite frankly deserves? We like to meet their expectations, but the challenge is we cannot do 100% of all our missions on any given day. We have finite resources with only so many ships, boats, aircrafts, and people that I challenge my two area commanders to decide on a daily basis their highest priorities. Ill give you an example that illustrates this process. When I was Atlantic commander, on any given day I would allocate so many ships to do fisheries patrols, drug enforcement, and alien interdiction. Then, over two years ago, there was the earthquake in Haiti. We had three Coast Guard ships on scene the next morning to start providing aid to the people of Haiti. We dont have earthquake response cutters sitting around, so we diverted three ships from other operations. At that time, we decided, the country decided aid to Haiti was the most important thing on that given day. We took a short-term deficit in drug interdiction, migrant interdiction, and fisheries in order to provide those ships to help the people of Haiti and thats really what we do on a daily basis. We have a wide mission set, finite resources, and we place operational decision-making as far down in the organization as possible. We try to do everything. Its one of our strengths and one of our weaknesses. Its not just the ships and the aircraft, its also the people. Wed been through 10 years of rapid growth since 9/11 with increasing responsibilities. In addition to increasing responsibilities, both my predecessors had embarked upon major structural reorganization within the Coast Guard. eight years ago, Admiral Collins initiated the Sector concept, which was a major field change. He stressed that the need to strengthen unity of command necessitated the adoption of integrated, operational field commands, called Sectors. The new Sector organizational construct represents a transformation from a Coast Guard traditionally organized around its operational programs to one organized around core operational service delivery processes. Four years ago, Admiral Allen started the modernization process, which continues today, taking the upper level of the organization and seeking to restructure it. He wanted to find a better way to provide support to our field activities. We designated a deputy commandant, establishing a vice admiral for mission support that organized all field support activities (i.e., logistics, engineering, and personnel) executed through 13 bases around the country under a single command. The original modernization plan sought to do away with the Pacific area command. I was the Atlantic area commander and I had enough work to keep me busy just minding the Atlantic. It was my decision to retain the Pacific area commander. When I became commandant neither restructuring initiative had been completed. Both were taking up institutional energy and having an impact on our operations. As a result, I want to steady the service, which really goes back to my roots as a sailor. Whenever you feel like your ship is a little out of kilter youve got to shift ballast and get your ship
22
The challenge as a leader is finding balance between mission and expectation. Im trying to convince our people that we have to live within our means. If we dont, not only are you going to wear out the equipment, but were also going to wear down our people. Admiral Robert Papp
steady. I am not going to bring any wholesale changes or restructuring. my focus is on completing the major initiatives weve been pursuing over the last eight years. I also want to refocus on building our workforce proficiency and perhaps cutting back a few responsibilities in order to focus on core competencies that have distinguished us over the years. I have been concerned about the stress our organization has been under given years of increased operational tempo. Recently, weve also experienced a rash of aviation and surface accidents that has prompted me to focus on really getting back to basics. my wife and I have both embarked upon a project to do better for our Coast Guard families. We sometimes dont give people the opportunity to develop their competencies and their operational experience because we transfer them too quickly. Weve slowed that process. In fact, this year just by enacting a couple personnel rules in terms of trying to provide stability, we actually saved 20 million dollars in transfer costs. Were trying to improve housing and other things for our people.
On Asset Recapitalization and Capacity Building

The flagships of our fleet are our 378-foot Hamilton class high endurance cutters. unfortunately, these ships were built in the 1960s containing 40-to-45-year-old systems that are very expensive to maintain. Were facing block obsolescence of the fleet very soon, so a decision has to be made. We either build the replacements or we stop interdicting drugs, interdicting illegal migrants, or protecting fisheries. We wont be able to do these missions, so its very important to get new ships built. We have done very well recapitalizing forces closer to shore. Weve replaced almost the entire boat fleet along the coast. Weve built new patrol boats. Our aircraft fleet has been completely renovated. However, we want to catch threats before they arrive in port. We need to interdict them at sea and that capability is the layer of our infrastructure which is crumbling.
On the Coast Guards Acquisition Process

The history of the deepwater program will be debated for years. I was chief of Congressional affairs as we were trying to do this in the late 90s. The fact of the matter is during the 90s the Coast Guard lost 6,000 people. The staff that was cut was engineering and acquisition; it probably made sense because we werent getting any money to build ships anyway. We would have been in even worse shape except 9/11 happened and after that the money started flowing. We started getting people and money to build ships and aircraft. We didnt have the internal acquisition staff to be able to do that so we went with something new, unique, and innovativeuse of a lead system integrator. In fact, early in the process, the Coast Guard received an award for pursuing this approach. In the end, it didnt work well; we ran into problems. Over the last four years, we have brought ourselves to where I really believe we have the best acquisition workforce in government for a similarly sized organization. Clearly, we dont have the capacity that some of the larger services possess, but we have some very good people. We brought in the Defense Acquisition university. We started hiring people
SPRING/SummeR 2012
23
away from NAVSeA, a sea systems command, and bringing in acquisition experts. For example, the National Security Cutter acquisition was established as a fixed price contract. We drove a hard negotiation. We have numerous other projects that are running smoothly now, executed properly with predictable costs, and providing us a quality product. Its been an evolution. Its been hard, but like anything else the Coast Guard takes on, when we set our mind to it were going to do it right.
play whether its search and rescue, environmental response, or law enforcement. Presuming the permits are approved, Shell Oil will begin drilling in two locations in the Arctic. They will introduce 33 ships, two mobile drilling platforms, and about 600 people. Theyll be transferring people by helicopter, rotating crews which throw in the potential for rescues. We know that there are environmental groups that will try to protest this that may even try to obstruct the process. Law enforcement comes into play. Well need to provide for the security of not only the protestors, but also the legitimate commerce that will occur. Theres also the potential for environmental damage which we have a responsibility for as well. In most areas of the country, wed have shore-based infrastructure, but we have none in the Arctic. Were going to send one of our new national security cutters to the Arctic to operate as a command center with worldwide command and control capabilities. We have hangars for two helicopters on the ship and three boats with crews that can be launched from the
On Leading the Nations Maritime Engagement in the Arctic

Weve operated in the Arctic before, primarily with icebreakers and doing research. Theres been an absence of human activity year-round in the Arctic, but thats changing now. I can recall trying to get to Kotzebue, Alaska, in July of 1976, but couldnt make it through the ice. Fast-forward 35 years later in August of 2010, I flew into Kotzebue for a visit and as I approached I could see no ice. The ice has receded and with that a significant increase in human activity. Any human activity on u.S. waters means theres a Coast Guard
24
cutter as well. Itll be like having a Coast Guard sector office up there except its going to be afloat. Weve been actually experimenting over the last four years sending equipment to the Arctic, seeing what functions in the weather extremes. We have a good idea of the equipment well need to execute our mission in the Arctic. We need to devise a plan for long-term shore infrastructure. I dont think this is a cost that the Coast Guard should bear alone. Weve been talking to the Alaska National Guard as well as General Jacoby of the u.S. northern command. Were working with our partners to see what sort of facilities communications, landing strips, hangars, and other things were going to need there. Well put forth resource proposals and coordinate with our partners to ensure we limit any resource redundancies.
culture. The challenge as a leader is finding balance between mission and expectation. Im trying to convince our people that we have to live within our means. If we dont, not only are you going to wear out the equipment, but were also going to wear down our people. emergencies are always going to arise; well need to surge in response to those events. However, I think its legitimate at times to take a pause and catch our breath. I want to ensure that were in it for the long haul. People dont join the Coast Guard unless theyre motivated to serve. As I talk to folks Im just amazed by their patriotism, their excitement, their dedication, so the challenge for us is more how do you sustain it? How do you keep it going? Weve got a pretty resilient bunch, but sometimes they dont know what they deserve. I want to do so much better for our people. I think were making progress, but theres still a long ways to go.
On Balancing Mission and Expectations

I tell my leaders in the field that I will indemnify them for things that they cant do. We have a rich and proud can do
On Being a Sailor and Leader

There are many people that make a lot of money writing fancy books talking about leadership theory. To me its all seemed very simple. Youre given a job and youve got to get a job done. every leader should have clearly defined responsibilities, the authority to carry out the job, and then be held accountable. When I joined the Coast Guard all I wanted to do was to go to sea and be a ship captain. I was fortunate to be able to get that opportunity for a major segment of my career. It formed my view of life and how things worked because when youre on a ship if youre a captain, you quickly realize you cant get the job done by yourself. Youve got to work through your officers. You need to make sure they are all aligned with your philosophy, goals, and objectives, and then use them to manage the crew and your resources to get the job done[leading] is working through others. Recently, I was sent an essay on leadership with all kinds of fancy diagrams. I sent it back and said you have to simplify it. I couldnt understand it, yet I can understand simple concepts like authority, responsibility, and accountability. I dont think it has to be more complicated.
To learn more about the united States Coast Guard, go to www.uscg.mil.
To hear The Business of Government Hours interview with Admiral Papp, go to the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org.
To download the show as a podcast on your computer or mP3 player, from the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org, right click on an audio segment, select Save Target As, and save the file. To read the full transcript of The Business of Government Hours interview with Admiral Papp, visit the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org. IBm Center for The Business of Government
SPRING/SummeR 2012
25
A Conversation with Letitia Long Director, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

The end of the Cold War and the dawn of a new era in global security brought about tumultuous changes in the U.S. intelligence community. The shift in the threat environment, the evolving nature of conflict, and the revolutionary technologies of the digital age prompted many of these changes and a need to rethink approaches to national security. Leveraging intelligence based on the earths physical and manmade attributes and practicing the art and science of interpreting that information have become valuable assets for the country. As both a member of the U.S. intelligence community and a Department of Defense (DOD) combat support agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) has sought to produce timely, relevant, and accurate geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) for government leaders in responding to and anticipating the countrys most critical national security challenges. How is NGA putting the power of geospatial intelligence into the hands of its users? How does NGA support disaster relief, homeland security, and war fighter operations? Letitia Long, director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, joined me on The Business of Government Hour to explore these questions and so much more. The following provides an edited excerpt from our interview. MJK
On the History and Mission of the NGA

We were established as an agency in 1996 as the National Imagery and mapping Agency (NImA). The origins really came out of Desert Shield/ Desert Storm when there was the recognition that we werent getting as much as we could out of our imagery intelligence, imagery analysis, and our mapping initiatives. The NImA combined the Defense mapping Agency (DmA), the imagery analysis portion of the CIA, along with the imagery exploitation, dissemination, and processing elements of a host of other agencies, such as the Defense Intelligence Agency and some smaller organizations. [With the creation of NGA in 2003, this area of intelligence took another leap forward, allowing us to integrate multiple sources of information, intelligence, and tradecrafts to produce an innovative and sophisticated new discipline that then-NGA director James Clapper named geospatial intelligence, or GeOINT.]
It is the use of imagery, imagery intelligence and geospatial data to describe and depict features and activities and their location on the earth, helping users visualize what is happening, where it is happening, and why it is happening.
On Managing NGA
NGA has about 16,000 government personnel: civilian, military, as well as contractors. We receive our resources from both the intelligence community and from the DOD side. We receive priorities from both that flow from the President through the Director of National Intelligence and from the Secretary of Defense as well as from the combatant commanders. We certainly have a presence in Afghanistan and in other areas where we have troops on the ground. Were embedded with them; were also embedded with each of the 10 combatant commanders. Were also embedded in other federal agenciesthe Department of Homeland Security, FBI, as well as in the intelligence community with
26
the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Part of our way of doing business is to embed with our mission partners, so we understand their priorities and tempo. We are often able to anticipate their needs, even before they might know they need something, and therefore provide that supportits very proactive. NGA is a great agency with a very important mission: to provide that geospatial intelligence where its needed, when its needed, to our combat forces, to our military forces, to the policy-maker, to the first responder, as well as to the rest of the intelligence community. I actually have two roles, one as the director of the agency and the other as the geospatial intelligence functional manager. I am responsible for all GeOINT resources within the u.S. government, not just those within NGA. The military services have GeOINT resources as well as other organizations in the intelligence community. What that means is Im ensuring that were not duplicating effort, that theres a clear delineation of who is doing what. I set standards for GeOINT tradecraft and training so that we are all trained to the same level and providing the same type of information in the same types of formats.
On the Challenges Facing NGA

I look at challenges as opportunities. Challenge one is making sense of the increasing quantity and amounts of information that were collecting. Data is good; more data is better. Another challenge, again as I see it an opportunity, is properly integrating new types of sensors and new types of phenomenology to enhance the work we do. Its not only pictures. Its wide-area and high-definition, full motion video that contains lots of information. It includes infrared imagery; imagery that shows heat, so we can tell if a nuclear power plant is operating or not. Its anything that can tell us where something is on the face of the earth and its also providing the context. Why is it there? What are they doing? What might they do next? so that we can anticipate what might happen and why. ultimately, all we do involves putting the right information into our users hands.
Putting the power of GeOINT in the hands of the user focuses on making information more readily accessible, easy to access and easy to use ... so our analysts dont have to go query database A, B, C, D, and e to get a complete picture of a particular issue that theyre working on. What were doing is creating an integrated analytic environment, so an analyst has access to all of the information through a set of applications. Think your smartphone or tablet. Were also creating a similar environment for our customers, so that they can access and find information.
On Transforming the Way NGA Does Business

We are moving from what has been a full-service model for really just about everything we do to a three-tiered service delivery modelself-service, assisted service, and full service. Well always maintain that full service. I dont expect the president or the director of national intelligence to be surfing our websites and databases. many of our customers and users can access our standard product or even customize information according to their immediate needs. As part of the self-service delivery model, we also want our users to be able to contribute information. For instance, soldiers in the field can pull the latest imagery, map, or GeOINT. If they see something as they are moving in the field that is different, then they can take a digital picture, upload it to our system. Our work also supports emergency response and homeland security operations; for example, FemA teams on an urban search-and-rescue mission. We are able to provide those
On the Agencys Vision: Putting the Power of GEOINT into the Hands of its Users
The way NGA developed this vision was actually talking to the workforce. I spent my first three months on the job walking around, visiting as many NGA sites as I could, listening and learning from the workforce. Our analysts were spending an inordinate amount of time looking for information because they spent so much time looking for information, they werent spending enough time actually analyzing the information, which is why we have analysts its to provide that value added and provide needed context.
SPRING/SummeR 2012
27
on the ground the latest imagery on an unclassified device, commercial imagery, for them to deploy immediately to a sector. They were seeing some things that occurred after the last collection of imagery so they were able to annotate that through text and upload it to our network. We could then get it out to all of the rescue teams. Our three-tiered delivery model changes [the way we do business]; we are also enabling our users to be contributors as well.
first responders dont have to wait for us to ship documents to them. This approach is green because were not printing; the first responders [can] input data. So we developed that digital map atlas application. We developed a compass application that allows first responders to find their way in the aftermath of an event. If you think about the tornadoes that hit in Joplin, missouri cell phone towers were down, street signs, whole communities were gone. As first responders made their way, they had no idea where they were. With this app, we were able to give them a compass. We know where all of the hospitals are located, where the churches and schools, daycare centers, and hospices are located. using the compass app, first responders can navigate their way to these locations and respond more effectively. We didnt have that at the time. We were still in hard-copy mode last summer, but by the fall of 2011, for Hurricane Irene, we were in the process of developing about a dozen applications. We said: What better way to test them than just send them out? and thats what we did. FemA has said this has been a real game changer for them. They are able to do so much more in a much shorter period of time. I see the development and use of apps expanding. I also see us developing more applications for our workstations within the workplace, so its not only apps for mobile devices. Its apps for our integrated analytic environment.
On Leveraging Mobile Apps

A growing part of our business area is humanitarian assistance and disaster recovery operations. For first responders, weve been able to develop a whole suite of applications. In the past, an event would occur. We would go into hardcopy production mode. We would produce hardcopy atlases. We would produce the same with before and after imagery, what we call gridded reference graphics ... about one hundred pages depending on the extent of the damage, print hundreds of copies for each of the teams. Our users would go to their section of the atlas and rip out the three or four, five pages they needed. If things continued to develop with the incidentthink hurricane, think inland floodingwed have to go back to our production mode. Now the digital updates are immediate with the development of the map atlas application. As soon as we receive and assess the imagery, it is uploaded to our network and downloadable to a tablet or a smart device. With this application,
On Measuring Success
We recognized we needed to have metrics so that we could measure progress and evaluate how we were doing in achieving our vision. We set up a very simple measurements. The first is content. We wanted to ensure that there was access to 100 percent of our content; easy access, transparent access. There was always access it was just very time intensive, very laborious in getting to it, so easy access to the content. That is metric number one. metric number two is to develop an open IT environment and that is part of the user as contributor. The user needs to be able to enter into our environment. Now, we work with a lot of classified information and when I say open, I dont mean unsecure. We still operate at multiple classification levels, but an open IT environment in that its easy for our analysts to get around, its easier for our developers to contribute applications, and its easy for our users to reach in and see our information as well as contribute. The third metric is customer service. It is all about the users experience, so this needed to be an environment that
28
I look at challenges as opportunities. Challenge one is making sense of the increasing quantity and amounts of information that were collecting. Data is good; more data is better ... Letitia Long
was intuitive and easy to use. What were using are business analytics to help us understand whether or not we are achieving that. What websites are users accessing? What applications are they using? If an app is not being used it is either not delivering the intended value or its too hard to use. Were trying to listen to the user as we go through this, so business analytics are key. The fourth metric is deepening analysis. Are we providing better information, better knowledge for our key customers? Are we anticipating what could happen? Are we anticipating what they might need and what they are going to ask, such that they have it before they even ask it or even know they need to ask it? Its a simple framework, but I think very powerful in measuring how we are doing.
consolidate our east Coast operations into one facility. Being able to have everyone co-located into this facility has a number of benefits. The facility was specifically designed to enhance mission performance, facilitate physical and virtual collaboration, and promote greater information sharing within the agency. First of all, it cuts down on time spent traveling from meeting site to meeting site. more importantly, it gives us the opportunity to have impromptu meetings. Being able to have our developers in the same place as our analysts, in the same place as our collection managers is a huge benefit. The analyst workspaces are open to encourage that collaboration. Having that level of brainpower in one place to really work on hard problems is already paying benefits. The actual facility is LeeD certified. All of our building materials were thought about with the environment in mind. We have a pool where we catch rainwater that we can use to irrigate the grounds. We can also use it for backup water to keep our computer center going. everything about this design keeps the environment front and center.
On the Importance of Mapping the Human Geography

Human geography is an analytic approach used in describing spatial and temporal patterns of human behavior in the context of their environment. Fully considering the human element is critical to understanding why people do what they do, where they do it, and how that can influence the environment, which involves understanding the dynamics of people in certain regionstheir history, culture, and patterns as a group. For example, just take some countries in Africa that are lacking in water. Water is a key natural resource, so to understand the natural rainfall, to understand where wells are or where they should be dug, to understand where the vegetation is, where the farming is: that is a way to actually render assistance. understanding how people interact with their environment is another layer of information that we add to our geospatial intelligence.
On Consolidating NGAs Physical Operations

We are extremely fortunate to have a new facility at Fort Belvoir in Virginia as part of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). This is the first time we have been able to
SPRING/SummeR 2012
29
across some of our common national security issues. Another near-term goal is to continue working towards the open IT environment so that we have truly an efficient operating model. I would say in the longer term, Im really looking to ensure we have a balance between operational and strategic issues. The day-to-day operation of NGA is of utmost importance, but if were not focused on the strategic, we wont be able to do that day-to-day. I want to leave the agency in a better place than it was when I walked through the door. Weve got a number of initiatives underway that will help see that through.
On the Importance of Public Service

I would say just do it! It is an extremely rewarding career choice and just an outstanding opportunity to be able to serve our countryknowing that what you are doing, every single day, is making a difference. Its making a difference for our military forces, first responders, and policy-makers. What we do actually saves lives, and we get that feedback almost every day from our mission partners, who understand and appreciate what it is were doing. What you are doing is making a difference in the security of our nation.
On the Importance of Teamwork

No one does what they do on their own. In the end, it is the network that you develop; it is the set of mentors that you acquire along the way, and it really is about teamwork. One of the things that we have learnedand its been a painful lesson as an intelligence communityis that you need diversity of thought. If everyones got the same mindset, thinking the same way, then were not thinking like our adversary. Were not staying a step ahead. Im not talking consensus on the lowest common denominator. Im talking about pushing, prodding, and poking at the answer that encompasses what if scenarios and red teamingit is about really considering all of the possibilities.
To learn more about the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, go to www1.nga.mil/Pages/default.aspx. To hear The Business of Government Hours interview with Letitia Long, go to the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org.
On the Future
I will to continue to work with our national and international partners. We have many relationships where we burdenshare or look for areas where we can opportunity-share
To download the show as a podcast on your computer or mP3 player, from the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org, right click on an audio segment, select Save Target As, and save the file. To read the full transcript of The Business of Government Hours interview with Letitia Long, visit the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org.
30
malcolm Jackson
Assistant Administrator, Office of environmental Information & Chief Information Officer u.S. environmental Protection Agency
Leveraging Information Technology to Enhance Mission Effectiveness

The u.S. environmental Protection Agency (ePA) relies on information and technology to carry out its missionit depends on the availability of and access to timely and reliable information and on the technology that makes it all happen. Both are strategic assets to an agency that understands managing these resources efficiently and effectively is essential to its success. In fact, it was the 19th largest federal civilian agency in terms of IT spending in FY 2010, with a budget of $466 million. ePAs IT investments, says malcolm Jackson, assistant administrator, Office of environmental Information, and ePAs chief information officer, are focused on supporting the agencys mission to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environmentair, water, and land. Jackson leads the office that has as its charge identifying and implementing innovative information technology and information management solutions that strengthen ePAs ability to achieve its goals. It works to ensure the quality of ePAs information and the efficiency and reliability of its technology, data collection, exchange efforts, and services while managing IT capital investments. Jackson identifies a host of key priorities that frame his vision for ePAs IT strategy. Coming from the private sector, Jackson wants to run IT like a business. First, you have to understand the business process and what youre trying to accomplish. You get that business process in place and you marry the technology to it, declares Jackson. Along with this priority, he also emphasize delivering high-quality services to his ePA colleagues, strengthening internal and external partnerships, finding the right talent, and most of all establishing a clear strategic direction for IT across the agency. IT strategy at a federal level is more challenging than in the private sector. The funding model in government makes it far more challenging, so I wanted to build a roadmap for the future that takes into account this funding model and aligns it with what were trying to accomplish as an agency, says Jackson. making his vision a reality certainly presents challenges, but it also offers opportunities to transform how ePA uses IT. Were an enabler, Jackson explains. You can have leading technologies, but we dont lead with technology in terms of solving problems. This insight informs his leadership approach. Were moving away from where technology is today to where its going. We want to march toward that horizon now, so were making very strategic decisions that are pragmatic in nature and aligned with where we need to take the agency. This involves maximizing IT investments, ensuring decisions are mission-focused and cost-justified. These investments can range from new citizen-facing services to systems that help government employees perform their jobs more effectively. I want to make sure that the taxpayers know that were spending their money in the most appropriate manner, explains Jackson. Weve instituted an IT governance model that ensures were investing monies in the most appropriate manner without duplication. This governance model spans across the entire agency; it enables us to have transparency, input, and collaboration around our investments. For example, Jackson embraced the Office of management and Budgets TechStat process. He partnered with Barbara Bennett, ePAs chief financial officer, to review all major IT investments. We wanted to ask probing questions, be more collaborative, and challenge people to view things from a One-ePA or agency-wide perspective. Im comfortable where we are, but there are opportunities to continue to do better and realize better outcomes.
SPRING/SummeR 2012
31
Weve instituted an IT governance model that ensures were investing monies in the most appropriate manner without duplication. This governance model spans across the entire agency; it enables us to have transparency, input, and collaboration around our investments.
32
We want to build things once and use [them] many times. We want to be able to share data, best practices, and collaborate across the agency in a way that will maximize our investments and provide better services and products.
The success of this One-ePA approach rests on collaboration across the enterprise. We want to build things once and use [them] many times, Jackson outlines, we want to be able to share data, best practices, and collaborate across the agency in a way that will maximize our investments and provide better services and products. For Jackson, doing this right also involves forging strong partnerships beyond the federal government. Public-private partnerships, acknowledges Jackson, are critical to our success. Coming from the private sector, I know the benefits they bring. These partnerships act as incubators for new ways IT can be done in the federal government, whether through data consolidation and virtualization, cloud computing, or combating ever-evolving cyber threats. Jackson admits ePA doesnt have the number of data centers that many other federal agencies have, so ePA sought to optimize the number of locations storing servers. There were multiple server rooms on a particular campus, explains Jackson. We reduced those numbers. Think of it as moving servers to one physical location, then leveraging one set of resources to support that location. He also details how ePA has 70% of its IT environment virtualized. We have a goal to do even more in this area. It helps us with our green computing efforts by optimizing energy use. It also enables us to make that next step toward cloud services. ePA has a private cloud, which according to Jackson, allows his agency to leverage common services across the enterprise such as configuration management, log management, and resource monitoring. In fact, were moving our IT helpdesk to the cloudone common helpdesk service will be offered across the entire agency from our private cloud. Jackson admits the bigger question involves the concerns around use of a so-called public cloud. Theres certain information we may not be comfortable putting on a public cloud at this point. This topic is going to evolve over time. Where we are today wont be where we are two years from now. Were taking a pragmatic approach to the cloud. We will provide guidance and direction to our ePA colleagues on what should go to the public cloud as well as continue to make advancements in this area.
Jackson recognizes that no amount of innovation matters or makes a difference unless IT environment and critical infrastructure are protected and secured. everything else we do, we can see it and plan for it, but given the pace of technology, cyber threats bring uncertainty. I dont know when its going to happen or how its going to happen, but Ive got to be able to respond to it. We want to make sure that we provide protection and have a response model that supports what were trying to accomplish at ePA. He emphasizes that cybersecurity is everyones responsibility. We want to make sure that our employees are aware, educated, and able to assist us in protecting our assets says Jackson. The proliferation of mobile devices will only accelerate this new cyber reality. Were moving in the direction technology is going. Were not going where technology happens to be today, because by the time you deploy it, its already old, declares Jackson. To that end, he is pursuing a mobilefirst policy, which means if ePA develops an application it will be designed as a web-enabled mobile application first. Opportunities exist for us to do even better, learn more, receive feedback, and incorporate that feedback into the work we do to meet our agencys mission.
To learn more about ePAs Office of environmental Information, go to www.epa.gov/aboutepa/oei.html. To hear The Business of Government Hours interview with malcolm Jackson, go to the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org. To download the show as a podcast on your computer or mP3 player, from the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org, right click on an audio segment, select Save Target As, and save the file. To read the full transcript of The Business of Government Hours interview with malcolm Jackson, visit the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org.
SPRING/SummeR 2012
33
michael Kane
Chief Human Capital Officer u.S. Department of energy
Facing the Human Capital Challenges of Today

Today, the u.S. Department of energy stands at the forefront in helping the nation meet its energy, scientific, environmental, and national security goals, while also developing and deploying new energy technologies to reduce dependence on foreign energy sources. The success of meeting such a broad mission rests on the pursuit of an effective human capital approach and workforce strategy. The department has one of the most diverse [missions] of any department in the federal government. It spans the sciences, from concept demonstration to applied engineering in the areas of technology, energy, anda little known factin national security, says michael Kane, chief human capital officer at DOe. Kane is responsible for the agencys effective management of human capital policies and programs. I am the advisor to DOe senior leadership, notes Kane, on how we acquire, retain, and actually deploy talent. Its about ensuring that our programs have the intellectual expertise needed to meet mission. He explains that the department is organized around three core mission areas: nuclear security, focusing on nonproliferation and preventing the spread of nuclear materials, and the environmental cleanup that is the Cold Wars legacy; the energy portfolio, dealing with everything from fossil fuels to the development of renewable technologies; and the science portfolio, looking at science in the largest sense, and pursuing new discoveries and projects that industry may not want to tackle. With such an expansive technical portfolio, the department requires a highly skilled workforce. We need highly specialized experts such as nuclear engineers, scientists, and physicists. When you start hiring in very specialized areas, its sometimes difficult to find those people and bring them in with the pay scales available in the federal government. To compete, Congress has provided the department with unique pay authorities. For example, we have a pilot program in the National Nuclear Security Administration that actually deals with paying specialized engineers more money. Its a pay-forperformance plan. Its a five-year pilot, its in year four, and its working quite well, notes Kane. Kane underscores that an educated and proficient workforce is more critical now than ever for his department. Finding, attracting, and paying the right person with the right skills is only one of many challenges he faces. Getting these prospective employees onboard takes far too long. This reality further jeopardizes Kanes ability to plan for the long term. Given lengthy hiring processes and skill shortages, Kane has sought to improve the hiring process throughout the department by streamlining the recruitment and hiring processes. Hiring reform is a cornerstone in his effort to transform DOes human capital system. Time is a driver. When you slow it down youll lose opportunity; it doesnt make a difference whether youre hiring somebody just out of college or an experienced physicist. On average the end-to-end hiring process took about 164 days, can you imagine that? We now have that down to about 93 days, declares Kane. Hes using the OPm end-to-end Hiring Roadmap as a reference model for integrating, streamlining, and measuring workforce planning, recruitment, hiring process, security and suitability, and orientation. As part of this effort, DOe is streamlining and standardizing all job opportunity announcements (JOAs). Were driving very hard to make sure we turn those announcements around as quickly as we can. Were actually having employees try
34
Like most federal agencies weve aged in place. We have a very mature workforce. Succession planning and pathway career development is very important to us right now. I want to make sure that we have healthy staffing in our technical programs.
SPRING/SummeR 2012
35
I am the advisor to DOe senior leadership on how we acquire, retain, and actually deploy talent. Its about ensuring that our programs have the intellectual expertise needed to meet mission.
to reach out and talk to the individuals right after we get that announcement closed and the selection made, explains Kane. DOe is also developing standard position descriptions (PDs) to the maximum extent possible as well as investing in and enhancing the use of technologies to streamline and monitor hiring processes. On the recruiting side, the department continues to pursue innovative strategies, such as a Student Ambassadors Program; a DOe Recruitment Island on Second Life, a popular Web 2.0 social networking site; and increasing DOes presence on other Web 2.0 platforms such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter. It has also moved to eOnboarding. Were rolling out, as many other agencies, what I call eOnboarding. It eliminates having new hires report on day one to fill out a blizzard of paperwork. All of that paperwork can now be completed online. Now we can use the first three or four days of [orientation] to outline and discuss the importance of our mission and talk about the people you work withget down to why youre really here, admits Kane. Besides being a more efficient use of time, putting all this paperwork online has the potential benefits of reducing costs, increasing accuracy, and reducing the time to process the new hire information. many of these efforts rely on critical information technology systems. As some of the current systems are either outdated or coming to the end of their design life cycle, Kane is developing a comprehensive Human Resources Information Technology (HRIT) strategy with the express goal of delivering quality, timely, and cost-effective human capital products and services. The department completed a feasibility study and requirement analysis of the aging Corporate Human Resources Information System (CHRIS). The study resulted in a determination in the near term to update its software platform to maintain current service levels. For the long term, theres a decision to be made on whether to transition to a shared service center in the HR line of business or keep service delivery within the department. Having the right kinds of systems in place is only part of the plan. Kane is also working to transform his agencys HR culture from a transaction-oriented environment to one that is more strategic and consultative. When you get out of transactional environment, you can actually look for more long-term
workforce solutions. Having the HR staff consulting with the managers helps them understand mission-specific needs and gives them the ability to help managers identify the critical attributes for a given job Were starting to move in the direction of comprehensive workforce analysis, much less reactive to what position needs filling today, to more what skill sets do you have now that youre not going to need in three to five years. It starts to create that seamless community thats about delivering not just an employee. Forging such a collaborative relationship with the program areas also enables Kane to provide timely HR policy guidance as well as effective accountability, marked by decentralized delivery but centralized oversight. We do use accountability audits, which I view as an opportunity for improvement. The audit gives us a chance to look at what we do well as well as an opportunity to look at what we dont do well. Whatever the root cause, these efforts offer the department critical insights into how best to meet its most pressing human capital needs. Kane also understands that the workforce is changing. Like most federal agencies weve aged in place. We have a very mature workforce, he acknowledges. Succession planning and pathway career development is very important to us right now. I want to make sure that we have healthy staffing in our technical programs. DOe continues to invest in workforce learning and development strategies to mitigate the potential loss of knowledge and talent resulting from attrition. It is about creating a learning culture and knowledge-based workforce within DOe. As Kane notes, all of the efforts he leads are focused on the u.S. Department of energys greatest assetits people.
To learn more about the u.S. Department of energy, go to http://energy.gov. To hear The Business of Government Hours interview with michael Kane, go to the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org. To download the show as a podcast on your computer or mP3 player, from the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org, right click on an audio segment, select Save Target As, and save the file. To read the full transcript of The Business of Government Hours interview with michael Kane, visit the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org.
36
Steven Kempf
Commissioner, Federal Acquisition Service u.S. General Services Administration
Leading the Federal Acquisition Service

The goal of a sustainable, citizencentered, results-oriented government has compelled federal agencies to find better, smarter ways to do business. The u.S. General Services Administration (GSA), through its Federal Acquisition Service (FAS), works to provide support and assistance to agencies as they work toward this goal. FAS takes a leadership role in providing centralized acquisition solutions while reducing waste, increasing efficiency, lowering cost, and fostering emerging sectors of the economy. Its important to understand, explains Steven Kempf, FAS commissioner, that were a cost-reimbursable organization. FAS earns its business by supporting federal agencies in meeting their missions. We provide about $55 billion worth of cost-reimbursable work to other agencies, notes Kempf, everything from paper clips to hybrid vehicles to large complex IT solutions, and even the acquisition support that federal agencies need to procure essential goods and services. Delivering comprehensive products and services across government at the best value possible is no small feat. It requires a focused, strategic approach and a dedicated staff of expert professionals. First and foremost, its about our people. In many ways, Kempf acknowledges, Im a cheerleader for everything they do, helping them really set the vision for what were doing. Its about being the leading source for government solutions and making sure that our people have what they need to be successful. He does this with 4000 employees spread across the world serving four basic business lines: assisted acquisition services, information technology services, general supplies and services, and the travel, motor vehicle, and card services program. Kempf believes that this portfolio structure enables FAS to provide best-value services, products, and solutions to its customers by aligning resources to key functions. Amassing critical subject-matter expertise along with access to needed goods and services within our organization and leveraging that strength across the federal government enables agencies to get a better deal, take advantage of our expertise, and use their resources to do the things that are critical to their own operations. For example, the FAS Office of Integrated Technology Services operates a suite of IT acquisition programs offering government customers the complete range of IT hardware, software, communications, and supporting products and services to meet virtually any IT need. The FAS suite of IT acquisition programs leverages that expertise across multiple acquisition vehicles (i.e., contracts) that flexibly enable customers to purchase what they want as they want it. To illustrate, Kempf highlights four pathways connecting agencies to goods and services, such as the IT multiple Award Schedule 70, which affords almost 5000 commercial firms the opportunity to offer IT products and services direct to customer agencies; the government-wide IT acquisition contracts (or GWACs) that provide a little more flexibility in acquiring technology and supporting services as a more complete solution for customers; and the Network Services portfolio of contracts, including Networx, that satisfy a complete range of local and wide area telecommunications services and support. We sell everything on the schedules from very small things like office products to the intricate IT systems and complex professional services, declares Kempf.
SPRING/SummeR 2012
37
Were constantly changing our offerings, looking for new ways to improve and innovate to support our customers.
38
Its about improving our current operations, so that government has better data in order to make choices that will reduce risk and cost while improving performance and value with each transaction it is so important for us to drive better value for the taxpayer.
Leading such an expansive portfolio brings with it many challenges. The challenges facing FAS Commissioner Steven Kempf range from modernizing business systems to enhancing services to customers to operating in the ever-present austere budget realities of today. Were in the process of revamping our entire suite of business systems from our enterprise acquisition system to modernizing our supply chain. These are two of our major systems that really will help us deliver services more efficiently and effectively to our customers, Kempf explains. modernizing these systems will enable FAS to serve its customers better. I think every customer service organization is really looking at how to deliver services more effectively, notes Kempf. Its about being more innovative, customer-centric, and in our case industry-centric, making sure that were doing the right things to support our customers. One way to do this is to engage customers directlyask them what they want and need. To that end, Kempf explains that his agency has switched to a customer loyalty survey from the old customer satisfaction survey approach. It emphasizes assessing performance and outcomes while identifying where and how the agency could improve. The key question is, would our customers come back to us? How happy are they with our performance? even more importantly, would they recommend us to another agency? Were receiving feedback from this survey that were using to improve our programs. Kempf understands that while austerity may bring uncertainty, it can also be a catalyst that sparks innovation. Agencies have fewer resources, acknowledges Kempf. As a result, they need to be smarter about the way they buy, so thats going to drive them to us as we [through our business model] are able to get better prices. Yet, FAS is hardly immune to todays fiscal realities. It has to pivot in order to excel in an era of budget constraints. Its about saving money while meeting customers needs. We need to focus our investment. Where should we put more resources? What [are the] areas [where] we might need to pull back investment? For us its going to mean not doing some things anymore. Kempf admits that todays conditions require agencies to go beyond simply doing more with less; agencies must find smarter ways of doing business, using resources more efficiently and investing them more wisely. Kempf believes his agency can also act as a guide for other federal agencies looking to trim their spending. The services
SPRING/SummeR 2012
we provide to federal agencies can actually cut their costs, he suggests, and they can use that savings to do activities related to their mission. There are a number of options for agencies looking to use their travel dollars more wisely. Our FedRooms program offers Federal Travel Regulation (FTR)compliant hotel rooms for federal government travelers while on official business, providing up to 11% or more savings on hotel rooms, notes Kempf. He identifies other FAS cost savings initiatives: print management, office supplies, and domestic delivery options. many of these efforts are part of the Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative (FSSI), which permits the federal government to leverage its purchasing power to secure the lowest prices. There are two things to be learned from FSSI, Kempf explains. One is the value of government agencies collaborating to leverage purchasing across the enterprise. This leads to better pricing and better use of resources. We also have the opportunity to take advantage of where the market is going. There are opportunities in strategic sourcing for changing the way government operates. In the end, its about supporting the mission of federal agencies so they can ultimately invest limited resources in mission activities. I have the most fascinating job in the federal government, says Kempf. I see how the whole government fits together and works. We touch almost every agency. It really is an amazing place to be. He also recognizes that the success of his organization rests on the ability of his staff. When you talk to our employees, they really get what they do and how it supports our federal customers; and, most of all, why thats important I think if you allow people enough time, whether theyre your employee, industry, or customers, if you listen to them they will tell you what they need and what you ought to be doing.
To learn more about GSAs Federal Acquisition Service, go to www.gsa.gov/portal/content/105080. To hear The Business of Government Hours interview with Steven Kempf, go to the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org. To download the show as a podcast on your computer or mP3 player, from the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org, right click on an audio segment, select Save Target As, and save the file. To read the full transcript of The Business of Government Hours interview with Steven Kempf, visit the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org. IBm Center for The Business of Government
39
Insights
Leading New York Citys Response to the Challenge of Homelessness: Insights from Seth Diamond, Commissioner, New York City Department of Homeless Services
Government at all levels is operating in an era of fiscal austerity. The revenues may be falling, but demand for critical services continues. Within this new reality, government executives are confronted with very difficult choices that go to the heart of effective public management. As we continue to engage government executives who are changing the way government does business, Seth Diamond, commissioner, New York City Department of Homeless Services, joined me on The Business of Government Hour. The New York City Department of Homeless Services oversees one of the most comprehensive shelter systems in the nation, bringing real support to homeless New Yorkers when they need it most. While providing shelter and services to those in need is critical, the city has sought to go beyond managing homelessness to ending it, especially chronic homelessness; creating viable permit solutions, enhancing support systems, and ultimately transitioning those seeking assistance from shelters to self-sufficiency. What is New York City doing to prevent chronic homelessness? How is the city working to transition homeless New Yorkers from shelters to self-sufficiency? How is the city using commonsense approaches to make a difference where it counts? Seth Diamond provides his insights into these questions and so much more. The following is an edited excerpt from our conversation. MJK.
Before we delve into specific initiatives, would you give us an overview of the history and mission of New York Citys Department of Homeless Services?
f__ Seth Diamond __f It is a relatively new agency in New York City terms, having been around since about the mid-1990s, so almost 20 years. Our mission is to overcome homelessness in New York City. DHS prevents homelessness wherever possible and provides short-term emergency shelter and re-housing support whenever needed. These goals are best achieved through partnerships with those we serve, public agencies, and the business and nonprofit communities.
40
Photo by Spencer T. Tucker
The largest part, and perhaps the most well-known, is the citys shelter system. Working with 90 or so not-for-profit agencies, we administer shelter in about 250 locations throughout New York City. The department has about an $800 million budget. Almost 90% of that goes to not-forprofit providers who provide the services and run the shelters, and then the rest goes to the government staff, which totals about 2,000. On a typical night, there are about 40,000 New Yorkers with no other alternatives but to stay in one of our sheltersa combination of single adults (i.e., meaning people with no children) as well as families. We have shelters in almost every neighborhood in New York, but for most New Yorkers theyre not aware that theres a shelter in their community. I think thats a tribute to the notfor-profit organizations we work with and the people of the Department of Homeless Services. We blend into communities and work effectively with them. We are a partner in the neighborhoods we serve.
Insights
Seth, with such an important mission and a critical, expansive role, what do you see as the top challenges you face as commissioner of the New York City Department of Homeless Services?
f__ Seth Diamond __f One of the things that we really have tried to do more in recent years is to prevent homelessness before it occurs. There are in New York City thousands of people who are in precarious housing situations and have difficulty at any one point in time with their housing. Some of those people, if we work with them early enough in the process, will be able to sustain themselves in the community. Were always analyzing the critical issues that make people who are in these difficult situations come into shelter. Are there things we can put in place that will help them stay in their housing and not have to access the shelter system? It costs on average about $3,000 a month to keep a household in shelter. It also can be very disruptive for families, particularly children who may have to leave school. Our priority is to identify those families that are potentially at risk and [decide how to] put services in place that can help them. Another challenge involves the basic management of a very large shelter system. Our challenge is to make sure every one of the 200-plus facilities we administer is safe and secure every night for the people that live there. We always have to make sure we have the resources quickly in place, so if the heat goes off at 10 oclock we have something we can do so people are not freezing through the night, or if the boiler breaks in a building, or if a pipe breaks and so
theres flooding, that were addressing that very quickly and that the families are not at risk and that theyre safe and secure every night. The other major challenge is always making sure that as the public face of the agency, I convey the right kind of message. If youre communicating effectively to the public and to the people youre serving what youre doing, that really goes a long way to securing buy-in. The most important job of a leader is to convey a very clear and direct vision. It can be difficult in the face of the day-to-day difficulties to keep the focus, both internally and externally, on what youre trying to accomplish and conveying that message. It is critical that we never forget who were serving.
Seth, theres a typical perception about homelessness, that a homeless person is predominantly male, perhaps ill, mentally ill, and living on the street. Perhaps you can shed some light and clarify some of the misperceptions, highlighting the population that represents the majority of the folks you serve?
f__ Seth Diamond __f Numerically, in New York City, most of the homeless are families. There are no families living on city streets. In the shelter system, there are about 8,500 families, so about 17,000 children, would be about 25,000 people all together. Theyre typically a mom and two kids who have come into the shelter system for a variety of reasonssometimes for economic reasons, domestic violence reasons, and/or substance abuse reasons. Theyre coming from living with somebody else and that relationship has run into some difficulty. Regarding the single-adult shelter system, again, most of the people in that system come from living with somebody else. Almost 70% of the people in the single-adult shelter system either come straight from their own apartment or an apartment that they were sharing with somebody else. The perception is a little bit different than the reality. most people do come from living with somebody else, so we think that creates opportunities before people get settled in the shelter system to try and work with them to see if that might be an option instead of coming into shelter. However, the people who are living on the city streets are not doing it because theres not space for them within the shelter system. We would gladly accommodate every one of them or make sure we could. Theyre living there because theyve made a choice. Often they are not thinking as clearly as we would like because theres mental illness or substance
SPRING/SummeR 2012
41
Insights
Photo by Spencer T. Tucker
Mayor Bloomberg opens the citys new Prevention Assistance and Temporary Housing (PATH) Center, available to aid homeless families after years of development.
abuse involved. Sometimes its based on a misperception or an old perception of the shelter systems being a dangerous place where they dont want to go. Weve made a real investment through what we call outreach to try and help people on the street get off the street. We have people 24 hours a day, seven days a week, that are out on the city streets, approaching people who are living there.
have financial budgeting issues to figure out how to make their money stretch a little bit further. We assist families that may be in dispute with a landlord. The most important principle that frames the mission of the Homebase program is to provide assistance to at-risk families as early as possible. If we can get involved early, then often we can help these families deal with the situation. Weve tried to increase awareness of this program throughout the city. We want people to know that if they run into difficulties their first option early in the process could be to access the Homebase program. The second principle that frames the mission of our Homebase program is flexibility. One of the great things about the Homebase program is it doesnt subscribe to a one-size-fits-all set of rules. The organizations involved know that their caseworkers have to potentially do almost anything, from, as I say, employment work, financial planning, or counseling. It involves directly tailoring and targeting services to those who we are serving. We have also sought to ensure that Homebase is an effective and efficient use of public resources. We hired an independent research firm working with researchers at leading universities to really study the Homebase programto really look at whether prevention services actually work and are effective. About a year and a half ago we started a study. We took two groups, a control group and a treatment group, with 200 in each group. One group received Homebase services, prevention services, and one group received other services
Seth, New York City is considered a leader in pursuing innovative, common-sense approaches to addressing homelessness. To that end, would you tell us more about the award-winning Homebase Program? What are the key principles that frame the purpose of this program?
f__ Seth Diamond __f Homebase is a citywide program designed to help families and individuals overcome immediate housing problems that could result in becoming homeless, and to develop a plan for long-term housing stability. The program is comprised of a network of organizations with 13 offices that work in communities throughout the city, particularly those areas where theres a concentration of people that may be at risk for homelessness. Homebase clients are assigned a case manager who will coordinate all their services. Some of these services will be provided directly through Homebase, and others will be provided by community partners. We seek to intervene as early as possible to prevent homelessness. Often, this intervention involves old-fashioned casework. We work with families that may be facing employment issues to find a better job; we also work with families that
42
Insights
in the community, but not Homebase. Were following these families for two years and want to understand if communities served by Homebase send fewer families to shelter than those not served by Homebase, how can Homebase services best be targeted, but for Homebase services would targeted individuals have entered the shelter, how can services best be designed to target those most in need, and a variety of related questions. I think well firmly answer the question of whether the services are cost-effective. Seth, Id like to understand what happens when a family finds itself in need of short-term housing. Would you tell us more about the citys Prevention Assistance and Temporary Housing (PATH) Intake Centers? How have you sought to modernize the work that youre doing in these centers and what are some of the services you provide at these centers? f__ Seth Diamond __f mayor Bloomberg has made it a major priority and investment in reforming the shelter system by making a better front door for families. When he came into office, all families went through an office in the Bronx called the
emergency Assistance unit (eAu). It was a horrible place. Families often stayed for days there under [un]sanitary conditions. The process was very long and laborious, so that families would sleep either outside or in the office, with children, for days on end. Last may, the city opened its $70 million, new state-ofthe-art intake center for homeless families seeking shelter. With more than 75,000 square feet, the new Prevention Assistance and Temporary Housing (PATH) facility has 213 percent more space than the original intake site, and houses more than 200 specialists from the Department of Homeless Services, Administration for Childrens Services, and Human Resources Administration. With this investment, the city recognizes that families facing these unfortunate circumstances should be treated professionally, fairly, and in a dignified manner. We are now able to process families in hours, not days. Weve reformed the physical structure but, more important, we also have reformed our processes to be more effective and efficient. For about 20% of the people that enter the intake center, we are able to find alternatives to the shelter system. We do an extensive interview to try and understand the background and needs of the families.
HELP II 1780 Grand Concourse Bronx, NY 10457 (347) 226-4540
208 207 112 205 206 204 203 109 110 201 202
212
Homebase
Palladia 2276 3rd Ave New York, NY 10035 (917) 492-1019
BronxWorks 1130 Grand Concourse Bronx, NY 10456 (718) 293-0727
211 210 209 210
HELP I 775 Crotona Park North Bronx, NY 10460 (718) 299-8473
111 107 Bushwick 3 1475 Myrtle Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11237 (347) 295-3738 108 104105 106 102 101 103 302 306 301 304 401 403 402 405 409 305 410 412 404 406 408 407
Catholic Charities Bronx 2155 Blackrock Avenue Bronx, NY 10472 (718) 414-1050
411
Bushwick 1 90 Beaver Street Brooklyn, NY 11206 (718) 210-1627
413
303 308 309 317 314
316
CAMBA I 1117 Eastern Parkway Brooklyn, NY 11213 (718) 622-7323
307 501 312 310 311 315 313
318 414
Catholic Charities Queens 87-80 Merrick Blvd Jamaica, NY 11432 (718) 674-1000
CAMBA III 648 Bay Street Staten Island, NY 10304 (718) 282-6473
502
503
CAMBA II 2211 Church Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11226 (718) 940-6311
414
Bushwick 2 1432 Pitkin Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11233 (718) 221-4404
Partnership for the Homeless 100 Pennsylvania Ave 2nd Fl Brooklyn, NY 11207 (718) 875-0027
To look up community districts by address, go to http://gis.nyc.gov/dcp/at/f1.jsp
SPRING/SummeR 2012
43
Insights
We have a number of city agencies onsite. Our goal in that initial interview is to capture all the information we need, so that we can find alternatives or design a plan that can help them out of shelter.
Seth, its critically important to understand the population youre serving. Would you tell us more about the annual Homeless Outreach Population Estimate or Hope Survey?
f__ Seth Diamond __f The HOPe survey is one of the tools that we use to help evaluate how many people are sleeping on the city streets. The federal government requires cities that access a certain type of funding to perform such a count at least every two years. New York City does it every year. We use a very rigorous methodology and have been a leader in the way this is done. It ends up being really a community event in New York City. It involves 3,000 New Yorkers in neighborhoods throughout the city. Thousands of volunteers canvass parks, subways, and other public spaces across the five boroughs to count the number of people living unsheltered in the city. We take over schools and other kinds of facilities in dozens of sites throughout New York. It starts at 10 or 11 p.m. and people fan out for hours throughout the evening in groups. It involves people from every walk of life. I did it this year with college students. I did it with some West Point cadets. You get a lot of city employees who are familiar and want to help. What we do is we go out around the city and count the number of people living on the street; we use that tally to, again, assess how were doing, one of the tools to assess how were doing on serving those who are on the street. It is one of the most comprehensive surveys of its kind nationwide. HOPe enables the city to efficiently allocate resources to the issue of street homelessness, ultimately aiming to help this population transition from the streets into housing. Just one night of your time will help us collect vital information that is used by outreach teams to help homeless people leave the streets for a better life.
Seth, are you using the power of analytics to make data-driven decisions?
f__ Seth Diamond __f mayor Bloomberg has focused [on] cementing the citys connection to data in managing government. We have probably more performance indicators than any other city agency. We are constantly using metrics to look at what were doing, how were doing, and how effective are our services. We
Homeless Outreach Population Estimate (HOPE) 2012, The NYC Street Survey, https://a071-hope.nyc.gov/hope/welcome.aspx
44
Insights
welfare system, or those who used food stamps, maybe those would be good indicators of who may access the homeless system. On the opposite end, when we send families back into the community, the ones who come back to shelter, maybe there are certain characteristics of how they behave in the community in terms of their connection with government benefits or services that could give us information about who [is] really at risk of returning to shelter. Its a big project thats really in its infancy. It really has the potential to better position our approaches to service delivery as well as how we may more effectively deliver services to those most in need at the right time and in the right manner.
Seth, Id like to switch our focus to the folks who work with you and work for you. In an era of fiscal austerity, where revenue is going down but the demand for critical services seems to be increasing, how do you keep your staff motivation high and focused on delivering results?
f__ Seth Diamond __f Well, it can be very difficult, especially when the problems that were dealing with are enough to demoralize anybody. The human difficulties that the people we serve deal with every day can be very difficult and emotional. I think one of the keys to motivating people, the most important, is communication and telling people that you understand what theyre doing, that you know its tremendously hard work, that you support them, and congratulate them when they do a good job. Our people want to feel appreciated. They deserve to feel appreciated.
To learn more about the New York City Department of Homeless Services, go to www.nyc.gov/html/dhs/html/home/home.shtml To hear The Business of Government Hours interview with Seth Diamond, go to the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org. To download the show as a podcast on your computer or mP3 player, from the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org, right click on an audio segment, select Save Target As, and save the file. To read the full transcript of The Business of Government Hours interview with Seth Diamond, visit the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org.
look every day, certainly every week, at a range of indicators and try and make adjustments. One of the things that you learn is that, just like we try and prevent homelessness by intervening early, you can often prevent poor performance by intervening early. even a small trend of a couple weeks can be cause for concern. You really want to get in front of that potential issue before it becomes something more. The city is trying to move beyond just sort of using it within one agency, but to look at the broad framework of all the agencies, particularly in the social services area, that collect data, and how we can use that information better across agencies. When we look at how to prevent homelessness, we only look at indicators affecting people who come into our system. maybe if we looked at those recently released from jail, people who access the child
SPRING/SummeR 2012
45
Insights
Revitalizing Public Service: Insights from max Stier President and CeO, Partnership for Public Service
Today the country faces challenges of unprecedented complexity, from guiding an economy through crisis to expanding healthcare coverage. To meet these and a myriad of other challenges will require transforming the way government works while also inspiring the best and brightest to choose public service. Building, energizing, and maintaining a high-quality workforce is the key to success for any organization and the federal government is no exception. How does the Partnership for Public Service seek to inspire a new generation to serve? What is the Partnership for Public Service doing to transform the way government works? And what are some of the key human capital and workforce challenges facing the federal government? We will explore these questions and so much more with our very special guest Max Stier, president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service. The following provides an edited excerpt from our interview. Max, before we delve into specific initiatives, perhaps you could give us an overview of the history and evolving mission of the Partnership for Public Service. What prompted its creation and how has it evolved since its inception? f__ max Stier __f Sam Heyman founded the Partnership for Public Service in September 2001 to address the need for reform in government service. In 1963, Sam was a newly minted Harvard law graduate and did what about a third of his class did at that time, which was go into the government. He met Bobby Kennedy two or three times in his first year at the Department of Justice. It was an experience that stayed with him throughout his professional life. He stayed five years and took what he thought would just be a leave of absence to wind up the family business when his dad died. Instead, he wound up becoming an even more successful businessman than his father. Fast-forward several decades, Sam learned from the then-dean of the Harvard Law School that they were no longer in a world in which a third of the top students
went into government. It was more like two or three percent of graduates going into government. This concerned Sam. He became very interested in why talent was no longer going into government in the same way it had when he graduated from law school. He ultimately concluded that he needed to put his oar in and start a nonprofit; that was the real genesis of the Partnership. Its mission is to think about how you attract the right talent into government. I put together a business plan. It focused on both the talent sidedrawing the right talent into public servicebut as important, helping government manage that talent effectively. These areas are the cornerstones of our mission. Max, what kinds of work do you do to meet your stated mission? Would you tell us more about the Partnerships operational approach?
46
Insights
f__ max Stier __f We have five areas of what we call our high-leverage points and they follow from what I described earlier in terms of our origins. First, we want to make sure the federal government has the right talent, so we promote government service through outreach to college campuses and job seekers. Secondly, we want to make sure that it has the right leadership managing that talent, which involves raising awareness and improving public attitudes about government service. Third, we want to provide hands-on assistance to federal agencies to improve their operations. Fourth, we advocate for needed legislation and regulatory reforms to strengthen the civil service. Fifth, we seek to generate thought-provoking research on, and effective responses to, the workforce challenges facing the federal government. Max, building, energizing, and maintaining a high-quality workforce is key to the success of any organization and the federal government is no different. Would you highlight some of the critical workforce challenges facing the federal government today? f__ max Stier __f There are many challenges[including] a workforce that is aging and retiring in very large numbers. The retirement numbers are up 24% from last year and we can anticipate this continuing to increase. Theres been very little in the way of strategic planning in this area. There isnt a natural bench within the government that can replace those who are retiring. We dont have the talent pipeline that can also effectively replace the talent thats going away. At the macro level, the demands on government are changing in very important ways. For example, the u.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was designed to regulate a food market that was largely domestic, but is now in many significant ways global. This story has been played out all across the government where the basic mission needs of the government have changed and/or are going to change dramatically going forward and the talent models have not kept up. We compound that with budgetary pressures all agencies are under; squeezed, and more often than not, in ways that are not beneficial to overall performance. The performance piece gets lost in the effort to simply save the dollars and its an evil brew.
Max, the last few years have been a pivotal time for the U.S. federal government. While interest in federal jobs and internships increased, the knowledge and understanding about government jobs and internships continued to lag. Would you tell us more about the Partnerships Call to Serve programs and resources? How has this program sought to establish a network that provides information on government employment, internship opportunities, and ways to navigate the cumbersome federal hiring system? f__ max Stier __f Theres no doubt that in my view the talent is out there. As your question suggests, the talent doesnt know how to navigate the system nor is the system really designed to select the right people. Those are real issues. Now to this administrations credit, they have really focused on trying to fix the hiring process; theyve made some real progress, but those in charge would admit that were not there yet. Theres a long way still to go. The Partnerships Call to Serve programs and resources, developed in conjunction with the Office of Personnel management (OPm), are designed to tackle these pressing issues with a multifaceted approach. We have something on the order of 750 universities that are signed up for this effort. Were trying to share information about opportunities available in government, how you navigate that crazy system, what are the tricks of the trade, and we provide training to both university career services folks and faculty. In addition, we partner with more than 75 federal agencies to develop innovative recruiting methods and effective hiring techniques to improve governments capacity to build the workforce it needs. We also have a neat program called the student ambassador program where we take folks that have interned at a federal agency and we train them on the HR information they need to know, so when they return to their campuses they actually become the recruiter-in-chief for their agencies. There is no more compelling or persuasive figure than a peer in trying to persuade folks that government service is a good next step for them. The other interesting opportunity is that those [student ambassador] interns come to government in very high numbers. Theres a set of programming around this from our speakers bureau program where we get Feds to go to campuses, to the broader network, to the student ambassadors program, but were trying to find smart ways to create connectivity to the government from the university campus.
SPRING/SummeR 2012
47
Insights
On the policy side, were pushing hard on things like changes to the hiring process. The changes were seeing right now focus on time to hire. It is also important to understand who the right person should be for a given job. The student internship is a great way to actually access whether the talent is right for an organization. The federal government today converts about 7% of its interns into full-time employees. That number should be 5060%. Max, for over a decade I understand the Partnership has paid tribute to dedicated public servants, highlighting those who have made significant contributions to the country. Would you tell us about the Samuel J. Heyman Service to America Medals, or Sammies? Perhaps you can elaborate on how honorees are chosen and what are some of the characteristics they all may share? f__ max Stier __f Its one of my favorite Partnership programs. If you want excellence in government, you have to recognize and reward it. You dont see enough of that in the public sector, so the Service to America medals (Sammies) has become the premier recognition program for innovative change agents in government. The Sammies have been awarded annually since 2002. Whats striking to me is that many participants are not even known within their own agency until they go through the Sammies process. There are videos of all of the winners available on our ServiceToAmericamedals.org website. Its everyone from the [person] who started the Do Not Call
registry to the two FBI agents that solved the Birmingham bombing case 40 years after the fact to one of my favorites, Fraser Lockhart, who ran the program converting a former nuclear weapons lab into what is now a nature preserve. Lockhart and his team at the Department of energy, working with contractors, local officials, and his federal colleagues, led the effort to successfully remediate Rocky Flats in just 10 years, at a cost of $7 billion. In the end, perhaps the greatest accomplishment of the Rocky Flats cleanup project is that it shows what is possible with collaboration between the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Its a remarkable transformation and an incredible efficiency story at the same time. many of these success stories are not known to the American public or to the federal workforce. Thats a real problem. If we want to see great activity inside the government, we need to highlight and publicize within and without the great things that are going on. Max, employee satisfaction and engagement are two necessary ingredients in developing high-performing organizations and attracting top talent. The Partnerships Best Places to Work in the Federal Government rankings are a valuable tool in recognizing the importance of employee satisfaction and ensuring that it is a top priority for government managers. Would you tell us more about this survey? f__ max Stier __f I have no doubt that it has had the most impact of all the things that we do. Our Best Places to Work in the Federal
48
Insights
The program has done much. We had a town hall during Public Service Recognition Week. Three cabinet secretaries and two other agency heads were on a panel moderated by Cokie Roberts. She asked about the best places to work and what these leaders were doing in light of their agency performance. What was remarkable to me is that each panelist knew where their agency ranked in the survey. That told me were on the right track here. Just getting leadership to pay attention to it makes it really powerful. Max, todays government executives face seemingly unprecedented management challenges. In what specific ways does the Partnerships Strategic Advisors to Government Executives (SAGE) program seek to assist government executives to meet these challenges? Government rankings measure employee satisfaction and commitment. To my mind theres two root causes related to the challenges facing the federal government: [first,] the short-term political leader may not align with the long-term needs of the organizations they run. equally problematic is the lack of real-time information about performance. In the public sector you cant reduce your performance to financial metrics in all instances. Your goals are public goods that arent easily reduced to financial P&L statements, or a stock price. There [is] strong correlation between employee engagement and overall performance. The Partnership provides the tools and resources needed to start improving employee engagement and commitment. This year is really important because this will be the first time that therell be close to a full census of federal employees. A number of agencies have done smaller samples, but now theyre going to be able to dig deeper inside their organizations and see whats going on. All in all Im just thrilled by whats happened. We are still on the uphill climb in terms of opportunities for creating a more useful instrument. The census is one example of how [we] might improve things. Secondly were trying to get the Hill to understand that they no longer have to just simply pay attention to the three or four disgruntled employees that come knocking on their door. They actually have data and can hold agencies accountable. Our related workshops and resources help agency leaders turn their Best Places to Work in the Federal Government data into workforce solutions that drive real results. This approach can help agencies use employee data to generate quick wins and identify long-term strategic improvements. f__ max Stier __f This program seeks to connect senior-level executives in government with their predecessors who are now in the private sector, providing them an opportunity to leverage prior public-sector experience to transform government and improve its performance. The Partnership is an ideal platform for knowledge transferbridging the private sector talent that used to be in the public sector and the public sector talent thats new to their position. SAGes engage their public-sector counterparts through workshops, thought leadership sessions, expert roundtables, and two-day orientation boot camps. SAGes share knowledge, ideas, and best practices to help these federal executives enhance their ability to carry out their required responsibilities, contributing to more efficient and effective government leadership. These officials are granted access to a unique network of subject matter experts who want to give back to government and continue their involvement in public service. Max, you have noted that a stronger Senior Executive Service (SES) is the single most important thing that can be done to improve government performance. Would you review challenges facing the federal governments leadership corps and outline your recommendations for strengthening the federal governments Senior Executive Service? f__ max Stier __f To me, the SeS is a critical cohort because they stand on top of the career workforce. There are 2,000,000+ federal workers. There are 7,000 SeSers. They survive the political transition, so if youre going to have an organization thats healthy across the choppy divides of transition you need a great SeS core. Only eight percent of SeSers move agencies
SPRING/SummeR 2012
49
Insights
once they become SeS members and very few of them come from candidate development programs, which are programs that actually have mobility components as part of them. Heres what should change. We ought to require folks going into the SeS to have a breadth of experience. They should be people who have either worked in multiple sectors, multiple levels of government, or multiple agencies. We ought to have a process that enables the federal government to draw not just internally for the SeS, but outside as well. So one push weve had and weve been trying to assist this administration with is to move to a resume-based hiring process for the SeS. If we dont create a process that the rest of the talent market can participate in, then clearly theyre not going to come inside government. We also need to match the great talent that we have against the priorities that we have. Its vital that it be done now both because of the challenges facing government, but also because the turnover thats taking place in the SeS is huge. Thirty-five percent of the SeS is retirement-eligible. This is the opportunity to remake the SeS into a cadre that we need for tomorrows challenges.
Max, what advice would you give someone who is considering a career in public service? f__ max Stier __f Be persistent. The process is none too easy but its worth it. I think they ought to do it because there is no bigger and more impactful stage. Again they just have to go look at those videos of the Sammies winners to see just the extraordinary impact that is possible inside the federal government. It is an amazing environment for those that have the qualities of persistence, public stewardship, and collaboration that make for a successful public servant. Theres just nothing like it.
To learn more about the Partnership for Public Service, go to www.ourpublicservice.org. To hear The Business of Government Hours interview with max Stier, go to the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org. To download the show as a podcast on your computer or mP3 player, from the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org, right click on an audio segment, select Save Target As, and save the file. To read the full transcript of The Business of Government Hours interview with max Stier, visit the Centers website at www.businessofgovernment.org.
50
Getting Big Things Done in Government

edited by John M. Kamensky
Two professional associations, the American Society for Public Administration and the National Academy of Public Administration, have joined to sponsor a series of forums addressing the management challenges likely to face whomever is sworn in as president in January 2013. One of these forums examined the leadership challenges associated with getting big things done, and explored lessons from past experiences. The panel comprised three observers of or participants in the implementation of large-scale federal initiatives. Timothy Conlan is a professor at George Mason University. He specializes in federal-state-local relationships and the implementation of large federal programs that affect these relationships, such as the Recovery Act and the Affordable Care Act. Dwight Ink served seven presidents in both career and political positions. He led the recovery efforts after the devastating 1964 Alaskan earthquake and directed numerous large-scale reorganization efforts, including the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Harry Lambright is a professor at the Maxwell School at Syracuse University. He specializes in the evolution of the politics and administration of space policy and Big Science. He wrote the definitive book on the U.S. race to the moon, Powering Apollo: James e. Webb of NASA.
crisis. Forum participant Tim Conlan observes that all big things are not alike. The forum explored government performance in three categories of big things. The first is comprised of new policy implementation, including the $877 billion Recovery Act and provisions of the Affordable Care Act. These types of initiatives reach across sectors of the economy, levels of government, and different federal agencies. The second category involves an emergency or a set of timedriven urgencies. examples include the 1964 Alaska earthquake, the Y2k computer bug, Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and the 2010 Gulf of mexico BP Oil Spill. The third category involves technical or scientific initiatives such as the manhattan Project, the moon race, the International Space Station, and the decoding of the human genome. Following are excerpts from an edited transcript of the forum dialogue.
What Do We Mean by Big Things?

Over the course of u.S. history, the federal government has been involved in doing big things such as the manhattan Projects development of the atomic bomb in the 1940s, the interstate highway construction that began in the 1950s, and the race to the moon in the 1960s. However, the public has become concerned about the instances in which government has encountered difficulty in getting big things done, such as the Katrina recovery and the failure to deal with the fiscal
SPRING/SummeR 2012
51
NASA
Category One: Large-Scale Administrative Initiatives

f__ Timothy Conlan __f The Recovery Act was the signature policy initiative of the early [days of the] Obama administration. In fact, it was signed into law less than a month after he was inaugurated. And even though there are quibbles and debates among economists as to whether it was big enough, or too big, the Recovery Act was an enormous stimulus package, far larger at $787 billion than any other post-New Deal stimulus, and it was a very complex package. It was roughly composed of about a third [each of] tax cuts, grants in aid to state and local governments and federal policy initiatives. Over 90 different federal aid programs to state and local governments got additional funding in the Recovery Act. And the federal initiatives were spread among a wide range of policy areas, including healthcare, science, transportation, and energy. So, Im going to try to glean some of the lessons we might pull away from the design and implementation of the Recovery Act and then place it into the context we might want to consider when thinking about how it integrates with the other initiatives we are talking about. Design Issues. In many ways, I think the Recovery Act really illustrated the pitfalls, but also the potential, of doing policy design on the fly. In an attempt to respond to what was clearly a deepening economic crisis when the president came into office, this legislation was very hurriedly written and the funds were intended to be spent very quickly. Several implications flowed out of that situation. First, much of the legislation was written before the president was inaugurated and long before most of his political appointees were in position. In the House, the bill was largely written in the Appropriations committee rather than the authorizing committees with jurisdiction over often complex areas of public policy. In the Senate, its design largely reflected the need to garner 60 votes for passage of the Recovery Act. [uCLA professor] Barbara Sinclair has written about unorthodox lawmaking in recent years. Well, this bill was unorthodox lawmaking on steroids. The need for speed, if you will, also dictated the use of a lot of projects and ideas that were literally off the shelf. There wasnt time to invent the full range of components that were integrated into the Recovery Act. It had to be a big package, for economic reasons, and it was largely developed by people opening up their desk drawers in the agencies, in think tanks, and people coming into the White House, and pulling out proposals that were more or less ready to go. So what did we end up with? We had a big, complex, and speedily crafted piece of legislation, which carries risks. In particular, there were high risks of internal contradictions in this type of endeavor, and the Recovery Act had contradictions with a capital C. In addition to the mandate to spend funds very quickly to counteract the effects of the recession, there was an equally powerful mandate to spend funds transparently and without mistakes. Implementation Issues. At the same time, the legislation generally lacked new funding for administrative support, for managing these massive new sums of money involved, with many new programs. However, it did provide a great deal of additional money on the accountability side: to stand up new entities like the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, and provide additional funding to the Government Accountability Office and to the departmental Inspectors General for oversight. So on the one hand, you had this big green light to spend quicklyits like being on the drag strip and the light turns green and so you need to go, go, go. And at the same time, you have these red and yellow lights saying, But dont you dare make a mistake. Were going to get you. All of which leads naturally, I think, into some lessons we can draw about the implementation of the Recovery Act. Overall, these program design features revealed both areas of strength and weakness in the implementation of the program.
52
One of the areas of strength in the implementation of the Recovery Act was that many of the programs being funded were already established. You were plugging funds into established programs and established policy networks. This certainly promoted the goal of rapid and largely successful implementation, and certainly ensured spending the funds on time. In addition, much of the aid that was given to state and local governmentsthe real big dollar amountswere in relatively flexible forms of funding. The largest single component was the increase in the federal matching share for medicaid, and that essentially had the effect of freeing up state money that would normally go into the state share of medicaid, and made it available to plug other holes in state budgetsand there were gaping holes in state budgets as their revenues were plummeting as the recession took hold. Early Observations. Although it is often overlooked in most assessments of ARRA, the Recovery Acts implementation also highlighted the strengths of the public service at all levels of government. At a time of tremendous fiscal and administrative stress, managers and civil servants at all levels of government, by and large, did an exemplary job of implementing the program despite working under enormous time pressures and with great uncertainty as to what the final rules were going to be. In Washington, there were people who were working nights and weekends to try to get rules out so the monies could be spent. The same thing occurred in many states, where there was no new money for administering the programs. Where there were implementation problems, they tended to surface in the new or vastly expanded programs like the home weatherization grants in the energy Department [where funding for this program was increased from $210 million to $5 billion] or the program to expand broadband access, where established procedures and implementation networks were lacking or they were inadequate to the massive increases in funding. And finally, the early involvement of auditors in the program implementation process was a new role for them, and this new proactive role confused and heightened tensions with program managers, who saw themselves as having the lead responsibility for getting things done.
Category Two: Large-Scale, Urgent Initiatives

f__ Dwight Ink __f The public administration community, I think, has reason to be proud of quite a lot of advances that have been made in recent years. But I would argue that in the kinds of management concepts and practices this country needs [in order] to address the large problems that cross agency lines, we have lost ground. The Katrina recovery fiasco and failure of the Iraq recovery efforts after the military success illustrate our frequent inability to coordinate government resources in a crisis. However, the case of the federal Recovery Act shows that outstanding leadership can succeed in responding to timeurgent challenges. ed DeSeve [the special advisor to the president responsible for the implementation of the Recovery Act under the political leadership of Vice President Joe Biden] was a professional leader who deserved a tremendous amount of credit for what transpired. Likewise, John Koskinen led the advance from the 20th century to the 21st century in terms of our computer problems [often referred to as Y2K] which posed a potential disaster because we realized, belatedly, how serious the consequences of failure might be. With the help of the president and the OmB, he drew together the most massive intergovernmental and interagency coalition of agencies and private-sector businesses and foreign countries that ever has occurred in the world. most people said this massive undertaking started too late, couldnt succeed, but it did.
SPRING/SummeR 2012
53
The 1964 Alaskan earthquake was the next-to-the-most severe earthquake ever recorded and when I first went to Alaska [as the Presidents designated recovery coordinator], we couldnt find a single engineer who said we could relocate, redesign, and reconstruct harbors, water sewer systems, railroads and so forth, in time to prevent two-thirds of the Alaskan population from having to abandon the state with the consequence that it would no longer be a viable state. We had such a short construction season that the dire predictions had a lot of credibility. I didnt quite see how I could go back to the president and say, mr. President, Im sorry. I cant do what you told me to do. On the other hand, I had no idea how we could get it done. But through unprecedented management actions and integration of governmentwide resources at all levels, we did. each of these three cases, the Recovery Act, the Y2K case, and the Alaskan earthquake, was regarded as virtually impossible. each was addressing very different challenges. each was under different presidencies, spanning half a century. Yet, there were some common values and concepts that were key to success and are worth looking at for future major crises. Leadership. First, when there are challenges of the magnitude we have discussed, the federal government has to quickly assume a leadership role. The leader of the operational recovery needs to report directly to the president, as I did. No political appointees in between. And in each of the three cases, the director was either a career person or a political appointee with extensive prior government experience. They were professionals, and through experience, knew how the government worked. They knew where the strengths were, where the weaknesses were. They knew what risks could be taken. They knew how to meld the political and the career leadership together. They knew how to work with Congress. Transparency. In each of these three cases, there was an unusual amount of transparency. In some instances, each invested quite a lot of time initially in openness, but it saved a great deal of time over the long run, and in the process we gained a lot of credibility not otherwise achieved. It reduced the opposition because people understood what was going on. There was much greater accountability that people could observe. most knew where to go to register their complaints, to seek redress. In each instance, there was a great deal of effort put toward the intergovernmental dimension, melding different levels of government together with the private sector and with the public into a n integrated effort. In Alaska, every one of my operational decisions [was] made in public meetings in which the public participated and had a chance to raise their objections. The press was there.
And each of these cases provided a surprising amount of accountability which, in the case of the Recovery Act, was very complex and not at all easy to do. In each of these cases not only was there the career leadership reporting to the president, but the whole operation was staffed by professionals all the way through. Procedural Waivers. I had the tacit approval from the President and Congressional leaders to suspend any agency procedures that got in our way of meeting our deadlines. Consequently, I didnt have time to fool around with public hearings. I eliminated almost all of them. The citizens cheered and the reason is because all of these decisions had already been made in public where the public had a chance to ask questions and express their opinions. If one operates openly, one is usually free to eliminate a lot of red tape which is often generated in the best of interests of society but we really cant afford today when we have to develop a greater capacity to move quickly in times of urgency. Congressional Linkages. In the case of Alaska, President Johnson designated a senatorial ally, Senator [Clinton] Anderson, to a Cabinet level policy commission that provided excellent political leadership and White House cooperation with Congress. With respect to operations, I detailed three experienced Congressional staff to serve full time on my staff, creating a second close linkage between the two branches. Otherwise, we would never have been able to overcome the [political rancor caused by the] bitter Civil Rights debate [ongoing at the time] and the 57-day Senate filibuster it faced. It also helps explain my freedom to provide procedural waivers for agencies.
54
Category Three: Large-Scale Technical or Scientific Initiatives

f__ Harry Lambright __f Ive been asked to talk about large-scale science and technology projects. These projects stretch over many presidents and typically they involve three stages; an initiation stage, a development stage, and an operation stage. Presidents come into this very long-term process at different points and their strategies depend on where they come into a particular project. Ill discuss three projects: Apollo, the Space Station, and the Human Genome Project. I want to talk about these in terms of five factors that, it seems to me, are critical to success or failure relating to these particular projects. One factor has to do with setting the goals, particularly the technical goals. Another has to do with the organization of the project. A third has to do with gaining political support. A fourth has to do with a mix of strategieswhich I label competition and cooperationand how an administrator of these projects uses those strategies. And the fifth is executive leadership, which I think has to pull all of these various other factors together to make a success. Setting Goals. With respect to goals, what comes across, looking at these various projects, is the technical goals have to be clear. If they arent clear, its hard to get the myriad number of actors that are involved to concert their efforts in a common direction. The greatest example of that is Apollo where you had a decision by Kennedy to go to the moon by 1969. Often, these goals are cloaked in deadlines like by 1969, but they also carry estimates of how much it is going to cost. In the case of Apollo, the scientists and the engineers in NASA told James Webb, who was the administrator, that it would cost somewhere around $8$10 billion. Webb, who used to be director of the Office of management and Budget, said: I dont believe scientists and engineers. Theyre all too optimistic. And he doubled it. And thats the number he gave to Kennedy, which was $20 billion, and it wound up costing $24 billion. So, setting goalstechnical goals, costs, and deadlines[is] very important. The Human Genome Project was supposed to cost $3 billion and take 15 years, and it wound up costing about $3 billion and taking 15 years so it was pretty well estimated by scientists. The International Space Station was initiated by President Reagan in 1984. He said it would take ten years and cost
about $8 billion. It wasnt operationalized until 2011 and it has cost $60 billion so far, and that doesnt count extra shuttle costs, plus maybe $10 billion from international partners. So that particular estimate was quite a bit off. Organization. Organization has to do with whos in charge and it seems fairly clear that if you look at Apollo, NASA was clearly in charge. The government was really in charge. Industry was in the role of contractors. Youve got industry and universities involved. With the genome project, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was in charge after the Department of energy started the project. NIH took it over, and it was in charge for most of its life and it clearly was involving a whole series of universities. It was also organized internationally. And I think international organization is the wave of the future. Apollo was clearly a pure, national project. The Genome Project stretched internationally. There, NIH was a dominant partner but then england was a secondary but critical partner and NIH and its British counterpart worked fairly closely together. The International Space Station was an international project from the word go and involves Russia, europe, Canada, and Japan. Its the biggest international science and technology project in human history and is certainly a model of what is right and what is wrong with international projects; all of the things that went right and all of the things that went wrong are right there.
SPRING/SummeR 2012
55
NASA
Political Support. You couldnt have had better political support than you had with Apollo because you had Kennedy and also Congress. It had a national mandate. But then, Kennedy goes and LBJ comes on and gives it his full support. It doesnt lose support until Nixon comes on and he terminates it in 1972, and thats where our moon project ceases to be. Certainly, in the case of the genome project, it had political support all of the way through President Clinton and Tony Blair, prime minister of england. The Space Station came within one Congressional vote of being killed in 1993. Clinton rescued it by making it a symbol of post-Cold War technology. The Soviet union had just fallen and Russia was in disarray and there was a great deal of worry about the fact that if we didnt do something about the Russian scientists and engineers, they might go in the direction of our enemies. So while it was called space policy, it was really national security policy that rescued it and Clinton gave it full support the whole way through his tenure. Bush kept it going when he was president. Obama made a decision just recently to extend the space station to 2020, now that it is in the operational stage. each president has had different roles along the way from 1984 to today. Mix of Strategies. each of these projects uses different techniques but they all involve some dimensions of competition and cooperation. The cooperation usually was internal, keeping cooperation among the various players: government, industry, universities, and in the case of international projects, keeping cooperation going between governments.
At the same time, competition was always a major factor in how these projects evolved and certainly the nature of the competition affected the urgency of the project. The more international competition you had, the more you could affect cooperation inside the project because you had an enemy on the outside. In the case of the Genome Project, there [was] competition from the private sector. Craig Venter was trying to decode the genome himself faster than the government. So the government was competing against the private sector in that case. This made it easier for the leader [of NIH, Francis Collins] to get cooperation among all of the universities participating in the project, as well as england and America because they had a common enemy. Of course, with space, you had the Soviet union [as the competition] for a long period of time. Executive Leadership. Leadership is so important. You cant really talk about these things without talking about leadership. And leadership comes at various levels: the political, the executive, and the technical. Apollo was blessed with leadership at all three levels. The key guy at the executive level of Apollo was, of course, James Webb, the head of NASA, who is probably one of the great administrators in American history. He had all of the ingredients: the knowledge of how to deal with bureaucracy, the knowledge of how to deal with OmB and the president, the knowledge of how to deal with Congress, and how to deal with industry. He had these multiple excellences that were almost amazing and you couldnt have had a success without a man like that. But the other projects that did pretty well also had outstanding leadership. moving the Genome Project from DOe to NIH was extremely important because it was a health project and it just got started in DOe almost by accident. So when it was moved to NIH, a Nobel Prize winner was put in charge probably the most famous biologist in the world, James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA. He was an egomaniac but he got the project started and then along the way, another man was put in charge [Francis Collins] who had the talents needed [to complete the project]. I think this brings out the fact that, at the executive level, as a project moves through different stages, the leader you have at the initiation stage may have certain kinds of personality and skill requirements. But as you get into the development stage, where its a more steady state, you have another set of requirements for the kind of leader you need. With respect to the International Space Station, there has been a sequence of leaders but two men were utterly critical to the fact that we have a station today. One was
NASA
56
than something undertaken three years into a four-year administration. And the context matters. Is it an emergency? A discretionary project? A technical project? The strategic approach to each will vary. However, the forum surfaced eight characteristics that seemed present in each of the three categories: The project leader reported directly to the president (or the seniormost official at a lower level, depending on size, significance, and urgency). Clear top-level access and support is essential, as was the case with the implementation of the Recovery Act. There was a shared clarity of goals. All key stakeholders have to provide their support and consent. There was cross-sector collaboration around common outcomes. Again, there was alignment among key stakeholders, inside and outside government. Dan Goldin, who was head of NASA in the 1990s under [President] Clinton. He was a man who was irascible and hard to work for. But he was totally committed and he stayed with NASA for a long time. He was appointed by [President] George H.W. Bush and lasted until [President] George W. Bush. That continuity was extremely important and was the critical factor that kept ISS alive. The other key executiveI think this kind of linkage is a model for the future was in Russia. There was a man named [Yuri] Koptev who was Goldins counterpart in Russia. The two men basically convinced their political levels to work together and you had a nexus between two countries where you had two executives who worked hand-in-glove. So the alliance between these two men who built their coalitions in each of the two countries is why we have a space station today. It could have gone down the tube and I think that alliance was a very important factor in getting ISS built. There was a sense of urgency and agreement to quickly resolve day-to-day problems. This often took the form of daily decision-making meetings, in virtually every case cited. The project provided an unusually high level of transparency. In the case of the Recovery Act, the website Recovery.gov reported every dollar spent, and where. There was freedom to innovate and be free from existing rules. In the case of the Alaska earthquake, it was the authority to waive agency rules impeding construction. Leadership needed to exist at both the political and the technical levels. Credibility is needed at both the political and technical levels, and this was evident in every project discussed. A creative tension was built into these projects in a way that channeled the sense of urgency. For example, in the case of the Recovery Act, there was a tension between the Recovery Board and the White Houses implementation office under DeSeve, and in the case of the genome, there was a competitive tension between NIH and private entrepreneur Craig Venter.
Common Characteristics
Dr. Conlan observes that all big things are not alike; that timing and context matter. For example, doing something early in an administration would be approached differently
SPRING/SummeR 2012
57
Forum: Governing to Win Enhancing National Competitiveness
Edited by Michael J. Keegan
Introduction: Governing to WinEnhancing National Competitiveness

In the march 2012 Harvard Business Review article, The Looming Challenge to u.S. Competitiveness, michael Porter and Jan Rivik point out that the u.S. faces a deeper, more fundamental challenge than recovering from a recession of unusual depth and duration that is, its ability to be competitive globally. To restore its competitiveness, America needs a long-term strategy, counsel Potter and Rivik. With the recent release of Governing to Win: Enhancing National Competitiveness Through New Policy and Operating Approaches, Chuck Prow has compiled some 13 insightful essays by leading thinkers and practitioners that can contribute to laying out that long-term strategy. Given todays fiscal realities, Prow explains, the nation must explore alternative policy approaches and ways for government to do business. He notes that the alternatives outlined in his new book can catalyze national competitiveness in an environment where major new investments will be difficult. The book addresses three topics that, together, offer a competitiveness agenda different from more traditional approaches. The book kicks off by setting the context for the current national debate on fiscal stability. It offers a path for creating a nonpartisan framework for setting national priorities in that context. It follows with a discussion of targeted policy interventions in key sectors of the economy, such as economy/regulation, healthcare, education, and energy, which could lead to improved national competitiveness. The book ends by outlining a value-oriented, enterprise operating model for the federal government, based on commercial experience, which could lower operating costs by up to $1 trillion over a decade while improving mission performance and services to citizens. For Prow, this new operating model could catalyze similar changes in the broader economy, thereby improving productivity and enhancing national competitiveness. This forum excerpts selected essays from the book that explore the insights forming the larger vision of the work. Chuck Prow kicks off the forum by setting the context and outlining the purpose and intent of Governing to Win: Enhancing National Competitiveness Through New Policy and Operating Approaches. Gail Fosler then details why governance is the new competitiveness imperative. F. Stevens Redburn follows with a cogent description of a new strategic approach for reforming our countrys budgeting process. mark Forman discusses the changes that need to occur in both the technologies government uses and the way its IT systems are governed. Raj Sharma rethinks government purchasing and supply chains. These essays paint outlines of both opportunities and challenges that the present period provides to government executives. We do our best in this forum to delve into this new and different terrain, the shifting contours and dangerous detours that define this moment in time.
58
How Can Our Nation Better Compete to Win in the Global economy Today?
by Charles L. Prow
The traditional approach to increasing national competitiveness has been to increase innovation and government investments in research and development, workforce development, and public infrastructure. Given todays fiscal realities, the nation must explore alternative policy approaches and ways for government to do its business. These alternatives can enhance national competitiveness in an environment where major new investments will be difficult. The book on which this forum is based addresses three topics that, together, offer a competitiveness agenda different from the traditional approach. Section I sets the context for the current national debate on fiscal stability by describing the long-term structural debt of the country, which will be a key priority of policymakers in coming years. Section I also offers a path for creating a nonpartisan framework for setting national priorities in that context, which should foster fiscal sustainability and thereby enhance national competiveness. Section II identifies targeted policy interventions in key sectors of the economy that could lead to improved national competitiveness, but within the context of the fiscal austerity our nation will face for the foreseeable future. Section III offers a value-oriented, enterprise operating model for the federal government, based on commercial experience, which could lower operating costs by up to $1 trillion over a decade while improving mission performance and services to citizens. Because the federal government, as an enterprise, is such a large segment of the overall economy, this new operating model could bring about similar changes in the broader economy, thereby improving productivity and enhancing national competitiveness. Lawrence Haas, a former top White House official, and David Walker, former Comptroller General of the united States, set the stage in stark terms. Haas writes, We must make tough decisions about what we want government to do and how we will pay for it. Haas and Walker vividly describe how the federal governments long-term fiscal condition appears to be dire because of unfunded commitments, an aging population, and spiraling health costs. Walker notes, Our greatest challenge relates to the tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded medicare, Social Security, and other obligations which total over $65 trillion. Historically, when a nations debt exceeds 85 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), its growth and competitiveness are imperiled. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the u.S. debt is projected to reach 75% of GDP in 2013. Based on recent research by the Peterson-Pew Commission, budget expert F. Stevens Redburn describes in Chapter Three (which is excerpted in this forum) a new strategic approach for reforming our countrys budgeting processes, noting, We must learn to conduct our fiscal affairs in a larger way and
The Imperative to Create Long-Term Fiscal Sustainability

The first section of the book sets the context for why the annual deficit and the long-term debt of our nation matter to our competitiveness in the global economy, and gives some strategic steps that can be taken to change course.
SPRING/SummeR 2012
59
over a long horizon, to focus as much attention on benefits as on costs, and to measure our fiscal commitments both by their sustainability and by their contribution to societys highest aspirations. Gail Fosler, former president of The Conference Board, says that national competitiveness is no longer defined solely by measures of international trade or relative cost competitiveness. She says that it is increasingly being measured in terms of a countrys ability to raise living standards in a balanced way and that against these more powerful measures of economic welfare the united States is clearly falling behind. By some estimates, the u.S. federal government faces an annual structural budget deficit of between $500 billion and $700 billion. The Presidents National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (also known as the BowlesSimpson Debt Commission) produced a plan in December 2010 setting a target of nearly $4 trillion in deficit reduction through 2020. The Debt Commissions plan incorporates six major components: Discretionary spending cuts Comprehensive tax reform Health care cost containment mandatory savings Social Security reforms to ensure long-term solvency and reduce poverty Changes to the governance process In any case, restoring long-term fiscal sustainability is not sufficient. If we just do that, we havent made the country more competitivewe have only made it solvent. We also need to change the way our national government does its businessboth in the policy and operational realmsin order to be competitive in the global economy.
The Banks of the Potomac Are Littered with Studies and Initiatives
There is an enormous body of knowledge about reforming government, some of it referenced in this book. many credible experts and associations have shared ideas and pilot program results to help address the debt. examples are the Bowles-Simpson Commissions 2010 Report of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, and mcKinsey & Companys 2009 study, The Case for Government Reform Now. The mcKinsey study suggests that a 15-percent improvement in the efficiency of the federal government could generate up to $1.3 trillion in savings over the next 10 years. These studies were preceded by a number of other efforts over the past 40 years, including: The Advisory Council on Government Organization (The Ash Council), 196971 The Presidents Reorganization Project (The Carter Reorganization Project), 197779 The executive Committee of the Private Sector Survey on Cost Control in the Federal Government (The Grace Commission), 198284 The National Performance Review (The Gore Reinventing Government Initiative), 19932000 The Presidents management Agenda (G.W. Bush), 20012008 The Accountable Government Initiative (Obama), 2010present The consensus view of these studies and efforts is that there are many paths to improving performance and reducing costs. There is no shortage of ideas on what reforms are needed and how they should be implemented. more attention needs to be spent on execution.
New Policy Approaches Can Enhance Competitiveness

The second section of the book describes how our nation can enhance economic competitiveness by making targeted policy changes in key sectors of the economy with relatively small new investments. It delves into those critical areas where the federal government needs to assert a leadership role, and needs to reframe how it views these factors.
60
In Chapter Five, economist Jason Fichtner notes that there are solutions to enhance united States competitiveness now, regardless of the state of todays economic business cycle. He offers several broad policy prescriptions in areas such as tax policy and regulatory and product liability reforms as approaches to improve national economic competitiveness in the near term. Professor Anthony Carnevale observes in Chapter Six that better linking existing information between suppliers of higher education and the broader labor market could leverage greater economic growth. He recommends that state and national policymakers tie job exchanges (online jobsearch engines) to learning exchanges that match job openings and career pathways to available courses offered by postsecondary institutions in the classroom and online. He says the data exist in the u.S. Departments of education and Labor, but they need to be better connected. In Chapter Seven, Dr. Jack meyer says, Over the past several decades there has been a fundamental disconnect between government cost control policies and the underlying forces driving up health care spending. He says the bottom line is that government is not a smart buyer of health care. In response, he offers specific initiatives to bend the health care cost curve using smarter strategies to control costs. These include continuing investments in health information technology systems, targeting effective new technologies to patient clinical needs, improving care management for people with chronic illnesses, moving to bundled payments, and focusing more attention and resources on communitybased prevention programs. Dr. Howard Geller writes in Chapter eight that The united States is farther behind than many other countries in its level of energy efficiency. For example, he says that u.S. chemical and petrochemical industries could improve their energy efficiencies by 30 percent and this would allow them to catch up with their peers in other countries. He says, Full deployment of cost-effective, energy-efficient technologies in buildings alone could eliminate the need for any new power plants in the u.S. through 2030. He describes three strategies to increase energy efficiency, including setting more challenging efficiency standards. Taken together, the chapters in this section offer an exciting roadmap as to what our countrys next steps in improving its national competitiveness can be if we leverage existing resources in new ways. But there are also ways the federal government, as the nations largest enterprise, can enhance competitiveness in the broader economy.
Moving to an Enterprise USA Approach in Government Can Enhance Competitiveness

If the federal government were viewed as an enormous enterpriseenterprise uSAand if it were to focus its activities in ways that improve economic competitiveness, it could be a catalyst for improving the competitiveness of the broader economy. After all, the entire economy is severely constrained if the federal government, which is one-quarter of the economy, is underperforming. The book concludes with Section III, focusing on ways to adapt private-sector best practices in managing operating costs to the federal government. The secret to increased productivity and reduced costs in the private sector in the past decade has been to focus on value and to take an enterprise-wide perspective. mission-support costs in the governmentfor enterprise activities such as personnel, contracting, and supply chain managementhistorically average about 30 percent of total operating costs, while in the private sector these costs typically average about 15 percent. Section III offers opportunities for improvement. No longer will traditional cost reduction programs that trim around the edges be an adequate strategy for paring costs. Instead, government leaders need to develop new valuedriven business and operating models within and across departments and agencies that will cut cost and time, and enhance the service and quality of government operations. In addition, leaders will need to take an enterprise-wide
SPRING/SummeR 2012
61
World Economic Forum Reports U.S. Is Slipping

For the past three decades, the World economic Forum has published an annual report on global competitiveness. Its 20112012 report says The united States continues the decline that began three years ago, falling one more position to 5th place. The Forums report notes that the u.S. has strong economic fundamentals in place, but that its governance system is in question. It notes that the business communitys trust in politicians is not strong (50th) policymaking is assessed as less transparent (50th), and regulation as more burdensome (58th). The Forums report defines competitiveness as the set of institutions, policies, and factors that determine the level of productivity of a country. It says that a more competitive economy is one that is likely to grow faster over time. It defines competitiveness further as having 12 pillars that serve as determinants of productivity and competitiveness: Institutions Infrastructure macroeconomic environment Health and primary education Higher education and training Goods market efficiency Labor market efficiency Financial market readiness Technological readiness market size Business sophistication Innovation The Forum also notes that these pillars matter to all national economiesranging from developed countries such as the u.S. to emerging countries such as Zaire but their mix and importance varies, depending on each countrys stage of development.
Source: World Economic Forum, The Global Competitiveness Report 20112012. (http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GCR_ Report_2011-12.pdf)
approach to how they deliver their missions and operate their support functions. This is how the commercial world has significantly reduced its costs while improving both performance and competitiveness. Adopting some of the commercial worlds operating models could result in an estimated $1 trillion in cost reductions in mission-support functions over the next decadeapproximately $125 billion in cost reductions per year while also improving the value of all essential government missions. Because of the scale of government operations in the context of the overall economy, this could fundamentally improve our national competitiveness. Chapter Nine offers a conceptual framework for how government leaders should approach their missions. They should start with the value their programs create. This is followed in Chapter Ten [which is excerpted in this forum] with a challenge by the former federal administrator of e-government and information technology, mark Forman, who writes, Government today spends more on information technology (IT) overhead costs than on the direct costs of mission systems. And he asks the obvious question: Why does the government spend more on managing IT than on the mission systems themselves? In answering his own question, he describes the changes that need to occur in both the technologies government uses, such as increased reliance on cloud technology, and changes to how IT systems are governed. In Chapter eleven [which is excerpted in this forum], supply chain expert Raj Sharma notes that the federal government purchases more than $500 billion of goods and services each year, but the process is cumbersome and inefficient; hundreds of purchasing offices work independently with little or no coordination. He says that adopting commercial supply chain best practiceswhere integrated purchasing staffs and strategic cost and supply chain management are common could save hundreds of billions of dollars. For example, he recommends a shift in the role of government contract officers from managing purchases and price to managing supply chains and total cost. He says that to do this, though, would have profound implications on everything from the alignment of purchasing staff and processes to key capabilities required of purchasing organizations. But he also notes that the current fiscal environment offers an unprecedented opportunity to not only transform the way government purchases but also the way it manages its supply chains. Former Assistant Comptroller General Jeffrey Steinhoff advocates the use of advanced business analytics to significantly improve government performance. He says advanced analytics can be used in reduction of improper payments,
62
This is an election year. Americans will have a chance to engage in the candidates debate of ideas on where we go as a nation in the coming years. I hope the book contributes to that debate. This forum introduces the main themes of book while also highlighting insights from selected contributors. Charles Prow is the IBM general manager of Global Business Services and Public Sector business, including federal government, state and local government, and healthcare. With more than 25 years of experience, Mr. Prow has assisted large, complex organizations in the private and public sectors to transform their operations through technology implementation. He has also served as chairman of Open Applications Group and the Supply Chain Council. He is currently on the Executive Steering Committee of the Corporate Responsibility Officers Association and is a board member of the Wolf Trap Foundation for the Performing Arts.
targeting suspicious tax returns for audits, de-layering administrative processes and controls, cutting the time for processing benefits claims, and identifying areas for risk management. expanding the use of analytics, widely done in the private sector, can both improve government performance and take out potentially billions of dollars of costs. In Chapter Thirteen, defense expert William Phillips and commercial consultant Debra Cammer Hines share their experience in applying shared services models to both mission-support and mission-specific services. The authors then describe how private industrys use of the shared services model could be adopted and adapted more widely in the way government does business, if government were to view itself as a broad enterprise rather than a confederation of loose functions.
TO LEARN MORE
Governing to Win: Enhancing National Competitiveness Through New Policy and Operating Approaches edited by Charles L. Prow
The book is available at bookstores, online booksellers, and from the publisher at www.rowmanlittlefield.com, or by calling (800) 462-6420.
SPRING/SummeR 2012
63
Governance Is the New Competitiveness Imperative

by Gail D. Fosler
National competitiveness is no longer defined solely by measures of international trade or relative cost competitiveness. The recent trends toward open economies, global supply chains, and the migration of people and intellectual and financial capital all combine to undermine the concepts of comparative advantage that have traditionally served as the underpinning of what we understand as competitiveness. For example, the design and production of a Ford Taurus or a Toyota Nissan can occur simultaneously in 40 locations around the world with a mix of geographic centers of excellence for componentssome different but many the same. Based on these developments, the following questions arise: Who is competing with whom? How distinct are the relative advantages of different countries? How unique is the value that countries can command in terms of growth and jobs from the international marketplace? In todays world, external competitive forces, largely operating through global supply chains, can reshape national economies and, most important politically, determine how economic opportunities, benefits, and costs are distributed. To respond to these radically changed global dynamics, a new framework is needed for understanding the nature of national competitiveness. competitiveness under these terms is defined by the capability of a country to provide the operating and governance context for growth, economic opportunity, employment, and balanced income growth for its citizens. It is against these more powerful measures of economic welfare that the united States is clearly falling behind. The united States is failing to provide the improvements in living standards and economic opportunity that lie at the heart of the American dream. Throughout the 1990s and most of the past decade, the u.S. GDP grew faster than that of most industrialized countries, as can be seen in Figure 1. However, as is now painfully clear, growth in recent years was fueled by unsustainable amounts of borrowing. Over the past five years, u.S. growth has come to track more closely with europes, long recognized as a slow growth rate. The u.S. slowdown is particularly striking in the face of continued progress in emerging markets such as Brazil, China, and India.
Redefining National Competitiveness

In this new, more integrated global operating model, markets reward innovation and efficiency regardless of their geographic source. These rewards may be recorded in international trade accounts, but are more likely to be reflected directly in a countrys ability to raise living standards in a balanced way. In this new paradigm, the performance measures of competitive success become much more aligned with the measures by which a country judges its own economic performance and is judged by the general public. National
64
Figure 1: U.S. Growth Pattern Resembles Europes

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Figure 3: Growth in U.S. Per Capita Income Remains Below 2007 Levels
U.S. China Euro Area
145 140 135 130 125 120
GDP in Trillions (Constant in 2010 US$)
Per Capita GDP (Index, 2007=100)
China
India Indonesia Singapore Brazil
India Brazil
115 110 105 100
U.S. Euro Area

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
90
92
94
96
98
00
02
04
06
08
10
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
95
Sources: The Conference Board Total Economy Database, The GailFosler Group LLC
Sources: The Conference Board Total Economy Database, The GailFosler Group, LLC
Figure 2: Per Capita Income Stalled in the U.S. and Europe

60,000
Figure 4: U.S. Unemployment Higher Than in Most Other Advanced or Emerging Economies
14
Per Capita GDP (in US$)

Percent Unemployment
50,000
U.S.
12 10 8 6 Euro Area U.S. Canada United Kingdom Brazil Germany China
40,000
Euro Area
30,000
20,000
10,000
Brazil China India

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
4 2 0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Sources: The Conference Board Total Economy Database, The GailFosler Group LLC
Sources: IMF, World Factbook, Statistics Canada, UK Office for National Statistics, BLS, Statistics Bundesamt, The GailFosler Group LLC
Relative growth differences between the united States and other countries are reflected in relative per capita incomes, as can be seen in Figure 2. emerging markets have been able to advance their citizens economic welfare even during and after the financial crisis, whereas incomes in both the united States and europe have stalled. It is important to note that because emerging markets are developing from such low income levels and have higher population growth, it is to be expected that they will grow faster than advanced economies do. What is unique and worrying in the present environment is not the high growth rate of emerging markets, but the inability of advanced economies, particularly the united States, to grow at even modest rates.
If the levels of per capita income today are benchmarked to 2007s, the comparisons are even more striking. The u.S. and europe are still well below the pre-financial crisis peak, as can be seen in Figure 3. What the figure shows, however, is that for the same time period, the growth of per capita incomes in emerging market nations is much higherin the case of China, almost 50 percent. At the same time, the power of the u.S. jobs machine has diminished. Figure 4 shows that the united States has a higher unemployment rate than Germany, Canada, and even the united Kingdom do. The u.S. rate is currently about the same as the european unions, which is plagued by high double-digit rates in the countries facing fiscal crisis, such as Spain and Greece. Large emerging markets like Brazil
SPRING/SummeR 2012
65
and China have unemployment rates well below that in the united States. equally disturbing is the decline in the share of Americans with jobs. The u.S. has always prided itself in putting its people to work. However, today, the u.S. employs less than half of its populationabout the same as the troubled e.u. and significantly less than Brazil and China.
of the respondents agreed on the following top four elements: Has the best educated labor force Has the leadership and resources to achieve domestic and international goals Has the best legal/regulatory/general operating environment for business Is politically and economically stable Being a low-cost producer in leading globally competitive markets and having the fastest growth rates were ranked at the bottom of the list by survey respondents. Similarly, the broad role of governance ranked high among the effective actions for improving the united States competitive edge. The competitiveness agenda was remarkably far-reaching. On the question of what America should do to restore its competitive edge, three-quarters or more of the survey respondents identified the following actions as the most effective: The importance of developing a coherent, pro-growth economic policy The ability to make hard economic decisions The need to reduce the federal deficit Tax reform Of the 16 options on the list, however, 12 were identified as most effective or very effective by over half of the respondents. These actions include improving education, reducing government regulation, reforming health care entitlements, and a national energy policy. The national competitiveness debate, which in years past was defined in narrow terms of relative productivity performance and market innovation, has now broadened to include almost every aspect of economic and social policy action. The survey results show a striking alignment between competitiveness and global economic leadership, as measured by perceptions of which countries are likely to lead the world in the future in terms of growth, innovation, and an ability to provide growing living standards for their citizens. China ranked number one in competitiveness, chosen by 56 percent; China also had a striking performance in global leadership, with 70 percent of the respondents expecting China to be either number one or number two in global economic leadership five years from today.
Rethinking the Role of Governance in the National Competitiveness Agenda

In a world of intense mobility of value and resources, one element remains unique to the national character: a nations governing structures. These structures include the formal institutions of government, the processes by which legal, economic, and social decisions are made. They also include the processes for regulating important elements of the economy, and the goals and performance of key economic and social institutions (including corporations and private businesses, education, health care systems, and the family). It is through these institutions, processes, and practices that a nation can take control of the sources of economic success and find resolutions to barriers that stand in the way of balanced prosperity for the broad population. This new view of competitiveness is underscored in a recent Business Council survey of national competitiveness. When leading CeOs of global corporations were asked to prioritize a list of key elements of national competitiveness, 90 percent
66
The united States remains number one as the likely future global leader, but confidence in u.S. leadership has slipped compared with a few years ago. At the same time, the united States ranks a clear number two to China in terms of competitiveness. Among other emerging markets, Brazil was seen as making large strides in both national competitiveness and global leadership potential. In the same survey, europe ranked near the bottom in both competitiveness and leadership. Despite europes strong trade performance, it is seen as neither competitive nor as a candidate for global leadership. europe should be an object lesson for the united States: competitive drift can turn into economic decline.
Developing Indicators of Effective Governance

(Adapted from the Website of the World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators Project)
The World Bank sponsored the creation of a Worldwide Governance Indicators project in 2010. The project identified six dimensions of governance, which were developed for over 200 countries and cover the period from 1996 to 2010. The project defines governance as: the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised. This includes the process by which governments are selected, monitored and replaced; the capacity of the government to effectively formulate and implement sound policies; and the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them. The project aggregates individual indicators around each of the following six dimensions: Voice and accountability Political stability and absence of violence Government effectiveness Regulatory quality Rule of law Control of corruption For example, the government effectiveness dimension draws on data from seven different sources, such as the economist Intelligence unit and The Global Competitiveness Report of the World economic Forum. For the u.S., the aggregate indicators are in the low 90s (out of a total of 100), and declined slightly between 1996 and 2009. Data for the index are drawn from four different types of source data, including surveys of households and firms, commercial business providers, non-governmental organizations, and public sector organizations.
Toward a New National Competitiveness Framework

The united States has made remarkable progress competing in the global marketplace on the basis of cost and quality and in bringing the benefits of global supply chains home to consumers and businesses. Nevertheless, it is evident from a range of income and employment measures that the united States cannot cost-compete its way to economic prosperity. even achieving a trade surplus and a balanced federal budget, while positive steps, are not the Holy Grail of national prosperity and competitiveness. There needs to be a new competitiveness framework that addresses the nations progress toward the larger objectives of American prosperity and it should be judged against performance measures that correspond to the modern needs and expectations of the American public. This is not an easy task and goes to the heart of the way the American democratic process works, including the structure of the federal system. To complicate the challenge further, the united States has developed a number of competitive liabilities as a result of its existing fragmented market and governance structures, which will not be easily overcome. These liabilities include the high and uncontrolled growth and cost of health care; the high cost and deteriorating quality of education; a slowdown in start-ups, innovation, and entrepreneurship; and the level of research and development spending. In addition, it has an infrastructure base that is not only deteriorating, but lacks the funding and the innovation to operate the existing system, as well as to build the next-generation system. These challenges of overcoming the liabilities discussed above are no greater than the ones America has faced and successfully managed in the past. What has been required
Source: World Bank, Worldwide Governance Indicators Project, http:// info.worldbank.org/ governance/wgi/index.asp
SPRING/SummeR 2012
67
tackling the most troublesome challenges of self-governance and forcing breakthrough decisions in areas like free-market adaptation, fiscal structures and prudence, education, and post-retirement security. Changing institutions and the rules by which they operate create winners and losers, to be sure. These actions are, however, predicated on a strong public case that the whole society wins in the long term.
Conclusion
The global competition for talent, knowledge, market, and resources is now determined not only by the quality of a nations workforce but how that workforce is trained, organized, managed, and led. Governance constitutes the competitive edge. The first country or region to succeed in meeting its governance challenges is likely not only to be rewarded with a new era of prosperity and stability, but recognized as a model state for others. Given its inability to advance a positive national agenda on a range of economic and social welfare issues, the united States faces huge and complex policy challenges without the conceptual framework or the leadership to move ahead. We need leadership but we also need a framework within which leadership can operate and be evaluated. The task is great and time is running out. Gail D. Fosler is president of The Gail Fosler Group LLC, a strategic advisory service for global business leaders and public policy makers. Fosler was twice named Americas most accurate economic forecaster by The Wall Street Journal.
in each instance during the long history of governance innovations is often a simple but nonetheless revolutionary re-visioning of existing structures with new goals and new standards of performance. At the core of todays governance challenges is the need for a new framework that includes flexible, dynamic, wellinformed, fact-based institutional and decision-making structures with a primary purpose of supporting security and prosperity for the American people. The political process can shape the values that guide the decisions of the governing process, but it cannot define the facts and the analytics by which options emerge. If we take a dispassionate look around the world, not only at the united States but also at the european union, China, India, and other emerging markets, past successes did not arise from a superior set of internal endowmentssmarter people, more natural resourcesnor are they economic consequences of a given stage of national development, such as an unskilled workforce. Successes emerged from
TO LEARN MORE
excerpted from Governing to Win: Enhancing National Competitiveness Through New Policy and Operating Approaches See page 63 for more information on this book made available from the Center.
68
Creating a Strategic Approach to Budget Decisions

by F. Stevens Redburn
Our governing institutions must be reformed in order to meet the enormous tasks we face as a nation. At the core of any well-functioning government is a budget process that policymakers can use to make big decisions about resources in a rational, informed way: How much government? Paid for how, by whom, and when? What are the highest priorities for limited resources? A properly functioning budget process would help stabilize and reduce the federal governments debt and do so intelligently by eliminating low-priority and ineffective public spending and tax expenditures (tax code provisions that work like spending programs), by investing in public assets to support stronger economic growth, and by reforming our tax system to collect revenue more efficiently and reduce its drag on private investment. If we cut spending without a strategic approach or raise tax rates without tax reform, we risk a period of slow growth and austerity that could economically cripple the country and threaten our position in the world. If instead we manage fiscal challenges strategically, we will be able to more effectively reallocate public and private resources to growth-sustaining investments vital for long-term fiscal stability. In the face of its greatest fiscal challenge, the federal governments budget process as we have known it since 1974 has collapsed. It seemingly cannot function in the face of wide partisan and ideological divisions that exacerbate the conflict already inherent in a system of shared and dispersed authority. The annual appropriations process used to make detailed choices about hundreds of important programs has practically seized up. Bigger choices about how to slow health care spending growth, deal with unemployment and slowing workforce growth, or modernize the tax system are being deferred. Increasingly, fiscal choices are made outside the normal budget procedures. But closed-door leadership negotiations and ad hoc temporary structures, such as the Joint Select Committee (also known as the Super Committee)
established by the 2011 Budget Control Act, cannot substitute for a regular, comprehensive, orderly review of all elements of the budget. A breakdown of familiar budget processes may create an opening for reform. The Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform and others have proposed changes to make the process more organized, disciplined, far-sighted, transparent, and smart. These reforms include setting fiscal targets in statutes, adopting fiscal rules and procedures to enact and sustain a multi-year plan to meet the targets, providing mechanisms to force policymakers to agree and enforce their decisions once made, and improving information on both costs and benefits of alternative policies and resource uses to inform decisions. Beyond these reforms, the united States needs an approach that is more strategic in its scope and capacity to prioritize the use of resources. It needs a new, rigorous review process that makes usable and uses information that we either now
SPRING/SummeR 2012
69
collect or could collect on the costs and expected results of alternatives. Put simply, given the hard choices ahead, the federal government needs to learn how to budget strategically.
Stein proposed that we should budget the . . . GNP before we start budgeting [what] the federal government spends. One benefit of a strategic approach is that it highlights nonbudgetary wayssuch as regulationin which government can influence the allocation of national output. A strategic approach requires explicit prioritization among important policy objectives, preferably tied to a comprehensive set of social indicators. Simon Johnson offers an example of strategic budgetary analysis: The returns to higher education have greatly increased over [recent decades], and the income prospects for anyone with only a high school education (or less) are not good. If anything, the tax system should lean towards becoming more progressiveand investing the proceeds in public goods that are not sufficiently provided by the private sector, like early childhood education and the kind of preventive health care that helps prevent disruption to education . . . A strategic budgeting approach also would recognize the complementary roles state and local governments and other federal partners play in shaping how societys resources are used. most of what the government does to improve the environment, expand opportunities and provide health care for the poor, build infrastructure, bolster homeland security, or pursue many other policy goals is done through various partnerships, with a mix of federal and non-federal resources and people. Considering where we are and the nature of our governing system and politics, how do we get from here to a budget process that is more strategic in its approach? How do we define and inform the main strategic choices and their expected returns with estimates of long-term benefits and costs? And how can we organize and use that information to compare the effects of budget and policy alternatives and make better choices? In short, what would a more strategic budget process look like if fully realized? A strategic approach would require: New ways of organizing and using information New decision methods Larger institutional reforms One thing would not change: budgeting would remain a political process of balancing conflicting values, views of government and its role, and material interests. That process would be organized, however, in a way that helps policymakers decide how to translate their priorities into better results through smarter allocation of limited resources.
Toward a Strategic Approach

A more strategic approach to the budget would direct resources to the highest priority policy objectives and find the means to most efficiently and effectively realize those objectives. It would be more far-sighted, taking into account the implications of current policy for the governments ability to meet future needs. And it would take a much broader view of the federal budget than we are used to. This way of thinking about and approaching the budget would be a dramatic change from the current practice of enacting policies and appropriations piecemeal with little regard for the long-term costs or social benefits of those actions. A strategic approach to budgeting requires a broader conception of what the budget is and does. Herbert Stein, former chair of the Council on economic Advisors, once observed: most of the federal governments expenditures are for purposes that it did not serve 60 years ago and that are also served by the private sector and by state and local governments. Sensible decisions about those expenditures can only be made after considering the total national provision for those purposes, and not just the federal provision. To correct serious omissions from the budget process, including consideration of tax expenditures and regulations,
70
most u.S. states have statute-based performance/results systems, tied in varying degrees to their budget processes, and sometimes used to redirect funds from poorly performing and low-priority programs to higher-priority and more promising uses. Virginia and Florida are among the leaders in using performance information to inform budgets. Floridas experience may be typical: it has had some success in improving legislative oversight and service delivery, but remains a work in progress. The federal governments experience resembles that of many state governments. It has put in place some building blocks of a performance-driven budget process, but progress has been gradual and documented payoffs remain scattered. If one generalization could be made about all experience to date, it may be that performance-informed budgeting can be introduced more fully and imposed on decisions with greater effect in parliamentary systems than in the more conflicted governance structures of divided powers and shared policy responsibility characteristic of the u.S. at both federal and state levels.
Lessons from Other Countries

We can take lessons from other countries and some u.S. states that have reformed their budget processes to make them more performance-focused and strategic, leading often to better use of resources and different fiscal outcomes. The Netherlands has found performance reviews to be powerful, using them in 20092010 to cut budgets by 20 percent in 20 policy areas. Reviews are chaired by policy officials not responsible for the policies being reviewed. Options are presented to the government, which makes the final choices. Lack of impact evaluations and efficiency measures has hampered the exercise. However, when reviews were finished just before an election, major parties adjusted their platforms to incorporate many of the recommended options. In Canada, all spending is now systematically assessed over a four-year period and must demonstrate value for money. Strategic Reviews assess existing spending to ensure alignment with priorities, effectiveness, efficiency, and economy. New spending proposals must include clear measures of success and options for offsetting reductions elsewhere. Programs have been redefined around strategic objectives; departments are accountable for higher-level outcomes and are given more discretion about resource uses in return. The approach is being used now by the Conservative government for decisions leading to achievement of a zero deficit by 2015.
Practical Next Steps

What are the practical steps required to move toward a more strategic way of budgeting? A set of new opportunities is offered by the GPRA modernization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-352). It requires the executive branch to identify selected federal priority goalsto improve policy outcomes that are the shared responsibility of more than one department or agencyand to plan and budget for these beginning with the FY 2013 budget process. OmB must consult with House and Senate budget, oversight, revenue, and appropriations committees on the goals selection. And OmB is given a stronger mandate to develop an annual government-wide performance plan setting out the federal priority goals and designating a lead official responsible for each. Taken seriously and used imaginatively, such a plan could be the foundation for a more strategic approach. To support strategic decisions, those who lead the budget process eventually will need to restructure budget decisionmaking around major enduring missions and long-term social goals. Budget development should begin with prioritization of the many important goals that the federal government pursues, with metrics tied to a comprehensive set of social indicators. New structures of accountability can be established around each major and many smaller policy objectives. New
SPRING/SummeR 2012
71
to conduct our fiscal affairs in a larger way and over a long horizon, to focus as much attention on benefits as on costs, and to measure our fiscal commitments both by their sustainability and by their contribution to societys highest aspirations.
Potential Payoffs
How will we know when we have the kind of budget process we need? We will know when the big commitments are made in a form that permits accountability for results and are backed by the resources and legislative authorities necessary for their achievement. Resources will have been reallocated on a large scale from low-priority, unproductive uses to high-return investments. making such strategic choices will increase the productivity of federal investments and have a corresponding, measurable effect on the economys growth, individuals well-being, and national competitiveness. procedures for systematic consultation between federal and state governments can be built for shared goals. For its part, Congress must be prepared to revise and streamline its jurisdictional responsibilities in ways that facilitate integrated authorizations for and oversight of spending, tax expenditures, and other policy tools for each major federal mission. And, as the executive branch is held accountable for performance, it must be given flexibility over the use of funds consistent with its explicit performance mandates and commitments. All of this will require not merely technical and organizational changes, but also a mental shift. We must learn F. Stevens Redburn is the new project director for the Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform, housed in the New America Foundation.
TO LEARN MORE
72
use Technology to enhance Productivity

by Mark Forman
The Problem
Government today spends more on information technology (IT) overhead costs than on the direct costs of mission systems. This is because government now has thousands of mission systems using legacy architecture, each built for a single purpose to support the needs of a single program or agency. Common standards, common definitions of like data, or enterprise approaches are rarely used in the federal government. Government does not often leverage IT to make things simpler, generate economies of scale, or increase collaboration. Over the last 20 years, mission systems have become more customized and focused on single programs or needs, making government information systems at once more siloed and complex. Customized mission systems require expensive tools and large specialized staffs to manage complex operations and maintenance activities. The Government Accountability Office reported in October 2011 that $26.5 billion is spent on systems that directly support agencies in the performance of their missions, while $35.5 billion is being spent on overhead costs to manage those systems (see Figure). The following questions need to be answered in order to get more value out of government IT spending: Why does the government spend more on managing IT than on the mission systems themselves? How would the government benefit from new technologies, and what specifically should be done to change governments current IT infrastructure? What is the role of the chief information officer (CIO) in addressing the cost and use of IT?
Spending on Systems Management Exceeds Spending on Systems (Government IT Spending In $B)
Mission Systems $26,466
A New Strategy for Government IT

In todays difficult budget environment, government needs to cut costs and improve results. In addition, todays policy issues require data, analysis, transparency, and program operations that cut across multiple government agencies. Since governments operations are information-intensive, its ability
Information & Technology Overhead $35,476
Back-Office Administration (FM, HR, SCM, Public Affairs) $9,593
Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office. Information Technology: OMB Needs to Improve Its Guidance on IT Investments, GAO-11-826, September 2011.
SPRING/SummeR 2012
73
to operate effectively and efficiently depends on how well it uses IT to access and manage information. Governments long-standing approach is to buy and customize systems for individual program needs at each agency. This approach separates information and operations into silos that constrain governments efficiency and effectiveness. Government needs a new strategic approach to IT. A new strategy would use cloud computing architectures to create less complex, less costly, and more collaborative tools. The new strategy would use new IT tools to improve the timeliness, performance, and cost-effectiveness of government operations. The federal governments current IT reforms focus on reducing IT spending (which accounts for less than 0.01% of federal spending this year). Instead, redirecting current IT spending to focus on improved mission operations of government would be a more beneficial and cost-effective strategy. Specific benefits of a new strategy would include fewer erroneous payments, reduction of risk in loan guarantee programs, quick identification of effective and ineffective programs, and reduced cost of government operations.
services improve agility, cost-effectiveness, responsiveness, openness, and results from government programs. many cloud computing services are now widely recognized brands, such as Salesforce.com, Google, and ADP Payroll Services. The 21st-century IT infrastructure is being built around cloud computing, enabling organizations to adopt a new productivity model. Cloud computing incorporates both a continuation of the long-term trend toward automation and commoditization of transactional processes and a newer, rapidly growing trend toward broader access to problemsolving tools. How can government use cloud computing to improve efficiency and effectiveness? A successful strategy would focus on transforming two types of business processes: Transactional government operating processes, including payments, inventory management, commodity purchases, and report filing. These should be simplified and standardized into repeatable, low-error rate automated tools that take advantage of economies of scale. Government analysis and decision-making processes, which should be transformed into team-based problemsolving environments that collaborate with government and non-government experts, leverage new data sources, and employ new analytic tools. Transactional government operating processes. This productivity improvement strategy builds upon long-term trends in automation and commoditization. Back-office operations of government are among the biggest opportunity areas, since they account for $9.6 billion of federal government IT spending and comprise human resources, financial management, supply chain management, procurement, public affairs, and similar systems. Today, these are acquired, customized, and managed as siloed systems, even when the government buys the integrated end-to-end business process software. A good example of the potential of cloud computing to assist in back-office operations is in the area of unmatched, or unreconciled, funds. Today, government bears the cost of significant growth in both unmatched funds and staff years devoted to reconciling transactions produced by these systems. As of 2010, the unmatched funds for the federal government totaled $17.4 billion. It is hard to validate the governments calculus of spending about $9 billion per year and generating nearly twice that in accounting errors that cannot be reconciled, as well as the untold staff hours spent reconciling billions more. If government adopts cloud computing services, it will be forced to use standard practices and shared services.
Implementing a New IT Strategy for Government

many argue that government productivity is now directly tied to how effectively it uses IT. Government should take advantage of new approaches for rapid deployment of IT capabilities by acquiring IT as a service; this practice is now commonly referred to as cloud computing. Instead of new capabilities requiring large capital investments and years of sophisticated project management, todays cloud computing
74
control gate on agencies use of technology. CIOs will have to become the change agent for modernizing government in the 21st century, and that includes changing their own operations. To implement the new strategy of using cloud computing, we recommend the following.
Recommendation One: CIOs will have to maintain traditional IT controls, while developing new paradigms for managing IT-as-a-service models.
Increased use of cloud e-mail tools is just the tip of the iceberg. many fear the growing cyber threat environment will be exacerbated by cloud computing. Done correctly, cloudbased solutions offer better security than government data centers, which now contain much redundant data. CIOs will need to develop and obtain agency agreement on a hybrid cloud computing vision that provides advantages of ownership (including security and privacy controls), while rapidly obtaining the benefits of new tools and economies of scale. Government analysis and decision-making processes. Cloud computing tools enable more rapid, high-quality problemsolving to improve productivity. Studies show that problemsolving improves when people develop ideas and then use tools to share those ideas in a collaborative environment. As a result of IT infrastructure changes made to implement the 9/11 Commission findings, there has been significant progress in the area of counterterrorism. Other examples include the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Boards use of transparency concepts and tools. using these tools, citizens identified potential fraudulent behavior, yielding 7,600 complaints from the public that have led to about 1,650 investigations for fraud, waste, and abuse. Both of these advances resulted from the adoption of cloud computing approaches and tools for collaboration, data sharing, and analytics.
Recommendation Two: In the immediate future, CIOs will need to identify and prioritize replacement of legacy IT with new cloud-based service models.
The new approach must recognize that government is no longer dependent on its own IT organization, and that the discussion must focus on which cloud computing tools can drive big gains in mission operations productivity. The emerging CIO role will be IT services brokering and sourcing, including overseeing the identification, evaluation, and acquisition of cloud-based services for transactional business processes, data, analytical tools, and collaboration. At the same time, the CIO has to create and maintain robust enterprise information assurance services. The CIO must be both the chief geek and identifier of strategic use of emerging IT solutions. Mark Forman is currently co-leading a new venture in Government Transaction Services. From June 2001 through August 2003, Mr. Forman was appointed by the president to be the first administrator for E-Government and Information Technology.
Making It Happen: Recommendations

Government will have to change the way it has traditionally bought and managed IT. It must now move to a servicebased construct. As an outgrowth of the new strategy, the following will need to change: The role and function of the chief information officer IT capital investment and spending processes IT purchasing processes Over the past 10 years, technologies (such as virtualization) and IT security and privacy concerns have driven chief information officers (CIOs) toward being the chief geek or
TO LEARN MORE
SPRING/SummeR 2012
75
Rethink Government Purchasing and Supply Chains

by Raj Sharma
The Opportunity
The federal government purchases more than $500 billion of goods and services each year, buying everything from pens and paper to engineering services and fighter jets. most experts agree that the government purchasing process is cumbersome and inefficient; hundreds of purchasing offices work independently with little or no coordination. The term purchasing is used throughout to refer to what is more commonly referred to as acquisition within the federal government. Without greater transparency into all transactions or supplier relationships, purchasing staff by necessity focus on tactics to reduce price and manage individual transactions, as opposed to strategically managing cost and supply chains. The result of the present system is redundancy of a high order and billions of taxpayer dollars wasted every year. The good news is that within the Washington beltway, some have recognized this opportunity and have been pushing reforms into agency purchasing practices for years. However, these initiatives have only incrementally moved the needle toward a more efficient and effective system. Why? The primary reasons previous reform efforts have delivered marginal results are: Besides the goal of reducing waste, there is no clear vision for what is required or expected of the purchasing system (or acquisition system as it is more commonly referred to). The lack of an end-state vision has resulted in a patchwork of reforms with no clear end goal or outcomes, sowing confusion and frustration on the part of those who can help drive the change. There is a narrow focus on basic commodities and an even narrower focus on negotiating better deals, as opposed to managing and reducing total costs across supply chains. It should be noted that some of this has started to change, especially with the broader information tech-
nology (IT) reform agenda laid out recently by the Office of management and Budget. Necessary changes to organizations, processes, and policies are not made, thereby allowing inefficiencies to creep back into the system.
A Pragmatic Approach to Transforming Government Purchasing and Supply Chains

Given the current fiscal environment, there is an unprecedented opportunity to not only transform the way government purchases but also the way it manages its supply chains. Based on lessons learned from previous initiatives, input provided by various experts, and on-the-ground experience of some of the worlds leading companies, the pragmatic plan proposed below can drive efficiencies in the near term while transforming government purchasing and supply chains over the long term. While most elements of the recommendations proposed in this chapter require no formal policy or legislative changes, all will require the partnership and input of key
76
stakeholders including the White House, Congress, agencies, and suppliers. The overall intent of the following recommendations is to broaden the discussion beyond tactics and help inform the agenda for purchasing reform going forward. The first recommendation focuses on redefining the role of government purchasing. Recommendations two through six focus on initiatives that can be implemented in the near term and begin to drive immediate benefits. Recommendations seven through nine require broader transformational and structural changes that can be implemented over the longer term.
Strategic sourcing and category management: Second, we must shift emphasis from managing individual purchases to managing supply chains. This can be best accomplished by restructuring resources and processes to manage categories of goods and services (e.g. IT hardware, professional services). The obvious benefit is leveraged buying power. even more important is the improved visibility into transactions, performance, and costs, as well as an overall reduction in resources required. Supplier performance and relationship management: Third, we must move from managing individual suppliers to managing entire supply chains.
Recommendation One: Re-Envision the Role of Government Purchasing From Managing Purchases and Price to Managing Supply Chains and Total Cost
The role of government purchasing, as defined today within the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), is to deliver on a timely basis the best value product or service. This definition can best be described as tactical and inward-looking, focused primarily on managing individual transactions and negotiating best price or value. This myopic view has also led to purchasing being perceived as a back-office function that gets in the way more often than it adds real value. many leading private-sector companies, meanwhile, define the role more expansively and strategically. Purchasing is viewed as critical to achieving corporate mission since it focuses on key activities such as cost management, supplier alignment, innovation, and risk management. Going forward, the Office of management and Budget (OmB) should propose a new vision for purchasing, one that goes beyond current definitions. The new vision must bring forth a fundamental shift in thinking on the role of purchasing, from managing purchases and price to managing supply chains and total cost. more specifically, the role should be redefined as helping government agencies achieve their policy priorities by aligning and managing supply chains to deliver capabilities at lowest total cost. Government agencies now need to anchor their resources around three key capabilities fundamental to world-class purchasing: Modeling total cost: Instead of focusing solely on price, world-class purchasing organizations develop an understanding of total internal and supply chain costs. Going beyond their own costs, world-class purchasing operations understand the cost breakdown for any purchased item or service (e.g. labor, materials, transportation, etc.).
Recommendation Two: Appoint a Chief Federal Supply Chain Officer to Lead a New Office of Federal Supply Chain Management
elevating the role of purchasing to manage supply chains must begin at the top. A new position of chief supply chain officer (CSCO) should be established, analogous to the creation of the federal chief information officer position. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy should be renamed the Office of Federal Supply Chain management. The CSCO should head the new office and focus on gaining visibility, improving coordination, and reducing costs across the largest and most critical government supply chains. The CSCO should also be empowered to coordinate new initiatives, facilitate the sharing of best practices, and coordinate management and collaboration with governments largest and most strategic suppliers.
Recommendation Three: Strengthen the Role of Departmental Headquarters and Redefine the Role of Departmental Chief Procurement Officers
Private-sector, corporate world-class purchasing departments wield significant clout. By building strong capabilities, corporations are able to help set standards, deploy critical capabilities (such as cost modeling), facilitate knowledgesharing, and manage the sourcing of non-critical common categories. Benefits include reduced duplication, improved buying power, and enhanced coordination. unfortunately, the federal government has failed to realize many of these benefits. Often, federal agencies purchasing offices, located in headquarters, are weak or powerless and provide limited capabilities beyond writing and administering policy. In cases where some operational capability is present within headquarters purchasing offices, it often does not have the power to enforce compliance due to decentralized organizations and budgets.
SPRING/SummeR 2012
77
Going forward, the role of headquarters purchasing functions within departments should be redefined to go beyond policymaking to include centralized management of non-critical common categories, management of supplier performance and relationships, and centralized capabilities in key areas such as cost modeling. merely redefining the role will not be enough, however. The headquarters function should be further strengthened by redefining the role of the departmental chief procurement officer (CPO) to encapsulate the current roles of the chief acquisition officer and senior procurement executive.
Recommendation Six: Implement TechStat-Style Reviews of Major Acquisition Programs

All agencies should rapidly adapt the highly successful TechStat review process, established by the federal CIO for the area of IT program review and governance, for all major acquisition programs. The largest government acquisitions should be scrutinized at the OmB level and the next tier of programs should be evaluated at the agency level. To be sure, changes will be required to the TechStat review process for broader adoption. ultimately, the goal of the acquisition program reviews should be to improve overall program performance while reducing total cost in coordination with key suppliers. If done correctly, benefits such as those accrued through the TechStat reviews are possible.
Recommendation Four: Strengthen Strategic Sourcing and Centralize Management of Common Categories
Strategic sourcing, while not new to the federal government, is still in many ways in its infancy. most initiatives are being run with limited resources and no real integration into business processes. many initiatives remain focused on consolidating contracts rather than focusing on all value drivers, including managing demand and improving supplier relationships. even when some initiatives are able to generate value, compliance is low due to the decentralized nature of agencies. Going forward, government departments should: establish strategic sourcing functions. Centralize management of non-critical common categories. establish category managers for the largest and most critical categories.
Recommendation Seven: Restructure the Workforce and Transform the Culture

To improve productivity and effectiveness of the workforce and to realize the redefined vision of purchasing, the Office of management and Budget, along with purchasing leaders from the departments, should build on current workforce initiatives and develop a workforce transformation plan that addresses the following key issues: Alignment of workforce. moving forward, government agencies should develop a plan to realign the workforce in order to strategically manage critical supply chains, efficiently manage transactions, and centrally deploy critical capabilities. Skill sets. The shift envisioned, from management of transactions to strategic management of categories and supply chains, requires a significant change in skill sets. Key skills
Recommendation Five: Establish Supplier Performance and Relationship Management Programs

In spite of being the largest purchaser in the world, the federal government lacks the most basic capability when it comes to managing supplier relationships. For instance, most departments have no enterprise-wide view of their supplier performance. Building on recent initiatives such as Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and OmB mythbusters initiatives, the federal government should establish formal supplier performance and relationship management programs in order to: Gain full visibility and transparency into supplier performance via performance scorecards Develop improvement roadmaps, identifying specific initiatives that lead to overall improvement in quality and supply chain costs
78
required of world-class purchasing organizations include problem-solving, strategic thinking, financial analysis, and relationship management. Culture. The culture of government purchasing has traditionally been defined as risk-averse. It is critical that government purchasing leadership, starting at the top, begin to establish a culture that promotes collaboration and some level of risk-taking.
Why Many Purchasing Reform Initiatives Deliver Marginal Results

All government agencies purchase common items like office supplies, software, and furniture. In most cases, these items and services are purchased independently, often by multiple offices within each agency. Not only does the current method mean that government misses out on the efficiencies that result when buying collectively and managing suppliers together, it also means there are numerous, redundant resources. Does it really make sense for hundreds of contracting officers to be buying office supplies across the government? To fix this, many agencies have launched wellintentioned strategic sourcing initiatives to coordinate purchases and better manage suppliers. In many cases, agencies or government as a whole, through programs like the Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative, have been able to negotiate better deals and drive changes to other behaviors that lead to substantial savings. However, because these initiatives are layered on top of fragmented processes and decentralized budgets where each office controls its own money, getting everyone across an agency or government to leverage these deals remains difficult. In many cases, compliance remains very low and savings have been slow to come by.
Recommendation Eight: Streamline the FAR and the Procurement Process

While the intent of the Federal Acquisition Regulations is to ensure stewardship of taxpayer dollars and a level playing field for suppliers, the morass of acquisition policies and regulations in many ways works against that very noble intent. Instead, purchasing processes have become so complex that only those in the know can compete for government purchases. The primary goals underpinning any future reforms should be to: Simplify and streamline regulations including the FAR Rationalize the legislation and policymaking apparatus that currently results in conflicting rules issued by different parts of the government Standardize and streamline common processes, tools, and forms that impose significant costs on both government and industry Gain complete visibility into each government supply chain through an integrated data model that tracks key supply-chain metrics Define the role of technology in streamlining and standardizing processes
Leverage commercial sourcing and marketplace platforms that maximize competition and open up the federal market to more qualified suppliers Gain complete visibility into each government supply chain through an integrated data model that tracks key supply-chain metrics Standardize government contract writing systems Integrate end-to-end processes with suppliers Raj Sharma is a visiting fellow at the Center for American Progress. He is the founder of the Federal Acquisition Innovation and Reform Institute (FAIR), and is also the founder and chief executive officer of Ceseo Consulting Group.
Recommendation Nine: Leverage Technology to Improve Transparency, Maximize Competition, and Drive Down Cost
One of the biggest opportunities lies in the governments ability to leverage proven supply chain technologies to enhance productivity and decrease overall cost of managing each supply chain. Going forward, government should develop an integrated supply chain technology strategy, building on activities such as the Integrated Acquisition environment, an ongoing presidential e-government initiative managed by the General Service Administration, with the goal of leveraging proven technologies already resident within the marketplace. Specifically, a holistic supply chain technology strategy should seek to:
SPRING/SummeR 2012
TO LEARN MORE
79
Viewpoints
Reform of the Federal IT Budget Increasing Strategy, Decreasing Complexity

By Dan Chenok
The federal budget process is an exercise in time travel. At any given moment, agency budget and program managers may live in as many as three years at the same time. Right now, those three years are FY2012 (the budget for which spending is currently happening); FY2013 (the year beginning this October 1, now under consideration by Congress regarding the presidents budget request); and FY2014 (the budget year agencies begin to plan for in the spring, submit to OmB in September, and carry out the request that ultimately emerges from the president in February). Then the three-year cycle begins anew. Agency budget planning generally occurs through identifying a spending ceiling level for a large number of program accounts that have multiple parts (sub-accounts). Over the past two decades, this picture has become even more complicated by the fact that Congress rarely enacts a budget by October 1. So agencies face a division of the second year in the three-year cycle into two parts: the first part, characterized by a continuing resolution that keeps spending levels at the same ceilings as the previous year; and the second part, in which the rest of that years money is spent under the Congressionally enacted levels. This means that over the spring and summer of 2012, agencies plan for spending that will occur a minimum of 14 months later (FY 2014, beginning October 1, 2013). If that spending occurs toward the end of FY 2014often the case as agencies spend more money as the year-end deadline approachesthe time lag from initial planning to spending can be up to 30 months.
The Complexity of the IT Budget

This temporal budget calendar becomes even more complex for chief information officers and other IT and budget executives because of the way that the budget for federal information technology (IT) is developed. Since the 1990s, OmB policy has required agencies to submit their IT budgets through the exhibit 53 (see http://www.itdashboard.gov/faqagencies/exhibit-53-fields for more information), which is
an aggregate total of all IT spending reported to agency IT budget officials on both large (major) IT projects and other smaller projects. unlike the core budget described above, where the administration requests and Congress sets overall (topline) levels of spending for individual accounts, the IT budget aggregates actual spending on technology projects in a bottoms-up fashion. Because most agencies do not make technology a separate account in their budget (a notable exception is the Department of Veterans Affairs), the IT budget sums up project-level spending across multiple budget accounts that occurred last year, is occurring this year, and is forecast to occur next year. In effect, the three-year cycle for IT spending differs from that of the rest of the budget in how it is put togetherbottoms-up, rather than through spending within toplines that are tied to budget accounts. This makes IT spending harder to control, year-to-year (or, since agencies live in three years at once, year-year-year to year-year-year). The federal IT budget has grown consistently since the late 1990s, from roughly $35 billion in FY 2000
80
Viewpoints
Dan Chenok is a Senior Fellow in the IBM Center for The Business of Government. He is responsible for thought leadership in the area of government technology and government management improvements. He also leads consulting services for Public Sector Technology Strategy working with IBM government, healthcare, and education clients. (which started in October 1999) to the current $80 billion, for three primary reasons: agencies have identified more spending as IT (for example, spending in a program budget for an IT system that is brought into the IT budget) agencies have actually planned to spend more on IT as a strategic resource agencies have increased spending on IT during the year, due largely to either new projects not in their original plan or cost overruns on current projects The first of these factors represented a large portion of the increase for several years after 2000, as agencies were able to get more visibility into which investments they made on technology. The second factordetermining where to allocate IT spending as a strategic resourceshould be where agencies spend the most effort and make the most considered choices. However, the third of these factors has actually been the cause of a large percentage of the increase in measured IT spending. The extent of the increase due to projectlevel spending growth can be seen by examining the difference over time between planned spending for the budget year (the third of the three years in the IT planning cycle) against two related totals: the enacted spending level (the second year in the planning cycle), or that IT spending that agencies estimate will occur in the current year (aka the year in which budget request is made) the actual spending level (the first year in the planning cycle), or the IT spending that agencies confirm occurred in the prior year (aka, the year before the budget request is made). The chart below demonstrates this trend clearly. From 2004 until 2011, the IT budget request grew from $59.4 million to $79.4 million, or a change of $20 million. However,
IT Spending Over Time ($000s) Proposed (Budget Year) $59,370 $59,875 $65,180 $63,847 $66,405 $70,914 $78,440 $79,375 $81,241 $78,878 $20,005 Enacted (Current Year) $59,329 $60,543 $63,531 $64,911 $68,314 $74,225 $80,645 $78,784 $79,464 Actual (Prior Year) $60,183 $62,228 $66,215 $65,554 $72,777 $76,135 $80,727 $80,183 Year 1 Spend Growth -$41 $668 -$1,649 $1,064 $1,909 $3,311 $2,205 -$591 -$1,777 $6,876 Year 2 Spend Growth $813 $2,353 $1,035 $1,707 $6,372 $5,221 $2,287 $808
Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total (2004-10)
$20,597
Source: Exhibit 53s, 20032012
SPRING/SummeR 2012
81
Viewpoints
measuring the requested total against the actual spending for that same year shows an increase of $20.6 million due to new spending over timemeaning that the entire requested increase in spending went to pay for additional costs of projects, or additional projects started, after the initial request for a given year. To understand the case for a given year: the 2004 request was for $59.4 million, while actual spending came in at $60.2 million; the similar difference for 2005 was $59.9 million for the request and $62.2 million for the actual spend. This pattern was repeated for every year. Only during the last two budgets has this difference leveled off. In effect, agencies forecast a certain level of spending in the budget year based on actual spending in the current year but the repeated pattern for most of these years has been growth in actual spending over that expected by the agency forecast. This means that even when administrations hold down IT budgets in their forecastas the Obama administration has done, including a first-ever decrease in the Department of Defense IT budget for FY 2013 (http://www. cio.gov/FY2013-IT.pdf )spending increases during the year can raise actual spending on IT in ways that OMB and agency CIOs have less ability to control. Such a pattern crowds out capacity to direct IT spending toward strategic priorities. As indicated earlier, the VA has brought IT spending into a visible account controlled by the CIO, based on authority granted by VAs authorizing and appropriations committees. This allows the CIO to review IT spending for the budget year and make topline allocationsif cost increases occur in actual spending, budget control can be exercised because agencies cannot spend more than is authorized under a given account (to do so would violate the Antideficiency Act, which carries criminal penalties). The OMB 25-Point Plan for IT Reform (http://www.cio. gov/documents/25-point-implementation-plan-to-reformfederal%20it.pdf) calls upon Congress to vest greater authority for IT spending in agency CIOs through reforms in budget rules that would make IT more like the rest of the budget. Strong central CIO control of a central IT budget reflects one model. Another model would be to create an account where the CIO coordinates the control of spending with program executives, since IT is not a program end unto itself but rather a means to achieve programmatic goals; in this latter model, the IT budget would be built through account-level assignments that come together as coordinated by the CIO. In fact, both models require strong coordination to implement properly. This is not to say that the visibility into actual spending under the Exhibit 53 should be eliminated. As the chart on page 81 shows, tracking actual spending is critically important to understand trends and provide accountability, a fact reinforced by current initiatives like USASpending,gov, Recovery.Gov, and the DATA Act that recently passed the House of Representatives. But linking the IT spending to the overall budget, in a way that provides greater ability for CIOs to work with program executives in making strategic IT spending decisions as a conscious and integral part of budget planning, will help to control that spendingnot to mention making the three-year budget cycle a little less complicated, at least for IT.
Moving Toward More Control of IT Spending

How can OMB and the agencies work together to shift longterm IT spending from being dominated by year-to-year cost growth, and place more emphasis on strategic allocations for key government priorities? The answer lies primarily in continuing to bring the IT budget closer to the fiscal budget in how it is put together. As noted above, the budget process does not view IT as a distinct spending classification within the overall budget. Under this process, neither OMB nor Congress can simply change the topline of IT spending, at least not through conventional budget control mechanisms (in theory, Congress could set a limit on IT spending and agencies would have to do a lot of manual adjustments to their budget planning to comply, but that has not occurred and would be very cumbersome to implement.) OMB has, since the Bush administration, sought to link the Exhibit 53 line item for a technology project to the budget account that pays for that project. This has the benefit of increasing transparency but does little to control spendingthe IT project is often a small portion of a larger budget account, or can be funded through combining funds from multiple accounts or sub-accounts, which makes IT spending difficult to control.
82
Forum: Governing to Win Management Enhancing National Competitiveness
This article is adapted from A managers Guide to evaluating Citizen Participation (Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government, 2012).
A managers Guide to evaluating Citizen Participation

By Tina Nabatchi
Whether by law, mandate, mission, or values, public managers at all levels of government are expected to engage citizens in a wide variety of issues. Such expectations will continue to grow given the calls for more participation in government. Perhaps the most notable call was President Obamas 2009 Open Government memorandum and Open Government Initiative (http://www.whitehouse.gov/Open), which was aimed at increasing public participation in federal decision-making. In addition, numerous groups and organizations are now seeking to implement and institutionalize citizen participation in the regular work of government, and there has been a proliferation of research devoted to the subject.
Direct citizen participation in public administration can be broadly defined as the process[es] by which members of a society (those not holding office or administrative positions in government) share power with public officials [i.e., public managers and other agency officials] in making substantive decisions related to a particular issue or set of issues.
Understanding Key Factors in Citizen Participation

Citizen participation can take a wide variety of forms depending on the presence and extent of many key features. Size. Size of a process can range from a few participants to hundreds or thousands, and online processes potentially involve millions. Purpose. Processes are used for many reasons: to explore an issue and generate understanding, to resolve disagreements, to foster collaborative action, or to help make decisions, among others. Goals. Objectives can include informing participants, generating ideas, collecting data, gathering feedback, identifying problems, or making decisions, among others. Participants. Some processes involve only expert administrators or professional or lay stakeholders, while others involve selected or diffuse members of the public. Participant recruitment. Processes may use self-selection, random selection, targeted recruitment, and incentives to bring people to the table. Communication mode. Processes may use one-way, two-way, and/or deliberative communication. Participation mechanisms. Processes may occur face-toface, online, and/or remotely. Named methodology. Some processes have official names and may even be trademarked; others do not employ named methodologies.
Understanding Citizen Participation

What is Citizen Participation?
Citizen participation can be broadly defined as the processes by which public concerns, needs, and values are incorporated into decision-making. Citizen participation happens in many places (e.g., civil society, electoral, legislative, and administrative arenas) and can take many forms (e.g., methods may range from information exchanges to democratic decision-making). understanding Key Factors in Citizen Participation describes several other features by which participation processes may vary. Citizen participation may be indirect or direct: Indirect participation, such as voting or supporting advocacy groups, occurs when citizens select or work through representatives who make decisions for them. Direct participation occurs when citizens are personally and actively engaged in decisionmaking. This report focuses on the evaluation of direct citizen participation in public administration, namely, processes that: Are organized or used by government agencies Are designed to achieve specific goals Involve some level of interaction between the agency and participants
SPRING/SummeR 2012
83
Management
Tina Nabatchi is an Assistant Professor of Public Administration and International Affairs at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. She is also a Faculty Research Associate at the Program for the Advancement of Research on Conflict and Collaboration (PARCC) at Syracuse University. Locus of action. Some processes are conducted with intended actions or outcomes at the organizational or network level, whereas others seek actions and outcomes at the neighborhood or community level, the municipal level, the state level, the national level, or even the international level. Connection to policy process. Some processes are designed with explicit connections to policy and decision-makers (at any of the loci listed above), while others have little or no connection to policy and decision-makers, instead seeking to invoke individual or group action or change. Develop collaboration. Bring groups and people together to address an issue Make decisions. make judgments about problems, alternatives, and solutions Scholars and practitioners have developed numerous models, frameworks, and typologies for understanding citizen participation, but perhaps the most prevalent is the International Association for Public Participations Spectrum of Public Participation.
What are the Goals of Citizen Participation in Public Administration?

Citizen participation can have many goals. When determining goals, public managers must be mindful not only of their own needs, but also the needs (and interests) of potential allies, stakeholders, and citizens. For example, participation can be used to: Inform the public. Let citizens know about issues, changes, resources, and policies Explore an issue. Help citizens learn about a topic or problem Transform a conflict. Help resolve disagreements and improve relations among groups Obtain feedback. understand citizen views of an issue, problem, or policy Generate ideas. Help create new suggestions and alternatives Collect data. Gather information about citizens perceptions, concerns, needs, values, interests, etc. Identify problems. Get information about current and potential issues Build capacity. Improve the communitys ability to address issues
Environmental Protection Agency

The environmental Protection Agency (ePA) serves a wide variety of citizens, stakeholders, and partners in its work. To effectively do its job of protecting public health and the natural environment and serving its various customers, the ePA must communicate with them and listen to their ideas. It does so through a wide variety of activities, including participatory events such as forums, workshops, public meetings, Federal Advisory Committee Act group sessions, and community-wide exchanges, among others. The ePA also uses a variety of tools for collecting information about customer satisfaction, including informal sessions, focus groups, surveys, comment cards, Internet feedback screens, and more. In an effort to improve its ability to collect and use satisfaction information, the ePA (through a participatory process) developed a set of guidelines for agency-wide use. The resulting document, Hearing the Voice of the Customer, is available online (ww.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/feedback/voice.htm). using the suggestions and steps outlined in this ePA document will help managers and evaluators think through the aspects of collecting satisfaction data in a wide variety of participatory program and processes.
84
Management
The IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation presents a fivepoint continuum of participatory processes: inform, consult, involve, collaborate, and empower.
The Challenge of Evaluating Citizen Participation

Program evaluation is defined as the systematic application of social science research procedures to assess the conceptualization, design, implementation, operation, and outcomes of projects or programs. Simply stated, program evaluation is the process of collecting, analyzing, and using information to understand how a program is operating and/or the outcomes and impacts it is having on the recipients, organizations, and society. There are several types of program evaluation. This report focuses on two types: process evaluation and impact evaluation. Before exploring these two types of evaluation, it is useful to examine the importance and challenges of evaluating citizen participation in public administration. A growing number of agency programs now employ and deploy different approaches to citizen participation. At present, there exist no systematic comparisons of citizen participation processes and methods, despite the fact that agency officials are increasingly required to engage the public. Public managers need to move toward more comprehensive and methodical evaluations of citizen participation to improve understanding of where, when, why, and how citizen participation works and does not. evaluation will help future managers understand what type of participation, under what circumstances, creates what results.
Management. evaluation provides useful and practical information about a program in its context that can help administrators monitor and improve implementation and management. For example, evaluation can offer a fresh look at a program, increase knowledge and awareness of program impacts, identify areas for program improvement, track changes and impacts over time, and help determine whether a program should be modified, expanded, continued, or cancelled. Finance and resources. evaluation can help ensure that public monies and resources are being used appropriately and efficiently. In an era of budget scarcity, evaluation can be used to assess the costs and benefits of public participation programs, to determine whether participation saves time and money in the long run, and to ascertain how best to allocate financial, human, technological, and other resources to achieve desired goals. Such information will be extremely useful for justifying programs, particularly when those programs are effective but at risk of being scaled back or cut altogether. Legality. evaluation can help managers determine whether their participation programs are adhering toand meeting the intentions ofrelevant laws, rules, and mandates. Because much citizen participation is mandated by law, it is important to understand how such programs are being used to accomplish broader societal or legal goals and how well they are serving the needs of government writ large, as well as the needs of individual agencies and the public.
Pinellas County, Florida

To evaluate its information activities, the Pinellas County metropolitan Planning Organization (mPO) in Florida examined several indicators, including the number of hits on its website and the number of times relevant documents and maps were visited and viewed. Counting mechanisms were built directly into their website. The mPO also used a pop-up web survey to learn how citizens stayed informed about mPO activities. The mPO also developed and implemented a tracking system to capture data about its public outreach events (which could be categorized as either consult or involve). This system has a simple user interface in which staff members record data about events, including their titles, topic, date, location, and attendee numbers. The mPO is currently working to create mechanisms to track how many comments are received and how they are handled.
Benefits of Evaluating Citizen Participation

evaluations are important because they are used to judge the merit or worth of programs, processes, policies, and performance, and can yield numerous benefits for agencies, managers, and other associated stakeholders. evaluating citizen participation has interrelated benefits that include the following: Accountability. evaluation can help improve and verify accountability structures. elected officials, agency personnel, stakeholders, civic leaders, and citizens want to know if the programs they are funding, implementing, voting for, objecting to, or receiving are actually having the intended effects. Answering this question can only be done through evaluation. evaluation can help serve these ends by providing one mechanism of quality control.
SPRING/SummeR 2012
85
Management
Multi-City Our Budget, Our Economy (OBOE) Events

Description of Initiative On June 26, 2010, AmericaSpeaks convened more than 3,000 individuals in 19 communities across the united States (plus 38 volunteer-organized community conversations) to discuss how America should handle its growing national debt. The event was meant to create a distinctive opportunity for ordinary Americans to deliberate about these momentous choices according to their own values. The Our Budget, Our economy (OBOe) events intended to provide one inputthe considered views of ordinary Americansinto the deliberations of the professional policy-making bodies such as President Obamas National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Program Evaluation Component Concurrent with the design of the OBOe event was evaluation planning. Several sources of data were used to evaluate the OBOe event, including participant surveys, site-based field reports, tablelevel keypad responses, control group surveys, elite opinion surveys, and census data. One of several evaluation reports focuses on numerous issues, including: Who participated? What did individuals think should be done to control the federal deficit? Did the views of participants change after participation? How? What was the underlying structure of OBOe participants preferences for policy change (e.g., were preferences guided by political ideology)? To what extent did OBOe shape participants attitudes as citizens? How did participants evaluate their experience of public deliberation in the OBOe process? The OBOe evaluation provides not only some significant results about the impact of public participation, but may also serve as a model for public managers wishing to engage in evaluation of their participatory efforts.
Case Studies About the Impact of Participatory Programs on Public Policy

Participatory BudgetingCase study research on participatory budgeting in Latin America generally, and specifically on Brazil, shows discernible effects on redistribution of public resources to poor neighborhoods (e.g., marquetti 2002). There is also evidence that Brazilian municipalities using participatory budgeting between 19962000 spent higher proportions of their budget on health care relative to municipalities that did not use participatory budgeting. A World Bank (2008) evaluation of participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre, Brazil, found that participation in the budget reduced poverty and improved access to water and sanitation. Consultations on Pandemic Influenza PlanningA recent case study examines the Canadian experience with using public participation for pandemic influenza planning, and the impact of participation on the final national policy. The case study used multiple sources of data, including: Survey data from participants measuring the degree to which citizens expected their advice to be taken into account and the extent to which they would trust the ultimate recommendations, knowing how much advice was being sought Data from the work of the planning team as communications were developed about the consultations for decision-makers Interviews with policy-makers to identify how and when the proposals entered the decisionmaking process, and how well citizen and stakeholder input was considered alongside legal, ethical, scientific, and financial streams of evidence, and input from international organizations and agencies An analysis of the recommendations produced through the participatory process Based on this data, as well as an examination of the final national policy, the study concluded that public participation had a significant and meaningful impact on the policy-making process and on the final policy. For more information on these and other case studies about the policy impacts of public participation.
86
Management
Ethics. evaluation can help make sure that participation programs have fair and appropriate representation and that participants understand the impact of their contributions. This makes participation programs more likely to foster democratic values such as transparency, accountability, and legitimacy, among others. Ownership. When done right, evaluation can help build ownership of problems, processes, and outcomes (both within and outside the agency). Within the agency, evaluation signals that a program is supported and considered meaningful. Outside the agency, evaluation demonstrates to allies, stakeholders, and citizens that the agency is interested
in improving its participatory processes. This might generate interest among outside groups in assisting with evaluation and taking a stronger role in addressing the problem or issue for which participation is being used. Research and theory support. evaluation can help improve the study and practice of citizen participation. most research on citizen participation has dealt with questions about scope (Who participates? How many participate? How is participation structured?). There has been less focus on questions of quality (Is participation effective? What are its impacts and outcomes?). These and other questions about quality can only be answered through evaluation.
The Seattle Neighborhood Planning Program

In 1994, Seattle established a Neighborhood Planning Program that encouraged citizens to create their own plans to manage future growth with funding support from the City. By the end of 1999, over 16,000 citizens in 38 geographically defined neighborhoods had been involved in planning processes. As the city grappled with the complexities of effective citizen participation, it needed to: understand why some participation efforts were perceived as effective and accountable while others were not Identify the barriers to effectiveness that some efforts faced Determine how to ensure that future participatory processes were inclusive, accessible, and open to all citizens understand whether and how citizen participation was used (and could be used in the future) to accomplish broad citywide goals and meet needs Determine how to maintain the viability and involvement of stewardship groups to help implement the 38 approved neighborhood plans These issues motivated the Seattle Planning Commission to conduct an evaluation of citizen participation efforts to identify basic characteristics of effective participation and to make recommendations to the City regarding future City support of citizen participation. Although the commission took the lead on the evaluation, it also worked with an interdepartmental staff team and an outside consultant, and got input on the evaluation design from citizens active in participation processes. The commission also held a public forum to present the results and draft recommendations before finalizing the report and giving it to the city council and mayor for action. Data were collected from multiple sources using multiple methods, including: Archival data (obtained by working with relevant city staff) A mail survey to participants that focused on their experiences and opinions In-depth interviews with city staff and participating citizens to test the mail survey results and obtain specific comments about some issues Telephone interviews with a random sample of citizens Focus groups with city staff, participating citizens, and members of the City Neighborhood Council Archival data and interviews with key staff in five other cities that had active neighborhood-based participation efforts The planning commission asserts that the evaluation project provided rich information regarding how various City-sponsored citizen participation efforts operate, what citizens perceptions of their role and effectiveness is and what needs to be done to improve these City-supported processes. In addition, the evaluation report was particularly useful in identifying what is working and ways to improve how City-initiated and supported citizen participation can be more effective.
SPRING/SummeR 2012
87
Management
An Overview of Program Evaluation

Program evaluation has five basic steps: Pre-design planning and preparation evaluation design Implementation Data analysis and interpretation Writing and distributing the results A number of books provide detailed overviews of program evaluation, so only a brief discussion of the steps is presented here. For a summary of each step, refer to the box below.
Evaluating the Implementation and Management of Citizen Participation

A process evaluation is a systematic assessment of whether or not a program is operating in conformity to its design and reaching its specified target population. The general goal of a process evaluation is to enhance a program by understanding the inputs and outputs of its implementation and management more fully. Accordingly, a process evaluation can help with several areas of program administration. For example, a process evaluation can help gauge what worked and what did not; it can help assess whether a program is being managed and administered efficiently; it can identify areas for program development and improvement; it can help appraise accountability mechanisms; and it can help determine a programs potential for replication by others. When conducting a process evaluation, three questions are important to keep in mind: What is the program intended to be? What is delivered by the program in reality? What are the gaps between program design and delivery? To answer these questions, the most important areas to consider are arguably program organization, service delivery, general and program-specific outputs, specific program features, and intervening events. It will be up to the program manager and the evaluator to determine which of these (and potentially other) areas and questions are most important and applicable to the program being evaluated.
Basic Steps of Program Evaluation

1. Pre-Design Planning and Preparation Determine goals and objectives for the evaluation Decide about issues of timing and expense Select an evaluator(s) Identify the audience(s) for the evaluation 2. Evaluation Design Determine focus of the evaluation in light of overall program design and operation Develop appropriate research questions and measurable performance indicators based on program goals and objectives Determine the appropriate evaluation design strategy Determine how to collect data based on needs and availability 3. Evaluation Implementation Take steps necessary to collect high-quality data Conduct data entry or otherwise store data for analysis 4. Data Analysis and Interpretation Conduct analysis of data and interpret results in a way that is appropriate for the overall evaluation design 5. Writing and Distributing Results Decide what results need to be communicated Determine best methods for communicating results Prepare results in appropriate format Disseminate results
Evaluating the Impact of Citizen Participation

Process evaluation focuses on the what question, while impact evaluation focuses on the so what question. Specifically, an impact evaluation is a systematic assessment of whether an intervention (in this case a public participation program) achieved its goals and produced its intended effects. The general goal of an impact evaluation is to determine and reveal the extent to which observed changes in outcome indicators are due to program activities. Several challenges complicate impact evaluations and make them generally more difficult to conduct than process evaluations: Impact evaluations can only be done once a program has been implemented. many effects of participation take time to come to fruition; outcomes may not manifest for months or even years after the conclusion of a process.
88
Management
Impact evaluations presume a set of defined objectives and criteria of success; that is, they assume there is a definition of effectiveness. Determining the counterfactual is a challenge when evaluating participatory processes; it is hard to know what the outcomes would have been in the absence of participation. Despite these challenges, impact evaluations can generate valuable information. For example, they can help improve program effectiveness by answering questions about whether the program achieved its intended goals or changed intended outcomes; whether program impacts vary across different groups of participants or over time; whether there are any positive or negative unintended consequences or effects of the program; whether the program is effective in comparison to alternative interventions; and, whether the program is worth what it costs.
When conducting an impact evaluation, it is important to keep in mind some key questions, including: What does and does not work? Where, when, why, and how do certain elements work? What are the costs of the overall program and its specific elements? To answer these questions, several areas can be explored, among the most important of which are arguably efficiency, participant satisfaction, general outcomes, process-specific outcomes, specific program features, and intervening events. In the discussion below, specific evaluation questions are identified for each of these broad areas. The purpose and general goal of an impact evaluation is to determine whether a program achieved its goals and produced its intended effects. Impact evaluations can be
Differences between Process and Impact Evaluations

Process Evaluation Definition A systematic assessment of whether a program is operating in conformity with its design and reaching its specified target population. To better understand the inputs and outputs of program implementation and management What? What is the program intended to be? What is delivered by the program in reality? What are the gaps between program design and delivery? Inputs, Outputs To assess whether a program is operating in conformity with its design To determine whether a program is being managed well and efficiently To understand what worked and what did not To identify areas for program development and improvement Program managers and staff Other agency officials Impact Evaluation A systematic assessment of the outcomes or effects (both intended and unintended) of an intervention to determine whether a program is achieving its desired results. To determine whether a program produced its intended effects So What? What are the outcomes or results of the program? To what extent are these effects or changes in outcome indicators a function of program activities? Outcomes, Results To assess whether the program achieved its intended goals/outcomes To determine whether outcomes vary across groups or over time To ascertain whether the program is worth the resources it costs To help prioritize actions and inform decisions about whether to expand, modify, or eliminate the program Program managers and staff Other agency officials Legislators and elected officials Academics, researchers, and practitioners Program participants General citizens
Overarching Goal Overarching Questions
Focus Some Potential Uses
Audiences Likely to Be Interested
SPRING/SummeR 2012
89
Management
The Oregon Citizens Initiative Review

Description of Initiative Review The 2010 Oregon Citizens Initiative Review (CIR) was enabled by Oregon House Bill 2895, which asserted that informed public discussion and exercise of the initiative power will be enhanced by review of statewide measures by an independent panel of Oregon voters who will then report to the electorate in the Voters Pamphlet. In 2010, the CIR convened two small deliberative groups of randomly selected citizens to help the wider Oregon electorate make more informed and reflective judgments on two specific ballot measures in the general election. Program Evaluation Component Both panels and the consequences of the panels work for the 2010 CIR were evaluated. Specifically, the evaluation examined two questions, using different data for each. First, the researchers asked the question: Did the two CIR panels convened in August 2010 engage in high-quality deliberation? To answer this, they used observational data and before-and-after interviews with CIR panels and project staff, and assessed the quality of the Citizens Statement (i.e., the Voters Pamphlet). The results on this question showed that the panels carefully analyzed the issues and maintained a fair and respectful discussion process throughout the procedures. The Citizens Statements included most of the insights and arguments that emerged during deliberation and were free of factual and logical errors. Second, the researchers asked the question: Did the CIR Citizens Statements help Oregonians decide how to vote? To answer this question, they conducted a pair of statewide telephone surveys. The results on this question showed that those who read the CIR Statements found them to be helpful in deciding how to vote and become more knowledgeable about the issues; however, the majority of Oregonian voters were unaware of the CIR process and did not read the CIR Statements. This evaluation effort produced some notable results and recommendations that were used by the Oregon state legislature; in 2011, the legislature created a new agency to continue the CIR process. In addition to its results, this evaluation offers evidence to public mangers that evaluation of participatory efforts matters.
useful managerial tools that assist in several aspects of the participatory program. The discussion about impact evaluation above presents several important areas to be assessed and analyzed, and offers specific questions and indicators to do so. Additional important questions can and should be developed for a thorough impact evaluation of citizen participation in public administration. However, by assessing efficiency, participant satisfaction, general outcomes, processspecific outcomes, specific program features, and intervening events, a manager should be able to determine and reveal the extent to which observed changes in outcome indicators are due to program activities, and make changes and other decisions accordingly. managers can use this report to help systematically think through the elements essential to evaluating citizen participation processes. The two types of evaluation presented in this report provide effective strategies for assessing citizen participation programs and have the potential to improve public managers ability to envision and execute such evaluations. The goal of this report is not only to increase public managers understanding of and ability to evaluate citizen participation, but also to produce results that, in the long term, will help
managers determine whether, where, when, why, and how to engage in direct citizen participation efforts.
TO LEARN MORE
A Managers Guide to Evaluating Citizen Participation by Tina Nabatchi
The report can be obtained: In .pdf (Acrobat) format at the Center website, www.businessofgovernment.org By e-mailing the Center at businessofgovernment@us.ibm.com By calling the Center at (202) 551-9342
90
Forum: Governing to Win Management Enhancing National Competitiveness
This article is adapted from using Wikis in Government: A Guide for Public managers (Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government, 2011).
using Wikis in Government: A Guide for Public managers

By Ines Mergel
President Obamas call for a more collaborative government arrives on the heels of new tools to increase information sharing. Based on interviews with public sector information technology professionals and managers, this report examines the managerial, cultural, behavioral, and technological issues these government professionals face when using Wikis. It can serve as a guide to managing Wikis as collaborative tools in the public sector, providing practical examples and hands-on tips. This report will discuss key elements in the successful creation and maintenance of Wikis in the public sector, including: Evolution and management of Wikis. Who was involved in the early stages to create a critical mass of content pages? How was initial content seeded? Types of Wikis. With what type of information did the projects start? How are the writing and collaborative efforts supported? Best practices for Wikis. How did public managers convince public servants and citizens to participate and provide their knowledge in a Wiki project? How did they initiate change in behavior so that working with Wikis became the new standard operating procedure? What were the determinants in initiating change in the existing knowledge paradigm and the collaborative culture? The report examines the use of Wikis in nine case studies where Wikis are used intra-organizationally, inter-organizationally, or for public engagement. Based on these case studies, the report identifies five challenges that public executives will face when deciding whether to use Wikis. The report concludes with a description of best practices for Wiki managers and Wiki administrators who are in the process of implementing or considering implementing Wikis in their own organization.
What are Wiki Technologies?

Wikis are websites whose content can be created, edited, discussed, and changed by users working in collaboration. The word Wiki comes from the Hawaiian; meaning quick, it highlights the easy, fast editing capability of Wikis. Wikis facilitate interaction and project collaboration. The most prominent Wiki is Wikipedia, known as the worlds online encyclopedia. Wikipedia was founded in 2001 by Jimmy Wales to quickly create, edit, and change information on every term its contributors want to define. Authors can create a page on a specific topic and publish a draft, which is then open to the whole world for edits and changesand even deletion. The original Wikipedia page is structured through hyperlinks that connect keywords used in one article to the definitions provided in other articles. Definitions or content should not be replicated; instead, authors link to the original. The WYSIWYG principle (What You See Is What You Get) makes editing simple and easy. The formatting possibilities are reduced to a minimum, and pages are not intended to be flashy or nicely decorated, so that the content of the page is the focus of its authors and readers. every registered user but also every anonymous web surfercan edit content with a simple mouse click. The original Wikipedia idea was to give editorial rights to anyone, making Wikipedia a democratic content production site. Over time, the Wikipedia community has evolved into a hierarchical editorial system with several different levels of access. Wikipedia is built on Wiki software called mediaWiki. Recently a host of other free Wiki applications have emerged, such as PBWorks, Socialtext, Wikia, Wetpaint, or Wikispaces. All of these freely available tools are easy to navigate or maintain. They can be used as an open Wiki or as closed systems with restricted user access. Some of the Wiki software applications include instant messaging services among the authors, blogging, and other features supporting the collaborative process.
SPRING/SummeR 2012
91
Management
Dr. Ines Mergel is an Assistant Professor of Public Administration at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs and The Information Studies School (iSchool) at Syracuse University.
Wiki Use in Government

Wikis can be used for different purposes: Open information creation environments, such as Wikipedia, in which everyone can freely create collaborative content Specific purposes, in which case authorship rights might be limited to specific authorized users to co-create and share professional knowledge Personal note taking or full-fledged knowledge management systems on the corporate intranet In government, one example has recently made it onto the front page of the New York Times: The Army was rewriting its counterinsurgency manual and called for authorized personnel to help with the rewriting by using a Wiki application.
Wikis are highly interactive tools. They allow single authorship, joint authorship, bidirectional exchanges, and interactivity with their content. In the current Open Government environment, they can be used as externally facing tools to share content with stakeholders and will therefore contribute to potentially increasing the transparency of processes, decision-making, and information sharing. In addition, they are a way to increase participation in the public sector. For example, citizens can discuss the current content or contribute their own. Finally, they can be used as collaborative technology to support intra-, inter-, and extra-organizational collaboration and coordination of projects. The Government and Social media Wiki uses the Wiki format to produce a central hub for information and practical examples of how government organizations can use social media applications. For more information on this website, see http://govsm.com.
The Government and Social Media Wiki
Source: http://govsm.com.
92
Management
When, Where, and Why to Use Wikis in Government

Wikis can be used for different purposes. This report presents nine case studies that show the breadth of Wiki use in the public sector. The cases are organized by primary audience. Case Studies One and Two. Wikis designed for use by a single organization to allow its employees to share information internally. These Wikis are used for internal knowledge creation and sharing. Outsiders do not have access, and the Wikis are used in parallel with existing information-sharing applications. Case Studies Three and Four. Wikis designed primarily for information sharing across organizational units in government. These Wikis help government agencies provide a collaborative and information-sharing environment for a number of different agencies whose intranets are not connected. Case Studies Five to Nine. Wikis designed to engage the public by both sharing information and collaborating with citizens. The government organizations in these case studies created Wikis to engage citizens in the idea generation and policy definition processes. Citizens are invited, often for a bounded time, to submit their own ideas, comment on submissions, and help formulate final policy documents.
comply with the accessibility requirements and can be adopted across all levels of government.
Challenge Two: How do you ensure privacy and security of content?

In addition to the legal issues, there are also privacy concerns that present another challenge to public managers who want to adopt a Wiki approach in government. One response to this challenge is to seek to mitigate the risks of leaks or accidental exposure of proprietary information. managers should work with legislative staff and lawyers to avoid constant scrutiny.
Challenge Three: How do you respond effectively to different levels of digital literacy?
For public sector Wikis, inclusion is a very important issue. Citizens can very easily be excluded because of digital literacy issues, and therefore find no alternative to the information collaboratively collected, commented on, and reengineered on a Wiki. The interactivity with other citizens who are solely contributing and collaborating on the Wiki is lost for those potential contributors who arent able to access the Wiki. A remedy for this is to use other tools, such as e-mails, phone, or other forms of surveying the public participants.
Challenges and Best Practices for the Use of Wikis in Government

Challenge One: How do you meet legal requirements for inclusiveness?
Often public managers are hesitant to jump on the social media bandwagon, so it is not surprising that there is also hesitation to start using Wikis. It isas one of the Wiki managers saidstill an uphill struggle to do it. To remedy this, GSA has developed model contracts with a series of social media vendors that can be easily adapted to each agency and department in the u.S. government (Aitoro, 2009; GSA, 2010). The result are Terms of Service (TOS) with providers of no-cost social media products to comply with existing federal laws and government practices and needs (for more information see: https://forum.webcontent.gov/?page=TOS_FAQs). For example, many public managers are concerned that social media toolsamong them Wikisare not compliant with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. The model contracts with social networking service providers and the applications listed on the citizen.apps.gov website all
Challenge Four: How do you ensure the integrity of information?

Public managers will also face the challenge of responding to concerns about information overload and the potential loss of control over information contributions. As one Wiki administrator puts it, I think the bigger barrier to entry is that people think the minute they put something out there, people will jump all over it and mess it up. In most cases this is a relatively unnecessary concern, because most people search for information on Wikipedia or other publicly available, specialized Wikis. A response to this challenge is to explain and help to diffuse the fear of losing control by establishing clear guidelines and communication policy. managers should explain in detail how Wikis work and help coworkers understand the logic of the technology, and that there is always a way to revert back to previous versions, that content is never losteven though it might appear to be on first view. This will raise their awareness and confidence in the tool itself.
SPRING/SummeR 2012
93
Management
Challenge Five: How do you encourage participation?

The most difficult challenge is to create a new, collaborative culture that respects the existing hierarchical knowledgesharing culture established in any government organization. The traditional forms of collaboration, networking, knowledge sourcing and information sharing are very much organized along clear reporting structures and usually flow bottom-up.
The goal of this report is to highlight not only the technological challenges of implementing a Wiki, but also to share hands-on experiences and lessons learned during the implementation and subsequent organization-wide adoption process in a number of public sector organizations.
Best Practices to Encourage Participation

One way to understand what is needed and what can be asked of contributors is for managers to use the tool
Summary of Case Studies

Type Wikis for Intraorganizational Use Case Study 1. Diplopedia Goal Intra-organizational knowledge creation and sharing Sector Federal government; Department of State Federal government; Department of Defense Inter-organizational Federal knowledge sharing government; multiple intelligence agencies All levels of Canadian government Include stakeholders across government, industry, and public Bring experts together in joint information-sharing environment Federal government including external users Federal government including external experts on all levels; serving local Watershed conversations Local government Duration Launched in 2006 Access Only DOS access
2. DoDTechiPedia
Launched in 2008
Only DoD access
Wikis for Interorganizational Use
3. Intellipedia
Launched in 2006
For members of u.S. intelligence community (IC), by invitation With gc.ca e-mail address Public access, anonymous postings, login required Pre-approved access
4. GCPedia (Canada) Wikis for Engaging the Public 5. BetterBuy Wiki (GSA)
Launched in 2010
Launched in 2010 (time bound for specific RFPs)
6. ePA Watershed Wiki
Launched in 2009
7. Future of melbourne, Australia Wiki 8. San Jose, California WikiPlanning 9. manor (TX) City Wiki
Citizengovernment interaction Citizengovernment interaction Citizengovernment interaction
Time-bound: may June 2008 Launched in 2009
Open for citizens and other stakeholders Pre-approved access Pre-approved access
Local government
Local government
Launched in 2010 (ongoing)
94
Management
themselves to create energy and vibrancy so that others start finding value in it. Share the value and provide useful knowledge that makes it worthwhile for agency employees to come back on regularly. It will help them to incorporate the Wiki into their day-to-day routines. ultimately, the goal should be to create an environment that others want to join. As one of the Wiki managers said: Create the party everyone wants to join. No one wants to be the first or the last one at a party. Create a very basic joyful construct that social creatures want to be involved in. For specific taskssuch as public ideation processes on WikiPlanning or Future of melbourne Wikia time limit for public contributions increases the likelihood of contributing. People feel that this is their one shot at participation during a restricted time frame. Allow for brief windows of opportunity and publicly announce this participation event. Promoting the project in newspaper articles or during face-to-face forums increases the likelihood of online participation. As one Wiki manager states: engagement seemed to [be] incentive enough. Another remedy is to use gardeners or moderators to actively keep the platform clean of trolls who are following their own agenda but are not contributing on topic. An easy way to do this is to require only directly attributable contributions by users who have registered with a confirmed e-mail address. Anonymous contributions should not be allowed in a Wiki environment where a sense of online discipline and netiquette is necessary. This will help to increase the value of contributions and avoid chasing away potential contributors. Some industry contributors might be concerned about revealing too many insights that are attributable to their companiesin those cases, the Wiki administrator can post the information on their behalf without direct attribution. The already existing material needs to be easy to read, accessible, but not too perfect, so that potential contributors find it easy enough to comment and get over the first bump of writing and contribution anxiety. People feel more comfortable initially making minimal contributions, such as typo changes and correction to the material, before they become willing to contribute whole pages of new content.
Contributions need to be manageable for both contributors and the editorial team, so as not to create information overload and early frustrations. A reference group whose members are highly regarded in the organization can be helpful in supporting the project. They will be the champions who bring more people on boardshowing their commitment might in turn encourage others to follow. As an example, political bodies might need to step back to allow for free, open, and creative knowledge sharing. Bringing in high-profile users, who lead by example, can also help to convince others to share their knowledge. Another best practice is to actively thank contributors. People need to feel the satisfaction that their contribution made it into the formal part of the adopted final document, the vision of the new city or the new policy, or that their idea was endorsed by the city council. At the end, contributors generally need to feel that they are being heard and that they made a difference spending time on their contributions. Other recognition techniques include badges or highlighting people by name.
TO LEARN MORE
Using Wikis in Government: A Guide for Public Managers by Ines Mergel
The report can be obtained: In .pdf (Acrobat) format at the Center website, www.businessofgovernment.org By e-mailing the Center at businessofgovernment@us.ibm.com By calling the Center at (202) 551-9342
SPRING/SummeR 2012
95
Research Abstracts
Recently Published IBm Center Reports

Social Security in the BRIC Countries Danny Pieters, Paul Schoukens
This report examines the existing nature of social security in the BRIC countries in order to consider the likely trajectory of its future development. The report provides a useful reminder that, while the underlying pressures are at least to some extent similar, the starting places and norms are quite different. In addition, the globalized world of the 21st century brings new pressures compared with the conditions that applied in the 19th and 20th centuries.
A managers Guide to evaluating Citizen Participation Tina Nabatchi

The Obama administrations Open Government Initiative is now three years old, but is it making a difference? Dr. Nabatchis report is a practical guide for program managers who want to assess whether their efforts to increase citizen participation in their programs are making a difference. She lays out evaluation steps for both the implementation and management of citizen participation initiatives, as well as how to assess the impact of a particular citizen participation initiative.
A Leaders Guide to Transformation Robert A.F. Reisner

This guide can assist government leaders in better understanding the characteristics of successful transformations. The IBm Center asked Robert Reisner, an expert in government transformation, to interview a select group of federal executives who have recently undertaken major transformation initiatives in their organizations. Based on these interviews, mr. Reisner framed a series of interrelated steps which government executives should consider when they undertake any transformation initiative.
96
Research Abstracts
From Data to Decisions: The Power of Analytics Partnership for Public Service
Federal agency managers are demonstrating measurable improvements in programs by integrating data-based analytics into decision-making. This study reviews managers handling and results in seven federal programs spanning eight agencies, in which participants knew they needed to change agency culture to take full advantage of an analytics mindset. The research comes as agencies gear up to implement the 2010 Government Performance and Results modernization Act.
A Best Practices Guide for mitigating Risk in the use of Social media Dr. Alan Oxley, MBCS, CITP, CEng
This guide was written to help government managers, IT staff, and end users understand the risks they face when turning to social media to accomplish agency missions, and to mitigate those risks. The guide follows publication of several other recent IBm Center reports, which examine the current and potential use of social media by government agencies.
SPRING/SummeR 2012
97
How to Order Recent Publications

To obtain printed copies free of charge, please specify the number of copies needed and return this form to the Center either: BY MAIL IBm Center for The Business of Government 600 14th Street, NW Second Floor Washington, DC 20005 Order requests can be e-mailed to the Center at: businessofgovernment@us.ibm.com
BY E-MAIL
Name ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Title __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Organization ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City _______________________________________________________________________ State __________________________ Zip _____________________ Telephone ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ e-mail ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Publications can also be downloaded in Acrobat format from the Centers website: www.businessofgovernment.org.
REPORT TITLE
QUANTITY
Social Security in the BRIC Countries A managers Guide to evaluating Citizen Participation A Leaders Guide to Transformation From Data to Decisions: The Power of Analytics A Best Practices Guide for mitigating Risk in the use of Social media
98
CONNECTING
RESEARCh TO PRACTICE
businessofgovernment.org
Five easy Ways to Connect
Reports
Magazine
Radio
Blog
Books
Reports Books
Magazine
Reports RadioRadio Radio
Blog Blog Blog
BooksBooksBooks
Magazine Ma Magazin
600 14th Street, NW Second Floor Washington, DC 20005
LISten to
the BuSIneSS oF GovernMent hour

weekly conversations with government leaders
Mondays at 11:00 am Wednesdays at Noon Federal News Radio, WFED (1500 AM)*
* Washington, D.C. area only
About the IBM Center for the Business of Government The IBM Center for The Business of Government connects public management research with practice. Since 1998, we have helped public sector executives improve the effectiveness of government with practical ideas and original thinking. We sponsor independent research by top minds in academe and the nonprofit sector, and we create opportunities for dialogue on a broad range of public management topics. the Center is one of the ways that IBM seeks to advance knowledge on how to improve public sector effectiveness. The IBM Center focuses on the future of the operation and management of the public sector.
For additional information, contact: Jonathan D. Breul Executive Director IBM Center for The Business of Government 600 14th Street, NW Second Floor Washington, DC 20005
(202) 551-9342 e-mail: businessofgovernment@us.ibm.com website: www.businessofgovernment.org
About IBM Global Business Services With consultants and professional staff in more than 160 countries globally, IBM Global Business Services is the worlds largest consulting services organization. IBM Global Business Services provides clients with business process and industry expertise, a deep understanding of technology solutions that address specific industry issues, and the ability to design, build, and run those solutions in a way that delivers bottom-line business value. For more information visit www.ibm.com.

BoG Spr-Sum 2012

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

BoG Spr-Sum 2012

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

businessofgovernment.

The Business of Government

U.S. Social Security Administration

New York City Department of Homeless Services

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Department of Energy

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

Admiral Robert Papp

INFORMATIVE INSIGHTFUL IN-DEPTH

the BuSIneSS oF GovernMent hour

Conversations with government executives

* Washington, D.C. area only

From the Executive Director

From the Managing Editors Desk

Conversations with Leaders

Perspectives: Getting Big Things Done in Government

IBm Center for The Business of Government

Table of Contents (continued)

Forum: Governing to WinEnhancing National Competitiveness

The Business of Government

The Business of Government

From the Executive Director

The Business of Government

IBm Center for The Business of Government

From the Managing Editors Desk

Forum on Enhancing National Competitiveness

Perspectives on Getting Big Things Done in Government

The Business of Government

From the Managing Editors Keyboard

Conversations with Leaders

IBm Center for The Business of Government

Conversations with Leaders

On the History and Mission of the U.S. Government Accountability Office

The Business of Government

Conversations with Leaders

On Being Comptroller General and Leading GAO

On the Strategic Vision of GAO

On Challenges Facing the U.S. Government Accountability Office

IBm Center for The Business of Government

Conversations with Leaders

On Fiscal Sustainability and Debt Challenges

Debt Held by the Public as Percent of GDP

On Eliminating Overlap, Duplication, and Fragmentation in Government Programs

On the Changing Dynamic of Global Interdependence

On Achieving a Clean Financial Audit for the Federal Government

IBm Center for The Business of Government

Conversations with Leaders

The Business of Government

Conversations with Leaders

A Conversation with michael J. Astrue Commissioner, u.S. Social Security Administration

On Managing the Mission of the U.S. Social Security Administration

On Crafting a Realistic Strategic Vision in an Era of Fiscal Austerity

IBm Center for The Business of Government

Conversations with Leaders

On the Disability Program

Social Security Revenues, 2011

On the Measuring of Success: Quality over Quantity

The Business of Government

IBm Center for The Business of Government

Conversations with Leaders

The Business of Government

Conversations with Leaders

On His Legacy as SSA Commissioner

On Forging Partnerships and Collaboration