This Memorial Day, I’d like to honor the men and women who have served – not simply for the way that they died, but for the way they lived. They stood for something. They served. In some cases, they had the courage to deliberately go into harms way. They trained. They wrote letters. They made mistakes. They went to sleep and they got up the next morning. These were men and women like many of the men and women who are serving today.
If you feel motivated, turn to someone who is still serving and thank them. Tell them what their service and their lives mean to you. The moment you create for them can make a big difference in their lives.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Monday, May 9, 2011
Federal Decision Making
Who is in charge does matter, but good coordinating mechanisms matter more. The ability to make high quality business IT decisions is within reach, but making them part of our organizational fabric is easier said than done.
A "high quality decision" in this context is a somewhat complex concept that deserves a few words. High quality decisions maximize resources and minimize flail. They produce the biggest bang for the buck, mitigate "tail" or after-the-fact costs, and put "rounds on target" meaning they satisfy the organizational requirement for a given period of time (vs. a perceived requirement or collateral requirements). High quality decisions endure over time and reach distributed audiences in tact. They are clear, capable of being executed, and understood by all stakeholders involved.
It also bears mentioning that not making a decision at all can cost as much as making a poor decision. I have seen cases where not making a decision can cost as much as $1 million per day. A high quality decision, therefore, is also timely.
The Department of Defense (DoD), like other Departments, is struggling with some important problems. Pressure to manage resources more effectively is mounting, bureaucracy is slow, and business systems (like financial management and materiel management systems) are not working together as well as we would like them to. Interoperability, clean audit, financial visibility and common supplier engagement on a Department level are a few problems that remain elusive. Transformation of the DoD remains a top priority of the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
These problems are not new. The DoD has been wrestling with them for more than two decades. In my 20 years working with the government, a long line of leaders have stepped into the batter's box and taken their best swings. Each time a new leader steps up to the plate, hopes run high for about two years. Again and again, the “new” leader's ideas don't seem to work as planned and energy fizzles. Status quo washes away most of the progress made by individuals like ocean waves wash away sand castles. When one leader can't seem to make things work, we usually let them run their course and install a new one.
Occasionally, we get rid of them early. In either case, spirits soar once again. It is clear to everyone that the “new-new" leader is a good person and has some good things going for them. We continue to hope that each new leadership selection is the one that will take us across the goal line to real and lasting Transformation.
I've been behind closed doors and in meetings with people in high-level (1, 2 and 3 stars; and SES) leadership positions many times. Several of them have been kind enough to be references on my resume. In my experience, with few exceptions, these are good people and good leaders. They want to make a difference, and they put a lot of energy into doing what they can to fix problems and improve their environment. A few have confided frustration with the system they work in and a desire to do more.
The problem (and the solution) lies within the decision-making ecosystem - not with the individual decision makers. The decision-making ecosystem is often a dangerous place for a decision maker to work - often threatening a decision maker's longevity or overall effectiveness. It is full of political agendas, traps, and lack of clarity. The noise level created by the mass of information and competing interest groups can be overwhelming.
Staffs that support our decision makers are the best and brightest. They are loyal, resourceful and tenacious. They do their best to minimize the noise, protect their decision maker, and present the best possible alternatives for their decision maker to consider. The problem, at least when it comes to making high quality decisions in the business IT space, is larger than the decision makers and their staffs. It is the product of basic human nature, and an increasing level of complexity and connectedness. Fixing the problem requires a systemic approach, and it requires leverage.
The problem cannot be solved by any one leader, by staff work, or with good data alone. The decision making system must be supported in such a way as to minimize risk for the decision maker (ensuring their survival is not threatened by making the "right" decision). It must be supported by accurate and complete information that is served up in a time frame that works for the decision cycle time. And it must contain adequate feedback mechanisms for both the decision maker and the ones affected by the decisions.
Minimizing risk means giving our decision makers the freedom to make the right decisions without the threat of doing damage to their career or reputation. A common way to get rid of a "disruptive" decision maker is to discredit them or fail to support them on other important issues after they make an unpopular (even if correct) move. No leader wants to spend a career getting into a place where they can make a difference, only to spend all of their political capital and kill their career over a single difficult issue.
Accurate and complete information means cutting through the noise, working out the dependencies, and ensuring collateral issues are clearly identified and easy to address. Too often, especially in a world where technology is ubiquitous - crossing the boundaries of many ecosystems - performing one action can be duplicative (raising cost), contradictory (raising cost), or otherwise have unintended consequences (usually raising cost).
Understanding the complete picture accurately is not possible through unassisted human effort. Modeling, analysis and data sharing techniques are available today that can mitigate the risk of not having accurate and complete information at the time of decision making.
The decision cycle time refers to a window of time that is considered reasonable for making a decision about a given subject. Tactical decisions usually have short windows - a leader is expected to make those decisions quickly. Strategic decisions are allowed a little more time. In any case, organizations have their own decision making "tempo." The challenge for the ecosystem is to ensure that the time it takes to do the analysis is not longer than the decision cycle time. Good analysis that misses the window is often wasted effort.
Adequate feedback mechanisms are engineered into the decision making process and adjusted to fit the situation. Some decisions require testimony to get the full picture. Some don't. Information Technology (IT) portfolio decision making windows are known one to five years in advance. Annual reviews of decisions already made are known at least a year in advance. With proper planning and expectation setting, input can and should be gathered and processed in a time and manner that is appropriate to the decision being made.
The results of decisions and the raw materials (e.g. standards and budget priorities) can be conveyed to all corners of the globe along internet channels. And raw data from legacy systems can be shuttled back to leadership along an information service bus using Web 2.0 methodologies.
Transforming the decision making ecosystem deliberately and uniformly can save the Defense Department billions of dollars in redundant spending, after-the-fact interfaces, and re-work; but it may literally take an act of Congress to get started. Fortunately, Congress and the GAO have taken action in the form of statute that affects the entire DoD - regardless of branch of Service. 10USC2222 and 10USC186 provide the DoD with a set of tools, that when properly applied, can help to support decision makers across the Department.
A "high quality decision" in this context is a somewhat complex concept that deserves a few words. High quality decisions maximize resources and minimize flail. They produce the biggest bang for the buck, mitigate "tail" or after-the-fact costs, and put "rounds on target" meaning they satisfy the organizational requirement for a given period of time (vs. a perceived requirement or collateral requirements). High quality decisions endure over time and reach distributed audiences in tact. They are clear, capable of being executed, and understood by all stakeholders involved.
It also bears mentioning that not making a decision at all can cost as much as making a poor decision. I have seen cases where not making a decision can cost as much as $1 million per day. A high quality decision, therefore, is also timely.
The Department of Defense (DoD), like other Departments, is struggling with some important problems. Pressure to manage resources more effectively is mounting, bureaucracy is slow, and business systems (like financial management and materiel management systems) are not working together as well as we would like them to. Interoperability, clean audit, financial visibility and common supplier engagement on a Department level are a few problems that remain elusive. Transformation of the DoD remains a top priority of the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
These problems are not new. The DoD has been wrestling with them for more than two decades. In my 20 years working with the government, a long line of leaders have stepped into the batter's box and taken their best swings. Each time a new leader steps up to the plate, hopes run high for about two years. Again and again, the “new” leader's ideas don't seem to work as planned and energy fizzles. Status quo washes away most of the progress made by individuals like ocean waves wash away sand castles. When one leader can't seem to make things work, we usually let them run their course and install a new one.
Occasionally, we get rid of them early. In either case, spirits soar once again. It is clear to everyone that the “new-new" leader is a good person and has some good things going for them. We continue to hope that each new leadership selection is the one that will take us across the goal line to real and lasting Transformation.
"Give me a lever and a place to stand and I will move the world" - ArchimedesYet, no matter how many changes of command or administrations we see - or where we go in the Department – the same problems persist. Do we keep selecting bad leadership, or is there something else going on?
I've been behind closed doors and in meetings with people in high-level (1, 2 and 3 stars; and SES) leadership positions many times. Several of them have been kind enough to be references on my resume. In my experience, with few exceptions, these are good people and good leaders. They want to make a difference, and they put a lot of energy into doing what they can to fix problems and improve their environment. A few have confided frustration with the system they work in and a desire to do more.
The problem (and the solution) lies within the decision-making ecosystem - not with the individual decision makers. The decision-making ecosystem is often a dangerous place for a decision maker to work - often threatening a decision maker's longevity or overall effectiveness. It is full of political agendas, traps, and lack of clarity. The noise level created by the mass of information and competing interest groups can be overwhelming.
Staffs that support our decision makers are the best and brightest. They are loyal, resourceful and tenacious. They do their best to minimize the noise, protect their decision maker, and present the best possible alternatives for their decision maker to consider. The problem, at least when it comes to making high quality decisions in the business IT space, is larger than the decision makers and their staffs. It is the product of basic human nature, and an increasing level of complexity and connectedness. Fixing the problem requires a systemic approach, and it requires leverage.
The problem cannot be solved by any one leader, by staff work, or with good data alone. The decision making system must be supported in such a way as to minimize risk for the decision maker (ensuring their survival is not threatened by making the "right" decision). It must be supported by accurate and complete information that is served up in a time frame that works for the decision cycle time. And it must contain adequate feedback mechanisms for both the decision maker and the ones affected by the decisions.
Minimizing risk means giving our decision makers the freedom to make the right decisions without the threat of doing damage to their career or reputation. A common way to get rid of a "disruptive" decision maker is to discredit them or fail to support them on other important issues after they make an unpopular (even if correct) move. No leader wants to spend a career getting into a place where they can make a difference, only to spend all of their political capital and kill their career over a single difficult issue.
Accurate and complete information means cutting through the noise, working out the dependencies, and ensuring collateral issues are clearly identified and easy to address. Too often, especially in a world where technology is ubiquitous - crossing the boundaries of many ecosystems - performing one action can be duplicative (raising cost), contradictory (raising cost), or otherwise have unintended consequences (usually raising cost).
Understanding the complete picture accurately is not possible through unassisted human effort. Modeling, analysis and data sharing techniques are available today that can mitigate the risk of not having accurate and complete information at the time of decision making.
The decision cycle time refers to a window of time that is considered reasonable for making a decision about a given subject. Tactical decisions usually have short windows - a leader is expected to make those decisions quickly. Strategic decisions are allowed a little more time. In any case, organizations have their own decision making "tempo." The challenge for the ecosystem is to ensure that the time it takes to do the analysis is not longer than the decision cycle time. Good analysis that misses the window is often wasted effort.
Adequate feedback mechanisms are engineered into the decision making process and adjusted to fit the situation. Some decisions require testimony to get the full picture. Some don't. Information Technology (IT) portfolio decision making windows are known one to five years in advance. Annual reviews of decisions already made are known at least a year in advance. With proper planning and expectation setting, input can and should be gathered and processed in a time and manner that is appropriate to the decision being made.
The results of decisions and the raw materials (e.g. standards and budget priorities) can be conveyed to all corners of the globe along internet channels. And raw data from legacy systems can be shuttled back to leadership along an information service bus using Web 2.0 methodologies.
Transforming the decision making ecosystem deliberately and uniformly can save the Defense Department billions of dollars in redundant spending, after-the-fact interfaces, and re-work; but it may literally take an act of Congress to get started. Fortunately, Congress and the GAO have taken action in the form of statute that affects the entire DoD - regardless of branch of Service. 10USC2222 and 10USC186 provide the DoD with a set of tools, that when properly applied, can help to support decision makers across the Department.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Government Can Embrace Social Media
On Tuesday, 12 October, 2010, I had an opportunity to speak at a FedTalks event at the Sydney Harmon Hall in DC. The theme question for the event was "How can we use technology to change government." My answer was "We're already doing it." See coverage of my speech in the New York Times.
I chose to address "Beyond Web 2.0 in the Department of Defense" as it is a topic I have some personal experience with, and it fit with the event theme. My message was simple:
1. Acknowledge and celebrate this moment in history. We will face cultural challenges when applying Web 2.0. Acknowledge right up front that the last 40 years have been a ride. Technology has promised over and over again that it will deliver efficiencies and cost reductions - and it has! But it has also delivered a lot of disappointments. Each new release or upgrade promises to be "the one," but we outgrow it quickly, and soon find ourselves looking for the "next one." Our Programs bust hardware limitations. Our processing speed can't keep up with new applications. Semantic interoperability problems keep our data locked up in contextual silos. The list goes on.
These and other challenges live in our collective memories and will slow down new Web 2.0 deployments. It's a mistake to ignore them. Better to address them right up front and throw a "going away party."
In a Web 2.0 world, the focus is no longer on hardware or software bottlenecks. The focus in a Web 2.0 world is on creating and consuming value. Make that distinction clear.
2. Get your security stuff together first. In a distributed environment like Web 2.0, identity management is everything. Whether you're serving data or consuming it, being able to establish identity, protect data enroute from point A to point B, and being able to monitor interactions with the data is critical. In the DoD, we use an ID card, a PIN and a third party authentication service which sits in the cloud to authenticate each person and each system that interacts with us. Without a solid security service, none of what we do would be possible.
3. Create massive value.. Make it a campaign. Bring the discussion into your board rooms. Put it in your publications. Get people thinking in terms of creating value at all levels in your organization. Get people away from thinking in terms of a matrix of program offices, huge acquisitions, Multi year deployments or complicated IV&V. We still have a place for these "old school" techniques, but for the majority of our employees, a simple app that takes 4 hours to create, that grabs a little info from this source or that source, mashes it together and allows the employee to interact with it is all they need. "Old school" centralized program office approaches are costly, rarely hit the mark for the people "on the ground," and take so long that by the time they've deployed a new release, the world has already moved on.
I referred to the idea of getting beyond Web 2.0 (and interactive Web platform that includes things like Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, Blogs, Jack-be-like mashups, Amazon.com, iTunes, expedia.com, data.gov, recovery.gov, etc) and into creating massive value as Web 2.1. I made the distinction to help people to reset the horizon. The goal is NOT to deploy these multiple platforms. The goal is to employ these platforms with purpose.
Recovery.gov is a great example. Someone asks "where did the recovery money go?" Web 2.1 minded people understand that the data need to answer that question is all over the country. They employ a Web 2.1 strategy to ID the data, expose the data, subscribe to the data, mash the data together, and display the data for the people who want the answer to the question.
The professionals who created Recovery.gov did not try to create a massive database that everyone in the country has to register with, log on to, upload data into, or pull reports from. They simply deployed some Web logic that would work with existing data sources - no matter where it is or who owns it - to provide an answer to the question asked. Simple. Brilliant. Cost effective.
So how can we use this approach to solve more problems? Consider the following questions:
Where's my medical data?
How did we spend our budget?
Where are our people?
Who's gotten what training?
Where are our supplies?
Who's got the best price on bandages (AKA Cling, AKA 4x4's, AKA Gauze, etc)? Without worrying about semantics.
These can all be answered the same way that expedia.com data.gov, amazon.com or recovery.gov answers questions - a LOT cheaper and a lot more interactive than we can answer them with a monster Multi- billion dollar program..
David Dejewski of DOD-Business Transformation Agency discusses from FedScoop on Vimeo.
I chose to address "Beyond Web 2.0 in the Department of Defense" as it is a topic I have some personal experience with, and it fit with the event theme. My message was simple:
1. Acknowledge and celebrate this moment in history. We will face cultural challenges when applying Web 2.0. Acknowledge right up front that the last 40 years have been a ride. Technology has promised over and over again that it will deliver efficiencies and cost reductions - and it has! But it has also delivered a lot of disappointments. Each new release or upgrade promises to be "the one," but we outgrow it quickly, and soon find ourselves looking for the "next one." Our Programs bust hardware limitations. Our processing speed can't keep up with new applications. Semantic interoperability problems keep our data locked up in contextual silos. The list goes on.
These and other challenges live in our collective memories and will slow down new Web 2.0 deployments. It's a mistake to ignore them. Better to address them right up front and throw a "going away party."
In a Web 2.0 world, the focus is no longer on hardware or software bottlenecks. The focus in a Web 2.0 world is on creating and consuming value. Make that distinction clear.
2. Get your security stuff together first. In a distributed environment like Web 2.0, identity management is everything. Whether you're serving data or consuming it, being able to establish identity, protect data enroute from point A to point B, and being able to monitor interactions with the data is critical. In the DoD, we use an ID card, a PIN and a third party authentication service which sits in the cloud to authenticate each person and each system that interacts with us. Without a solid security service, none of what we do would be possible.
3. Create massive value.. Make it a campaign. Bring the discussion into your board rooms. Put it in your publications. Get people thinking in terms of creating value at all levels in your organization. Get people away from thinking in terms of a matrix of program offices, huge acquisitions, Multi year deployments or complicated IV&V. We still have a place for these "old school" techniques, but for the majority of our employees, a simple app that takes 4 hours to create, that grabs a little info from this source or that source, mashes it together and allows the employee to interact with it is all they need. "Old school" centralized program office approaches are costly, rarely hit the mark for the people "on the ground," and take so long that by the time they've deployed a new release, the world has already moved on.
I referred to the idea of getting beyond Web 2.0 (and interactive Web platform that includes things like Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, Blogs, Jack-be-like mashups, Amazon.com, iTunes, expedia.com, data.gov, recovery.gov, etc) and into creating massive value as Web 2.1. I made the distinction to help people to reset the horizon. The goal is NOT to deploy these multiple platforms. The goal is to employ these platforms with purpose.
Recovery.gov is a great example. Someone asks "where did the recovery money go?" Web 2.1 minded people understand that the data need to answer that question is all over the country. They employ a Web 2.1 strategy to ID the data, expose the data, subscribe to the data, mash the data together, and display the data for the people who want the answer to the question.
The professionals who created Recovery.gov did not try to create a massive database that everyone in the country has to register with, log on to, upload data into, or pull reports from. They simply deployed some Web logic that would work with existing data sources - no matter where it is or who owns it - to provide an answer to the question asked. Simple. Brilliant. Cost effective.
So how can we use this approach to solve more problems? Consider the following questions:
Where's my medical data?
How did we spend our budget?
Where are our people?
Who's gotten what training?
Where are our supplies?
Who's got the best price on bandages (AKA Cling, AKA 4x4's, AKA Gauze, etc)? Without worrying about semantics.
These can all be answered the same way that expedia.com data.gov, amazon.com or recovery.gov answers questions - a LOT cheaper and a lot more interactive than we can answer them with a monster Multi- billion dollar program..
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Missing in Action
This morning, I was making my usual online rounds and found, to my disappointment, a whole lot of good content missing from the Internet. More than two years after I left my post as the MHS Chief for Defense Business Transformation, the Web site we spent good time, money (more than 100k), and serious mental energy on was - instead of being updated (which it hadn't been once in two yeas)- scrapped. Removed. Taken down. Simply turned off.
In it's place is a message that the DBT site is being constructed and a statement to please check back later. The gray box that says please check back later is much more helpful than the Web site we spent so much on.
Links all over - like those to 45 months of weekly briefings (http://ebookbrowse.com/search/defense-business-transformation-dbt-update, for example) are broken. One of the few usable Component examples of Business Transformation actually being implemented is gone. Like an ocean wave washing away sand castles, the work done by my teams - $2.4 million per year for five years - is gone. Success stories, briefings, podcasts, models, review guides, theory and education, the icon of our labor - all gone.
This I have found is pretty common in the Department of Defense. A leader comes in, does some remarkable things, and as a consequence, disturbs the status quo. Leaders move on, but the status quo, like a jungle creeping over an abandoned village, returns and wipes away any trace of progress made. A new leader sometimes comes in, finds the previous work either not as successful as they would like it, or carrying political baggage. They aren't up to carrying on the fight left behind by the previous leader, so they wipe the slate clean and start over again.
Anyone who has spent enough time in the DoD has witnesses (or fallen victim to) this phenomenon. Reinventing is an exercise full of new promise, fresh energy, and rapid forward momentum. Ultimately, it tends to end up in the same place as the last project. As a steward of taxpayer's money, I question the wisdom of this kind of behavior.
Why is the DoD missing an enterprise-wide plan and reporting mechanism that keeps tabs on progress and provides continuity over time? Why doesn't the DoD have coordinating mechanisms to evaluate these new inventions - no matter where they pop up - and bend resources to a common purpose. These are questions I ask myself often.
The thing is, every leader who commits to making change has to overcome tremendous resistance. They have to cut back the proverbial bush, expose the truth, build something of value and try to get someone else to carry it forward. This consumes a tremendous amount of resources.
The product of my labors in the example above survived for about 2 years without me. Without me in the picture, it was slowly overcome. Once overcome, it is as if we weren't even there.
How many leaders, great and small, have come and gone only to have the memories if their deeds washed away? How much of what we do is enduring? How much money, time and other resource do we waste trying to make a difference? How many times is history re-written by the last person sitting at the table?
I wonder if I had known the ultimate fate of what we were building, if I would have felt so compelled to commit the resources I did. I wonder how many resources have been committed - and washed away over time - by others like me who have either moved on or are enjoying their retirement? I wonder what the right measurement is for "progress."
I am encourage by enduring effects that some great leaders like ADM Grace Hopper have had. It makes me wonder how she did it.
Maybe the fact that there's a chance to succeed will encourage the next generation of leadership to jump in and whack down some jungle vines of their own.
In it's place is a message that the DBT site is being constructed and a statement to please check back later. The gray box that says please check back later is much more helpful than the Web site we spent so much on.
Links all over - like those to 45 months of weekly briefings (http://ebookbrowse.com/search/defense-business-transformation-dbt-update, for example) are broken. One of the few usable Component examples of Business Transformation actually being implemented is gone. Like an ocean wave washing away sand castles, the work done by my teams - $2.4 million per year for five years - is gone. Success stories, briefings, podcasts, models, review guides, theory and education, the icon of our labor - all gone.
This I have found is pretty common in the Department of Defense. A leader comes in, does some remarkable things, and as a consequence, disturbs the status quo. Leaders move on, but the status quo, like a jungle creeping over an abandoned village, returns and wipes away any trace of progress made. A new leader sometimes comes in, finds the previous work either not as successful as they would like it, or carrying political baggage. They aren't up to carrying on the fight left behind by the previous leader, so they wipe the slate clean and start over again.
Anyone who has spent enough time in the DoD has witnesses (or fallen victim to) this phenomenon. Reinventing is an exercise full of new promise, fresh energy, and rapid forward momentum. Ultimately, it tends to end up in the same place as the last project. As a steward of taxpayer's money, I question the wisdom of this kind of behavior.
Why is the DoD missing an enterprise-wide plan and reporting mechanism that keeps tabs on progress and provides continuity over time? Why doesn't the DoD have coordinating mechanisms to evaluate these new inventions - no matter where they pop up - and bend resources to a common purpose. These are questions I ask myself often.
The thing is, every leader who commits to making change has to overcome tremendous resistance. They have to cut back the proverbial bush, expose the truth, build something of value and try to get someone else to carry it forward. This consumes a tremendous amount of resources.
The product of my labors in the example above survived for about 2 years without me. Without me in the picture, it was slowly overcome. Once overcome, it is as if we weren't even there.
How many leaders, great and small, have come and gone only to have the memories if their deeds washed away? How much of what we do is enduring? How much money, time and other resource do we waste trying to make a difference? How many times is history re-written by the last person sitting at the table?
I wonder if I had known the ultimate fate of what we were building, if I would have felt so compelled to commit the resources I did. I wonder how many resources have been committed - and washed away over time - by others like me who have either moved on or are enjoying their retirement? I wonder what the right measurement is for "progress."
I am encourage by enduring effects that some great leaders like ADM Grace Hopper have had. It makes me wonder how she did it.
Maybe the fact that there's a chance to succeed will encourage the next generation of leadership to jump in and whack down some jungle vines of their own.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Tools Available to the Transformation Agent
Two sets of tools are available today that, if executed with the right combination of guts and wisdom, could have a historically significant effect on the DoD IT portfolio and, as a consequence, the DoD warfighting capability in general.
The first set comes from Public Law 108-375, 10USC2222, 10USC186 and the 2005 NDAA - from here on referred to as the "Core" Defense Business Transformation legislation. This Core both specifies and mandates that all decisions made relative to developing, modernizing or enhancing business IT in the DoD must be supported by a specified suite of decision support tools.
The fact that these tools are mandated by a higher authority for use everywhere in the Department of Defense has political value. The fact that these tools, when made to work together as a decision support system, behave almost identical to the investment decision support tools used by city and county governments all over the US is not, in my opinion, an accident.
They have not yet been executed in a way that provides even a fraction of the potential value. Execution is moving in the right direction for the OSD level Investment Review Boards IRB's, but on balance, the IRB's are a fraction of the decision makers in the DoD who are making daily decisions about their IT portfolios. Many DoD decision makers have little decision support other than their action officer staffs and no visibility to what others are doing.
If I were investing in DoD myself, I would consider this set of tools an undervalued asset.
The second set comes from Darwinian advancement in technology and innovation. What the folks over at milTech Solutions might not be quick to reveal is that the milSuite of tools, coupled with Army Knowledge Online (AKO) or a similar ubiquitous backbone, has the power to do much more than merely enable people to socialize. It can enable systems (and their associated data) to socialize - without the need for months of RICE object development and costly interfaces. Another undervalued asset.
Either one of these tool sets could put billions back into circulation, but not without a good trainer and champions. The tectonic shift that either would cause in the DoD would affect nearly everyone. Anyone reading this who has been around DoD long enough understands what I am not saying.
The first set comes from Public Law 108-375, 10USC2222, 10USC186 and the 2005 NDAA - from here on referred to as the "Core" Defense Business Transformation legislation. This Core both specifies and mandates that all decisions made relative to developing, modernizing or enhancing business IT in the DoD must be supported by a specified suite of decision support tools.
The fact that these tools are mandated by a higher authority for use everywhere in the Department of Defense has political value. The fact that these tools, when made to work together as a decision support system, behave almost identical to the investment decision support tools used by city and county governments all over the US is not, in my opinion, an accident.
They have not yet been executed in a way that provides even a fraction of the potential value. Execution is moving in the right direction for the OSD level Investment Review Boards IRB's, but on balance, the IRB's are a fraction of the decision makers in the DoD who are making daily decisions about their IT portfolios. Many DoD decision makers have little decision support other than their action officer staffs and no visibility to what others are doing.
If I were investing in DoD myself, I would consider this set of tools an undervalued asset.
The second set comes from Darwinian advancement in technology and innovation. What the folks over at milTech Solutions might not be quick to reveal is that the milSuite of tools, coupled with Army Knowledge Online (AKO) or a similar ubiquitous backbone, has the power to do much more than merely enable people to socialize. It can enable systems (and their associated data) to socialize - without the need for months of RICE object development and costly interfaces. Another undervalued asset.
Either one of these tool sets could put billions back into circulation, but not without a good trainer and champions. The tectonic shift that either would cause in the DoD would affect nearly everyone. Anyone reading this who has been around DoD long enough understands what I am not saying.
Government Accountibility Office Says More Work Is Needed
Defense Business Transformation: DOD Needs to Take Additional Actions to Further Define Key Management Roles, Develop Measurable Goals, and Align Planning Efforts
According to GAO-11-181R January 26, 2011, the Department of Defense still needs to make progress In some key areas:
1. To establish ongoing accountability and better leverage the unique positions of the CMO and DCMO to provide the leadership necessary to follow up the Secretary's recent efficiency initiative for the long term, the Secretary of Defense should assign specific roles and responsibilities to the CMO and DCMO for integrating the Secretary's efficiency initiative with ongoing reform efforts, overseeing its implementation, and otherwise institutionalizing the effort for the long term
2. To enhance DOD's ability to set strategic direction for its business transformation efforts, and better align and institutionalize its efforts to develop and implement plans and measure progress against established goals, the Secretary of Defense should direct the CMO to ensure that DOD's revised SMP contains measurable goals and funding priorities linked to those goals.
3. To enhance DOD's ability to set strategic direction for its business transformation efforts, and better align and institutionalize its efforts to develop and implement plans and measure progress against established goals, the Secretary of Defense should direct the CMO to issue guidance to establish a strategic planning process with mechanisms---such as procedures and milestones---for routinely updating the SMP and military department business transformation plans. In particular, this guidance should include elements such as how DOD and the military departments---including the CMO, DCMO, and military department CMOs---will reach consensus on business priorities, coordinate review and approval of updates to plans, synchronize the development of plans with the budget process, and monitor the implementation of reform initiatives, and report progress, on a periodic basis, towards achieving established goals.
According to GAO-11-181R January 26, 2011, the Department of Defense still needs to make progress In some key areas:
1. To establish ongoing accountability and better leverage the unique positions of the CMO and DCMO to provide the leadership necessary to follow up the Secretary's recent efficiency initiative for the long term, the Secretary of Defense should assign specific roles and responsibilities to the CMO and DCMO for integrating the Secretary's efficiency initiative with ongoing reform efforts, overseeing its implementation, and otherwise institutionalizing the effort for the long term
2. To enhance DOD's ability to set strategic direction for its business transformation efforts, and better align and institutionalize its efforts to develop and implement plans and measure progress against established goals, the Secretary of Defense should direct the CMO to ensure that DOD's revised SMP contains measurable goals and funding priorities linked to those goals.
3. To enhance DOD's ability to set strategic direction for its business transformation efforts, and better align and institutionalize its efforts to develop and implement plans and measure progress against established goals, the Secretary of Defense should direct the CMO to issue guidance to establish a strategic planning process with mechanisms---such as procedures and milestones---for routinely updating the SMP and military department business transformation plans. In particular, this guidance should include elements such as how DOD and the military departments---including the CMO, DCMO, and military department CMOs---will reach consensus on business priorities, coordinate review and approval of updates to plans, synchronize the development of plans with the budget process, and monitor the implementation of reform initiatives, and report progress, on a periodic basis, towards achieving established goals.
DoD Budget Cuts
To cut or not to cut...
Where to cut...
This discussion is on main US stage right now. It made it into the State of the Union address last night. Yet, this is an over simplification of the real questions we should be asking. It ignores what Transformation is all about.
If someone decides that they need to lose weight, the simplest and most expeditious way is to lop off an arm or a leg. Doing so will ensure that a person will lose weight fast, but treating a weight problem with this kind of solution causes collateral damage and it ignores the fact that, baring legitimate medical pathology, poor decision making is a root cause. Every time a person reaches for fast food, junk food, eats more than they need to, or decides not to exercise, a little more fat is the result.
The DoD is great at making tactical and strategic combat related decisions. One could argue that the US DoD is the best in the world at this. It is also terrible at making business investment decisions. Poor decisions collected over the years have put a lot of "fat" on this beast & it is causing the DoD to be operating in poor health. Vital resources that should be flowing to needed operations are plugged up in redundant investments, un-needed investments, poorly executed investments, under-executed investments, etc.
One look at the numbers submitted as a "business case" for these investments would reveal just how healthy DoD business investment decision making is. A look at the supporting documents and information (missing or wildly incomplete solutions architecture, self-certifying compliance letters, undefined milestones, recycled arguments, etc) being used to inform decision makers would reveal the quality of DoD due diligence. And a look at the actions produced by our decision making system in terms of redundancies allowed to continue, follow up (or not), course corrections (or not), accountability (or not), and management of the Department bottom line would reveal the overall quality and effect of the decisions the DoD's current decision making system is producing.
There is another way to lose weight. A way to make cuts without so much collateral damage. Change our habits. Make sure our decision making "food" is grown with care and in good shape by setting (and checking) the standard for business cases and supporting documents. Consume good information instead of information "fast food." Exercise our decision making powers by forcing course corrections, remembering where we were yesterday, and setting (and sticking to) a strategy for where we will be tomorrow.
Core legislation (Public Law 108-375, 10USC2222, 10USC186, and the 2005 NDAA) gave the DoD the tools it needs to get healthy. The Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA), the Enterprise Transition Plan (ETP), an Investment Review (Due Diligence) process and governing bodies, an Annual Review and even threw in a way to get and keep the DoD on the path to better health - the ADA.
What are your thoughts about losing weight in the DoD?
Where to cut...
This discussion is on main US stage right now. It made it into the State of the Union address last night. Yet, this is an over simplification of the real questions we should be asking. It ignores what Transformation is all about.
If someone decides that they need to lose weight, the simplest and most expeditious way is to lop off an arm or a leg. Doing so will ensure that a person will lose weight fast, but treating a weight problem with this kind of solution causes collateral damage and it ignores the fact that, baring legitimate medical pathology, poor decision making is a root cause. Every time a person reaches for fast food, junk food, eats more than they need to, or decides not to exercise, a little more fat is the result.
The DoD is great at making tactical and strategic combat related decisions. One could argue that the US DoD is the best in the world at this. It is also terrible at making business investment decisions. Poor decisions collected over the years have put a lot of "fat" on this beast & it is causing the DoD to be operating in poor health. Vital resources that should be flowing to needed operations are plugged up in redundant investments, un-needed investments, poorly executed investments, under-executed investments, etc.
One look at the numbers submitted as a "business case" for these investments would reveal just how healthy DoD business investment decision making is. A look at the supporting documents and information (missing or wildly incomplete solutions architecture, self-certifying compliance letters, undefined milestones, recycled arguments, etc) being used to inform decision makers would reveal the quality of DoD due diligence. And a look at the actions produced by our decision making system in terms of redundancies allowed to continue, follow up (or not), course corrections (or not), accountability (or not), and management of the Department bottom line would reveal the overall quality and effect of the decisions the DoD's current decision making system is producing.
There is another way to lose weight. A way to make cuts without so much collateral damage. Change our habits. Make sure our decision making "food" is grown with care and in good shape by setting (and checking) the standard for business cases and supporting documents. Consume good information instead of information "fast food." Exercise our decision making powers by forcing course corrections, remembering where we were yesterday, and setting (and sticking to) a strategy for where we will be tomorrow.
Core legislation (Public Law 108-375, 10USC2222, 10USC186, and the 2005 NDAA) gave the DoD the tools it needs to get healthy. The Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA), the Enterprise Transition Plan (ETP), an Investment Review (Due Diligence) process and governing bodies, an Annual Review and even threw in a way to get and keep the DoD on the path to better health - the ADA.
What are your thoughts about losing weight in the DoD?
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Simple Sabotage - We Wrote the Book
On 17 January 1944, the Office of Strategic Services published a book titled "Simple Sabotage Field Manual." You can find this book for Kindle on Amazon.com for about $5, or you can download a free version by clicking this link to www.Gutenberg.org.
Warning text on page one states:
Later the book describes two forms of sabotage. The first form requires "... planning and the use of specially trained operatives." The second form "...the ordinary individual citizen-saboteur can perform." It's the second form which caught my attention.
To be clear, this "...type of simple sabotage requires no destructive tools whatsoever and produces physical damage, if any, by highly indirect means. It is based on universal opportunities to make faulty decisions, to adopt a non cooperative attitude, and to induce others to follow suit."
"This type of activity, sometimes referred to as the "human element," is frequently responsible for accidents, delays, and general obstruction even under normal conditions." The book seems to have originated in Europe and I assume was directed at friendly civilians living in enemy occupied territory.
So why am I sharing this with you? It's the last chapter or two that hit me between the eyes. It dawned on me that in some places in the government, we're really good at this. We're really good at doing this to ourselves. Maybe you have seen these behaviors. Maybe your being sabotaged. What do you think? Check these out:
(11) General interference with Organizations and Production
(a) Organizations and Conferences
(1) insist on doing everything through "channels." Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.
(2) Make "speeches." Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your "points" by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences. Never hesitate to make a few appropriate "patriotic" comments.
(3) Whenever possible, refer all matters to committees, to "further study and consideration. Attempt to make the committees as large as possible -- never less than five.
(4) Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
(5) Haggle over precise workings of communications, minutes, resolutions.
(6) Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.
(7) Advocate "caution." Be "reasonable" and urge your fellow-conferees to be "reasonable" and avoid haste which might result in embarassments or difficulties later on.
(8) Be worried about the propriety of any decision -- raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon.
(b) Managers and Supervisors
(1) Demand written orders.
(2) "misunderstand" orders. Ask endless questions or engage in long correspondence about such orders. Quibble over them when you can.
(3) Do everything possible to delay the delivery of orders. Even though parts of an order may be ready beforehand, don't deliver it until it is completely ready.
(4) Don't order new working materials until your current stocks have been virtually exhausted, so that the slightest delay in filling your order will mean a shutdown.
(5) Order high-quality materials which are hard to get. If you don't get them, argue about it. Wanr that inferior materials will mean inferior work.
(6) In making work assignments, always sign out the unimportant jobs first. See that the important jobs are assigned to inefficient workers on poor machines.
(7) insist on perfect work in relatively unimportant products; send back for refinishing those which have the least flaw. Approve other defective parts whose flaws are not visible to the naked eye.
(8) make mistakes in routing so that parts and materials will be sent to the wrong places in the plant.
(9) When training new workers, give incomplete or misleading instructions.
(10) To lower morale and with it, production, be pleasant to inefficient workers; give them undeserved promotions. Discriminate against efficient workers; complain unjustly about their work.
(11) Hold conferences when there is more critical work to be done.
(12) Multiply paperwork in plausible ways. Start duplicate files.
(13) Multiply the procedures and clearances involved in issuing instructions, pay checks, and so on. See that three people have to approve everything where one would do.
(c) Office workers
(1) make mistakes in quantities of material when you are copying orders. Confuse similar names. Use wrong addresses.
(2) Prolong correspondence with government bureaus.
(3) misfile essential documents.
(4) In making carbon copies, make one too few, so that an extra copying job will have to be done.
(5) Tell important callers that the boss is busy or talking on another telephone.
(6) Hold up mail until the next collection.
(7) Spread disturbing rumors that sound like inside dope.
(d) Employees
(1) Work slowly. Think out ways to increase the number of movements necessary on your job: use a light hammer instead of a heavy one, try to make a small wrench do when a big one is necessary, use little force where considerable force is needed, and so on.
(2) Contrive as many interruptions to your work as you can: when changing the material on which you are working, as you would on a lathe or a punch, take needless time to do it. If you are cutting,shaping or doing other measured work, measure dimensions twice as often as you need to. When you go to the lavatory, spend a longer time there than is necessary.Forget tools so that you will have to go back after them.
(3) Even if you understand the language, pretend not to understand instructions in a foreign tongue.
(4) Pretend that instructions are hard to understand, and ask to have them repeated more than once. Or pretend that you are particularly anxious to do your work, and pester the foreman with unnecessary questions.
(5) Do your work poorly and blame it on bad tools, machinery, or equipment. Complain that these things are preventing you from doing your job right.
(6) Never pass on your skill and experience to a new or less skillful worker.
(7) Snarl up administration in every possible way. Fill out forms illegibly so they will have to be done over; make mistakes or omit requested information in forms.
(8) If possible, join or help organize a group for presenting employee problems to the management. See that procedures adopted are as inconvenient as possible for the management, involving the presence or a large number of employees at each presentation, entailing more than one meeting for each grievance, bringing up problems which are largely imaginary, and so on.
(9) Misroute materials
(10) Mix good parts with unusable scrap and rejected parts.
(12) General Devices for Lowering Morale and Creating Confusion
(a) Give lengthy and incomprehensible explanations when questioned.
(b) Report imaginary spies or danger to the Gestapo or police.
(c) Act stupid.
(d) Be as irritable and quarrelsome as possible without getting yourself into trouble.
(e) Misunderstand all sorts of regulations concerning such matters as rationing, transportation, traffic regulations.
(f) Complain against eratz materials
(g) In public treat axis nationals or quislings coldly
(h) Stop all conversations when axis nationals or quislings enter a cafe.
(i) Cry and sob hysterically at every occasion, especially when confronted by government clerks.
(j) Boycott all movies, entertainments, concerts, newspapers which are in any way connected with the quisling authorities.
(k) Do not cooperate in salvage schemes.
Warning text on page one states:
"The contents of this Manual should be carefully controlled and not be allowed to come into unauthorized hands."
Later the book describes two forms of sabotage. The first form requires "... planning and the use of specially trained operatives." The second form "...the ordinary individual citizen-saboteur can perform." It's the second form which caught my attention.
To be clear, this "...type of simple sabotage requires no destructive tools whatsoever and produces physical damage, if any, by highly indirect means. It is based on universal opportunities to make faulty decisions, to adopt a non cooperative attitude, and to induce others to follow suit."
"This type of activity, sometimes referred to as the "human element," is frequently responsible for accidents, delays, and general obstruction even under normal conditions." The book seems to have originated in Europe and I assume was directed at friendly civilians living in enemy occupied territory.
So why am I sharing this with you? It's the last chapter or two that hit me between the eyes. It dawned on me that in some places in the government, we're really good at this. We're really good at doing this to ourselves. Maybe you have seen these behaviors. Maybe your being sabotaged. What do you think? Check these out:
(11) General interference with Organizations and Production
(a) Organizations and Conferences
(1) insist on doing everything through "channels." Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.
(2) Make "speeches." Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your "points" by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences. Never hesitate to make a few appropriate "patriotic" comments.
(3) Whenever possible, refer all matters to committees, to "further study and consideration. Attempt to make the committees as large as possible -- never less than five.
(4) Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
(5) Haggle over precise workings of communications, minutes, resolutions.
(6) Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.
(7) Advocate "caution." Be "reasonable" and urge your fellow-conferees to be "reasonable" and avoid haste which might result in embarassments or difficulties later on.
(8) Be worried about the propriety of any decision -- raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon.
(b) Managers and Supervisors
(1) Demand written orders.
(2) "misunderstand" orders. Ask endless questions or engage in long correspondence about such orders. Quibble over them when you can.
(3) Do everything possible to delay the delivery of orders. Even though parts of an order may be ready beforehand, don't deliver it until it is completely ready.
(4) Don't order new working materials until your current stocks have been virtually exhausted, so that the slightest delay in filling your order will mean a shutdown.
(5) Order high-quality materials which are hard to get. If you don't get them, argue about it. Wanr that inferior materials will mean inferior work.
(6) In making work assignments, always sign out the unimportant jobs first. See that the important jobs are assigned to inefficient workers on poor machines.
(7) insist on perfect work in relatively unimportant products; send back for refinishing those which have the least flaw. Approve other defective parts whose flaws are not visible to the naked eye.
(8) make mistakes in routing so that parts and materials will be sent to the wrong places in the plant.
(9) When training new workers, give incomplete or misleading instructions.
(10) To lower morale and with it, production, be pleasant to inefficient workers; give them undeserved promotions. Discriminate against efficient workers; complain unjustly about their work.
(11) Hold conferences when there is more critical work to be done.
(12) Multiply paperwork in plausible ways. Start duplicate files.
(13) Multiply the procedures and clearances involved in issuing instructions, pay checks, and so on. See that three people have to approve everything where one would do.
(c) Office workers
(1) make mistakes in quantities of material when you are copying orders. Confuse similar names. Use wrong addresses.
(2) Prolong correspondence with government bureaus.
(3) misfile essential documents.
(4) In making carbon copies, make one too few, so that an extra copying job will have to be done.
(5) Tell important callers that the boss is busy or talking on another telephone.
(6) Hold up mail until the next collection.
(7) Spread disturbing rumors that sound like inside dope.
(d) Employees
(1) Work slowly. Think out ways to increase the number of movements necessary on your job: use a light hammer instead of a heavy one, try to make a small wrench do when a big one is necessary, use little force where considerable force is needed, and so on.
(2) Contrive as many interruptions to your work as you can: when changing the material on which you are working, as you would on a lathe or a punch, take needless time to do it. If you are cutting,shaping or doing other measured work, measure dimensions twice as often as you need to. When you go to the lavatory, spend a longer time there than is necessary.Forget tools so that you will have to go back after them.
(3) Even if you understand the language, pretend not to understand instructions in a foreign tongue.
(4) Pretend that instructions are hard to understand, and ask to have them repeated more than once. Or pretend that you are particularly anxious to do your work, and pester the foreman with unnecessary questions.
(5) Do your work poorly and blame it on bad tools, machinery, or equipment. Complain that these things are preventing you from doing your job right.
(6) Never pass on your skill and experience to a new or less skillful worker.
(7) Snarl up administration in every possible way. Fill out forms illegibly so they will have to be done over; make mistakes or omit requested information in forms.
(8) If possible, join or help organize a group for presenting employee problems to the management. See that procedures adopted are as inconvenient as possible for the management, involving the presence or a large number of employees at each presentation, entailing more than one meeting for each grievance, bringing up problems which are largely imaginary, and so on.
(9) Misroute materials
(10) Mix good parts with unusable scrap and rejected parts.
(12) General Devices for Lowering Morale and Creating Confusion
(a) Give lengthy and incomprehensible explanations when questioned.
(b) Report imaginary spies or danger to the Gestapo or police.
(c) Act stupid.
(d) Be as irritable and quarrelsome as possible without getting yourself into trouble.
(e) Misunderstand all sorts of regulations concerning such matters as rationing, transportation, traffic regulations.
(f) Complain against eratz materials
(g) In public treat axis nationals or quislings coldly
(h) Stop all conversations when axis nationals or quislings enter a cafe.
(i) Cry and sob hysterically at every occasion, especially when confronted by government clerks.
(j) Boycott all movies, entertainments, concerts, newspapers which are in any way connected with the quisling authorities.
(k) Do not cooperate in salvage schemes.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
... Veteran's Day
As a veteran myself, I try to make a post every year on Veteran's Day. My daughter and I raised the flag together one year. I thought that was a good day and a good post. One year I did a salute to veterans. I thought that was pretty good post too. But I'm thinking that this year's post might not be so good.
Here's the deal: Today, I'm struggling with the word "Happy" that always seems to precede "Veteran's Day." I'm okay with thanking vets, flying the flag, and giving an extra few minutes in the day to think about vets and what they have done for this country. But I'm just not relating to the "Happy" part.
This day is an important day for me - not necessarily because I'm proud of serving (though I am) - but because every year in my mind's eye, I visit the memories of men and women that I either served with myself, or shared a moment and felt kinship with since. The feeling I get when I see their faces is a curious mixture of pride, nostalgia, remorse, commitment, friendship, gratitude, and sadness.
As vets, we all share some things in common. Maybe it's a vague "knowing" that comes from setting our own interests aside and allowing ourselves to become part of something that is bigger than individual ambition or ironically, individual freedom. Maybe it comes from having made a commitment to literally die so that others may live, and from the meaning that people in uniform took on after that commitment was made. Maybe it comes from the feeling we get when we look at our kids through eyes that disguise unique knowledge of what this world can do.
I'm not sure what it is, but I do know that "Happy" isn't the word I'd use. What we share is deep, for sure, but it's not light or easy to smile about. I'll save "Happy" for other holidays.
This year, I remember a vet named John. John was my friend. Many years ago, he wore Army green. He served, as I do, well beyond his boot polishing years; and he humped his commitment and integrity into every aspect of his life. I don't think the man understood what life without his commitment and integrity would be. He died of cancer.
John is in good company in my mind. Not only do I preserve his story and a bit of his perspective on life, but he stands beside many whom I have called "friend," who have also stood ready to give everything, and who dedicated their lives to a unique form of service.
Vets do go on with their lives after the service, but they are always aware of one another, of what they were trained to do, of the "stuff" that they share with every other veteran, and of their brothers and sisters in arms who are getting the job done today. There is something sacred about this awareness and the bond that comes with it.
On this Veteran's Day, I simply bow my head, tip my glass, and whisper a quiet "hooah."
Here's the deal: Today, I'm struggling with the word "Happy" that always seems to precede "Veteran's Day." I'm okay with thanking vets, flying the flag, and giving an extra few minutes in the day to think about vets and what they have done for this country. But I'm just not relating to the "Happy" part.
This day is an important day for me - not necessarily because I'm proud of serving (though I am) - but because every year in my mind's eye, I visit the memories of men and women that I either served with myself, or shared a moment and felt kinship with since. The feeling I get when I see their faces is a curious mixture of pride, nostalgia, remorse, commitment, friendship, gratitude, and sadness.
As vets, we all share some things in common. Maybe it's a vague "knowing" that comes from setting our own interests aside and allowing ourselves to become part of something that is bigger than individual ambition or ironically, individual freedom. Maybe it comes from having made a commitment to literally die so that others may live, and from the meaning that people in uniform took on after that commitment was made. Maybe it comes from the feeling we get when we look at our kids through eyes that disguise unique knowledge of what this world can do.
I'm not sure what it is, but I do know that "Happy" isn't the word I'd use. What we share is deep, for sure, but it's not light or easy to smile about. I'll save "Happy" for other holidays.
This year, I remember a vet named John. John was my friend. Many years ago, he wore Army green. He served, as I do, well beyond his boot polishing years; and he humped his commitment and integrity into every aspect of his life. I don't think the man understood what life without his commitment and integrity would be. He died of cancer.
John is in good company in my mind. Not only do I preserve his story and a bit of his perspective on life, but he stands beside many whom I have called "friend," who have also stood ready to give everything, and who dedicated their lives to a unique form of service.
Vets do go on with their lives after the service, but they are always aware of one another, of what they were trained to do, of the "stuff" that they share with every other veteran, and of their brothers and sisters in arms who are getting the job done today. There is something sacred about this awareness and the bond that comes with it.
On this Veteran's Day, I simply bow my head, tip my glass, and whisper a quiet "hooah."
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Dealing with Security and Web 2.0
If you're into social media / Web 2.0, you've surely heard a bunch of security arguments. You may, in fact, have been blocked from implementing Web 2.0 in your organization or accessing some cool Web 2.0 forums in other organizations because your local security department uses firewalls to block your access, or publishes a policy against it. If this is you, then you need help & I'm going to give you some really cool resources to help you.
First, I want to emphasize that security is a necessary piece of any social media or Web 2.0 implementation. Without it, you'll have a disaster pretty quickly. As a former Information Systems Security Manager, I encourage you to appreciate the critical (and often silent) nature of the work that these folks do to protect our privacy and secure our sensitive and classified information.
Unfortunately, when the staff in a local security department are unfamiliar with something, they can be suspicious. This is natural for this group of processionals to be suspicious of anything that might pose a threat to personnel or information they are responsible for protecting. You wouldn't want them any other way. Thank them.
The key to overcoming resistance from your security team is education and awareness. The more they understand about social media and the DoD's approach to managing it, the more likely they will take appropriate action for your organization.
I've collected a series of super cool Department of Defense links on Social Media / Web 2.0. My intent is to give you ready access to the policies, memorandums, and statements made by senior DoD officials regarding this new capability.
I encourage you to read through them and find the ones that are best suited for your organization and find a friendly way to share them with your security department.
Here's a good one to get you started:
http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2009/0709_socialmedia/
Talk about a buffet of information! It'll take some time to get through all of this info, but it's well worth the time you spend.
Interested in Title 44, OMB and the Paperwork Reduction Act angle? Check out this link from the Executive Office of the President, the Office of information and Regulatory Affairs.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/SocialMediaGuidance_04072010.pdf
Here's a neat resource for those who prefer a step-by-step apprach to reading the DoD policy and registering sites. It's called the DoD Social Media Hub:
http://socialmedia.defense.gov/about/
Google "social media in the DoD" and you will find loads of articles, comments made by senior people and maybe even a cool example or two of social media in action.
These resources make a great starting point for those who want to "see it in writing" or dig deeper into the application of social media in the Department of Defense.
Another great resource is the Army's PEO C3t milTech Solutions. These are the folks that created the milSuite solutions. They understand what goes on behind the scenes and can answer many questions. Interestingly, you can find them on Facebook at:
http://www.facebook.com/peoc3t
or on their Web site at:
http://peoc3t.monmouth.army.mil/
If you know of other cool resources, please leave a comment and share them here.
First, I want to emphasize that security is a necessary piece of any social media or Web 2.0 implementation. Without it, you'll have a disaster pretty quickly. As a former Information Systems Security Manager, I encourage you to appreciate the critical (and often silent) nature of the work that these folks do to protect our privacy and secure our sensitive and classified information.
Unfortunately, when the staff in a local security department are unfamiliar with something, they can be suspicious. This is natural for this group of processionals to be suspicious of anything that might pose a threat to personnel or information they are responsible for protecting. You wouldn't want them any other way. Thank them.
The key to overcoming resistance from your security team is education and awareness. The more they understand about social media and the DoD's approach to managing it, the more likely they will take appropriate action for your organization.
I've collected a series of super cool Department of Defense links on Social Media / Web 2.0. My intent is to give you ready access to the policies, memorandums, and statements made by senior DoD officials regarding this new capability.
I encourage you to read through them and find the ones that are best suited for your organization and find a friendly way to share them with your security department.
Here's a good one to get you started:
http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2009/0709_socialmedia/
Talk about a buffet of information! It'll take some time to get through all of this info, but it's well worth the time you spend.
Interested in Title 44, OMB and the Paperwork Reduction Act angle? Check out this link from the Executive Office of the President, the Office of information and Regulatory Affairs.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/SocialMediaGuidance_04072010.pdf
Here's a neat resource for those who prefer a step-by-step apprach to reading the DoD policy and registering sites. It's called the DoD Social Media Hub:
http://socialmedia.defense.gov/about/
Google "social media in the DoD" and you will find loads of articles, comments made by senior people and maybe even a cool example or two of social media in action.
These resources make a great starting point for those who want to "see it in writing" or dig deeper into the application of social media in the Department of Defense.
Another great resource is the Army's PEO C3t milTech Solutions. These are the folks that created the milSuite solutions. They understand what goes on behind the scenes and can answer many questions. Interestingly, you can find them on Facebook at:
http://www.facebook.com/peoc3t
or on their Web site at:
http://peoc3t.monmouth.army.mil/
If you know of other cool resources, please leave a comment and share them here.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Social Media is More Than Social
Since my speech on the 12th of October, I've seen a lot of discussion about the use of Social Media. I've met proponents and paranoids, and have come to a conclusion: that we basically agree with one another, but we are not all on the same page.
It's not that we don't agree on things like cost-effective use of technology, that knowledge management is important, security must be handled, or that we tend to spend too much time and money developing software. We're tripping over vocabulary.
There's a relevant Blog post written by Christopher Dorobek from Federal News Radio. I encourage interested readers to take a look at his Blog post here. In this Post, Mr. Dorobek suggests that the term "Social Media" is hurting proponent's ability to communicate the value of social media. I don't disagree.
In the last two weeks, I have enjoyed great support from the folks I met at FedTalks and from those who have read associated commentary. I have also encountered some resistance - and an almost eerie silence from a few people whom I would think would be jumping on this opportunity.
The resistance side is at least vocal, so to them I offer the following: Social Media or Web 2.0 is not about dating and social encounters. Dating and social encounters are one effect of the social media movement - like finding long lost friends on Facebook, or finally seeing photos of the grand kids - but we make a mistake if we stop there and don't explore other benefits associated with a Web 2.0 world.
Web 2.0 is about information exchange. Plain and simple. Sure, people can find one another and share details about their lives: including photos, videos, geography, interests, etc. But SYSTEMS can also find other SYSTEMS. PEOPLE can find DATA, combine data from different data sources, and we can share data and information with one another in ways that used to cost millions of dollars.
Consider the following example released on Twitter earlier today: a military member acting in a civilian capacity, Mr. Bob Sims, decided that he wanted to share a dizzying array of military acronyms with the world. For whatever reason (probably a test in this case), Mr. Sims thought that sharing military acronyms would add value to the world. Mr. Sims didn't put together a business case, knock on his Comptroller's door, beg for money, document the requirement, work for months to get it approved, hand it off to a Program office and wait 6-12 months for it to be put into a development queue and/or another 6 - 18 months to have his "application" created. He just found a data source for military acronyms, sucked the data into a spreadsheet, uploaded the spreadsheet to Google docs, and used Web 2.0 methodology to allow "end users" to pull data from that data source via a simple query. Read his story here.
He envisioned what he wanted. He found the data source. He exposed the data to the Web, and he created an app to make it easy for the world to consume it. Now anyone who grabs his app can look up military acronyms. Problem solved. Value created. How cool is that?!
There is nothing limiting our ability to share to tiny spreadsheets or other personal data sources. Many people have essentially done the same thing with much larger data sources located anywhere in the world. Reference Amazon.com, Expedia.com, Data.gov or Recovery.gov. This is part of our reality now.
In the world of Defense Business Transformation, one major challenge is to gather data from many authoritative data sources and make it immediately available to decision makers during investment portfolio reviews. Members of the DoD community have pulled data from two of their most relevant data sources - one for project data and milestone and the second for budget data, mashed it together and now serve it up through apps to leadership - at the point of decision making - when it's needed most. Essentially, Web 2.0 or "social media" has allowed the DoD to significantly enhance the quality of decisions made about its IT portfolio.
By the way, it bears mentioning that when we first rolled out this social media "mashup" of relevant data, many of the folks who used it did not recognize it as social media. They knew the data, but they did not connect the fact that what they were seeing was a mashup of data in their Web browser. That lead to some interesting questions - like where did you get the money to build such a "system" and where was your obligation authority to spend it? The assumption was that we had spent an enormous amount of money to bring them the dashboards. From from it, of course. We knocked out each little app in a few hours using Web 2.0 "social media" techniques. Beyond labor, it really didn't cost us anything.
If we limit our understanding of "Social Media" to technologies that bring people closer together, we miss out on what promises to be perhaps the single largest cost saver / value creator in technology history.
Open source value creation is already here. Information exposure and sharing is inexpensive and customizable using "social media" techniques. It's just that we haven't socialized it yet.
It's not that we don't agree on things like cost-effective use of technology, that knowledge management is important, security must be handled, or that we tend to spend too much time and money developing software. We're tripping over vocabulary.
There's a relevant Blog post written by Christopher Dorobek from Federal News Radio. I encourage interested readers to take a look at his Blog post here. In this Post, Mr. Dorobek suggests that the term "Social Media" is hurting proponent's ability to communicate the value of social media. I don't disagree.
In the last two weeks, I have enjoyed great support from the folks I met at FedTalks and from those who have read associated commentary. I have also encountered some resistance - and an almost eerie silence from a few people whom I would think would be jumping on this opportunity.
The resistance side is at least vocal, so to them I offer the following: Social Media or Web 2.0 is not about dating and social encounters. Dating and social encounters are one effect of the social media movement - like finding long lost friends on Facebook, or finally seeing photos of the grand kids - but we make a mistake if we stop there and don't explore other benefits associated with a Web 2.0 world.
Web 2.0 is about information exchange. Plain and simple. Sure, people can find one another and share details about their lives: including photos, videos, geography, interests, etc. But SYSTEMS can also find other SYSTEMS. PEOPLE can find DATA, combine data from different data sources, and we can share data and information with one another in ways that used to cost millions of dollars.
Consider the following example released on Twitter earlier today: a military member acting in a civilian capacity, Mr. Bob Sims, decided that he wanted to share a dizzying array of military acronyms with the world. For whatever reason (probably a test in this case), Mr. Sims thought that sharing military acronyms would add value to the world. Mr. Sims didn't put together a business case, knock on his Comptroller's door, beg for money, document the requirement, work for months to get it approved, hand it off to a Program office and wait 6-12 months for it to be put into a development queue and/or another 6 - 18 months to have his "application" created. He just found a data source for military acronyms, sucked the data into a spreadsheet, uploaded the spreadsheet to Google docs, and used Web 2.0 methodology to allow "end users" to pull data from that data source via a simple query. Read his story here.
He envisioned what he wanted. He found the data source. He exposed the data to the Web, and he created an app to make it easy for the world to consume it. Now anyone who grabs his app can look up military acronyms. Problem solved. Value created. How cool is that?!
There is nothing limiting our ability to share to tiny spreadsheets or other personal data sources. Many people have essentially done the same thing with much larger data sources located anywhere in the world. Reference Amazon.com, Expedia.com, Data.gov or Recovery.gov. This is part of our reality now.
In the world of Defense Business Transformation, one major challenge is to gather data from many authoritative data sources and make it immediately available to decision makers during investment portfolio reviews. Members of the DoD community have pulled data from two of their most relevant data sources - one for project data and milestone and the second for budget data, mashed it together and now serve it up through apps to leadership - at the point of decision making - when it's needed most. Essentially, Web 2.0 or "social media" has allowed the DoD to significantly enhance the quality of decisions made about its IT portfolio.
By the way, it bears mentioning that when we first rolled out this social media "mashup" of relevant data, many of the folks who used it did not recognize it as social media. They knew the data, but they did not connect the fact that what they were seeing was a mashup of data in their Web browser. That lead to some interesting questions - like where did you get the money to build such a "system" and where was your obligation authority to spend it? The assumption was that we had spent an enormous amount of money to bring them the dashboards. From from it, of course. We knocked out each little app in a few hours using Web 2.0 "social media" techniques. Beyond labor, it really didn't cost us anything.
If we limit our understanding of "Social Media" to technologies that bring people closer together, we miss out on what promises to be perhaps the single largest cost saver / value creator in technology history.
Open source value creation is already here. Information exposure and sharing is inexpensive and customizable using "social media" techniques. It's just that we haven't socialized it yet.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
3 PM EST Today: The Defense Acquisition Reform Panel
http://armedservices.house.gov/audiocast.shtml
Thursday, March 11, 2010 – 3:00pm – 2261 Rayburn – Open The Defense Acquisition Reform Panel will meet to receive testimony on Administration perspectives on managing the defense acquisition system and the defense acquisition workforce.
Witnesses:
Dr. Ashton B. Carter
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics
U.S. Department of Defense
Honorable Robert Hale
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
U.S. Department of Defense
Ms. Elizabeth A. McGrath
Acting Deputy Chief Management Officer
U.S. Department of Defense
Mr. Shay Assad
Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition & Technology)
Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy U.S. Department of Defense
Thursday, March 11, 2010 – 3:00pm – 2261 Rayburn – Open The Defense Acquisition Reform Panel will meet to receive testimony on Administration perspectives on managing the defense acquisition system and the defense acquisition workforce.
Witnesses:
Dr. Ashton B. Carter
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics
U.S. Department of Defense
Honorable Robert Hale
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
U.S. Department of Defense
Ms. Elizabeth A. McGrath
Acting Deputy Chief Management Officer
U.S. Department of Defense
Mr. Shay Assad
Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition & Technology)
Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy U.S. Department of Defense
The Intersect Between Corporate and Government
Taking care of issues of social justice, climate control, poverty, and improving communities can no longer be in the purview of government-only organizations. For profit corporations must deliberately incorporate these issues into daily decision making.
The fact is that the government will not be capable of supporting the people on its own and corporations will not survive if profit is the only motive. A new age is here.
As both a federal employee and a small business owner, I am thankful to the Boston College Center For Corporate Citizenship for preparing this video and articulating this idea so well.
The fact is that the government will not be capable of supporting the people on its own and corporations will not survive if profit is the only motive. A new age is here.
As both a federal employee and a small business owner, I am thankful to the Boston College Center For Corporate Citizenship for preparing this video and articulating this idea so well.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Designed to Fail
Designed to Fail: Why IT projects under achieve and what to do about it: http://tr.im/Fikt
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Allergic to Change
"Humans are allergic to change. They love to say, "We've always done it this way." I try to fight that. That's why I have a clock on my wall that runs counter-clockwise."
- Adm Grace Hopper
- Adm Grace Hopper
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The National Debt
This hearing addresses one of the most significant challenges of our time. Worth the time invested to listen or watch.
See or listen to the hearing by clicking on this link.
What do you believe is the nation's way forward?
See or listen to the hearing by clicking on this link.
What do you believe is the nation's way forward?
Veteran's Day
A friend wished me a "Happy Veteran's Day" at 1201 this morning. He was the first to send such a wish in my direction this year. A fellow veteran, I replied "Happy Veteran's Day" back, but somehow the word "Happy" just doesn't feel like it belongs.
Maybe it's the rain and clouds this morning. Maybe it's the recent bloody attack at Fort Hood, or my memory of the young man with the artificial leg that I walked past the other day on base, or the gradual change in personality I see in our troops - strong and sobering evidence of the burden our men and women in uniform must bear on behalf of this nation. For whatever reason, this Veteran's Day has more of a memorial feel to it for me. It is what it is.
We celebrate the brave men and women who have served this country in a special way. We celebrate the side of human nature that is willing to sacrifice everything - not just for a cause, but for the man or woman beside them or the memory of someone's love. We celebrate the courage that thousands of men and women have found in dark hours that has empowered the human race to stand against the most savage stuff this world can serve up - ourselves.
Every veteran has stood the watch. Read some good material on standing the watch: [Sailor, Soldier]
For me at least, the day is more personal than a casual "Happy Veteran's Day." It's a day to remember faces and moments. It's a day to remember routines; personal victories; hospital corners; the correct way to put toilet paper on a roll; dark nights thinking about sacrifice and wondering if I would have the courage and presence of mind to do what needed to be done when it was my turn; the neon buzz of lights coming on a 4AM; smells of Hoppe's #9, boot polish, and bleach; left foot first; and "DRESS RIGHT! HUH!"
I personally celebrate Veteran's Day every time I look in the mirror and check my gig line, when I'm shining my shoes, when I jingle the dog tags in my pocket, and even when I find it hard to fall asleep when I am super tired. I am both proud of the commitments I made and of the company I kept. And I regret that I didn't give more. As a veteran, I doubt I'm alone when I say it's hard to feel like I gave enough when I see so many who gave so much more.
This morning, just like last year, I raised the flag with my daughter - she ran to the front door hollering "Wait, Daddy! I want to help you!" We unfurled that flag and despite our civilian clothes, we both saluted.
Maybe it's the rain and clouds this morning. Maybe it's the recent bloody attack at Fort Hood, or my memory of the young man with the artificial leg that I walked past the other day on base, or the gradual change in personality I see in our troops - strong and sobering evidence of the burden our men and women in uniform must bear on behalf of this nation. For whatever reason, this Veteran's Day has more of a memorial feel to it for me. It is what it is.
We celebrate the brave men and women who have served this country in a special way. We celebrate the side of human nature that is willing to sacrifice everything - not just for a cause, but for the man or woman beside them or the memory of someone's love. We celebrate the courage that thousands of men and women have found in dark hours that has empowered the human race to stand against the most savage stuff this world can serve up - ourselves.
Every veteran has stood the watch. Read some good material on standing the watch: [Sailor, Soldier]
For me at least, the day is more personal than a casual "Happy Veteran's Day." It's a day to remember faces and moments. It's a day to remember routines; personal victories; hospital corners; the correct way to put toilet paper on a roll; dark nights thinking about sacrifice and wondering if I would have the courage and presence of mind to do what needed to be done when it was my turn; the neon buzz of lights coming on a 4AM; smells of Hoppe's #9, boot polish, and bleach; left foot first; and "DRESS RIGHT! HUH!"
I personally celebrate Veteran's Day every time I look in the mirror and check my gig line, when I'm shining my shoes, when I jingle the dog tags in my pocket, and even when I find it hard to fall asleep when I am super tired. I am both proud of the commitments I made and of the company I kept. And I regret that I didn't give more. As a veteran, I doubt I'm alone when I say it's hard to feel like I gave enough when I see so many who gave so much more.
This morning, just like last year, I raised the flag with my daughter - she ran to the front door hollering "Wait, Daddy! I want to help you!" We unfurled that flag and despite our civilian clothes, we both saluted.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Acquisition Professionals: VIP's on the Transformation Team
I podcasted on this subject about a year or so ago, but I believe it bears mentioning again: Without the Acquisition community's help, we're going to have a really difficult time with Defense Business Transformation.
I'm not just talking about the Acquisition policy makers. I'm talking about every person supporting the Acquisition process - from the one's who write the policy, to the COTR's and PM's who keep an eye on things. Everyone.
Groups of action level folks wearing titles such as KO (Contracting Officer), COR (Contracting Officer Representative), COTR (Contracting Officer Technical Representative), and TM (Task manager), all have significant contributions to make. These contributions are not limited to the absolutely necessary functions they already perform. I'm talking about saving the government a lot of money and wasted time. Minor changes to the way things are already being done will make a huge difference to Transformation efforts. We need to remember these folks and give them the training they need to be VIP members on the Transformation team.
First, these professionals need to be read in on the new application of the Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA). Every KO, COR, COTR and TM knows well what an ADA is: a section, 1341 (a), of legislation that uses words like "jail," "fines," and mean relief of duty. Everyone in the acquisition business got a primer on it during initial training. In short, an ADA violation is something to be avoided at all costs.
Few know, however, that the ADA has been recently (October 2005) applied to business IT projects for not asserting compliance against the Enterprise Architecture. Few understand that the act of doing their own thing with business IT projects - irrespective of their contracting authority - can land them into a career ending ADA violation that maybe hasn't caught up with them yet.
Of those that do know (I personally trained more than 80 COR's in a 3 month period) few realize that a few small changes to a Statement of Work (SOW) can save thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars and many months of paperwork. By simply requiring contractors to submit their deliverables in DoDAF (DoD Architecture) format, the solutions architecture that is needed to assert compliance will not have to be created by a separate contract line item (CLIN, government employees, or a new contract.
Compliance assertion can happen throughout the lifecycle of the project on an annual basis. This assures both a finished project that is compliant with current and emerging DoD design specifications and constraints, AND a whole lot less time and aggravation that comes from having to re-create paperwork after the fact.
Talk about demonstrable cost savings? The average time for a certification project to get from my office (the first time I saw a project) to having certification in hand was 71 days. Most of those 71 days were spent chasing down accurate and complete paperwork, educating people along the way, and getting someone to submit the solution architecture for a project. If contractors had been asked to submit their design proposals in DoDAF format up front, we could have easily shaved weeks off the certification process and made the certification process a lot more about design and the business case and a lot less about getting the paperwork right.
How many KO's understand that a lack of obligation authority means that a project isn't legally going anywhere? I'm talking about at the time of initial certification and again at each an every annual review (not less than 12 months from initial or annual certification).
All KO's know that not timing the renewal of a contract correctly could be a deal killer, but not timing the initial certification or the annual re-certification could be just as bad. Dead is dead. Without both money in the checkbook and obligation authority, business IT modernization, development or enhancement is not allowed to proceed in the DoD without facing an ADA violation.
How many business IT projects are NOT about development, enhancement or modernization? Precious few are pure sustainment efforts. Oh I know people sometimes call modernization "sustainment" because they claim a project would die if it doesn't keep pace with the world. Believe me, I've heard it. that's a way of getting around the system.
But 10USC2222 was not enacted to create another byzantine paperwork drill that we should do our best to avoid. It was created to give us the leverage we need to force systems throughout the Department, on penalty of ADA, to become compliant with standards that enable interoperability, data exchange; and to empower leadership to force the sum total of the IT asset portfolio to support DoD priorities like visibility of personnel, finances and materiel, etc. instead of skunks works, cherry picked requirements building efforts, and pet projects.
We want these Transformation systems (investment review, enterprise architecture, annual review, etc.) to work in order to empower decision makers to make better informed decisions - to spend smarter - to create some continuity over time - to stop duplication and sub-optimized efforts in all Components - to gain some control over the spaghetti mess of IT spending across the Department and re-direct resources that are currently being wasted by poor or conflicting decisions to areas where resources are sorely needed - to enable the real mission of the DoD.
If you are a DoD acquisition professional or if you know one, get the documents into their hands. The documents explain the law and the implications pretty clearly.
Keeping out of trouble and moving the DoD towards interoperability, continuity, and data sharing isn't as difficult as some would have us believe. From an Acquisition professional's perspective, adding a paragraph or two to a SOW (e.g. A. Contractors shall prepare proposed solutions architecture models using DoDAF format B. solutions submitted for consideration will be compliant with X standards as expressed in the DoD Business Enterprise Architecture) and changing the wording on relevant deliverables tables from "Word" or "Excel" format to 'DoDAF" format are really a pretty simple maneuvers.
Adding the words "Certification" and "Annual Review" to a project calendar is pretty easy too. Backing up the proper amount of time from those calendar entries and setting a reminder or two in order to make sure there is sufficient time to conduct a solid "due diligence" review is good for the project and good for the DoD.
If we can get this word out to the Acquisition community and the Acquisition community makes a few simple changes, time and cost savings would be enormous. This would put the acquisition community one more time in the VIP seat on the Transformation team.
I'm not just talking about the Acquisition policy makers. I'm talking about every person supporting the Acquisition process - from the one's who write the policy, to the COTR's and PM's who keep an eye on things. Everyone.
Groups of action level folks wearing titles such as KO (Contracting Officer), COR (Contracting Officer Representative), COTR (Contracting Officer Technical Representative), and TM (Task manager), all have significant contributions to make. These contributions are not limited to the absolutely necessary functions they already perform. I'm talking about saving the government a lot of money and wasted time. Minor changes to the way things are already being done will make a huge difference to Transformation efforts. We need to remember these folks and give them the training they need to be VIP members on the Transformation team.
First, these professionals need to be read in on the new application of the Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA). Every KO, COR, COTR and TM knows well what an ADA is: a section, 1341 (a), of legislation that uses words like "jail," "fines," and mean relief of duty. Everyone in the acquisition business got a primer on it during initial training. In short, an ADA violation is something to be avoided at all costs.
Few know, however, that the ADA has been recently (October 2005) applied to business IT projects for not asserting compliance against the Enterprise Architecture. Few understand that the act of doing their own thing with business IT projects - irrespective of their contracting authority - can land them into a career ending ADA violation that maybe hasn't caught up with them yet.
Of those that do know (I personally trained more than 80 COR's in a 3 month period) few realize that a few small changes to a Statement of Work (SOW) can save thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars and many months of paperwork. By simply requiring contractors to submit their deliverables in DoDAF (DoD Architecture) format, the solutions architecture that is needed to assert compliance will not have to be created by a separate contract line item (CLIN, government employees, or a new contract.
Compliance assertion can happen throughout the lifecycle of the project on an annual basis. This assures both a finished project that is compliant with current and emerging DoD design specifications and constraints, AND a whole lot less time and aggravation that comes from having to re-create paperwork after the fact.
Talk about demonstrable cost savings? The average time for a certification project to get from my office (the first time I saw a project) to having certification in hand was 71 days. Most of those 71 days were spent chasing down accurate and complete paperwork, educating people along the way, and getting someone to submit the solution architecture for a project. If contractors had been asked to submit their design proposals in DoDAF format up front, we could have easily shaved weeks off the certification process and made the certification process a lot more about design and the business case and a lot less about getting the paperwork right.
How many KO's understand that a lack of obligation authority means that a project isn't legally going anywhere? I'm talking about at the time of initial certification and again at each an every annual review (not less than 12 months from initial or annual certification).
All KO's know that not timing the renewal of a contract correctly could be a deal killer, but not timing the initial certification or the annual re-certification could be just as bad. Dead is dead. Without both money in the checkbook and obligation authority, business IT modernization, development or enhancement is not allowed to proceed in the DoD without facing an ADA violation.
How many business IT projects are NOT about development, enhancement or modernization? Precious few are pure sustainment efforts. Oh I know people sometimes call modernization "sustainment" because they claim a project would die if it doesn't keep pace with the world. Believe me, I've heard it. that's a way of getting around the system.
But 10USC2222 was not enacted to create another byzantine paperwork drill that we should do our best to avoid. It was created to give us the leverage we need to force systems throughout the Department, on penalty of ADA, to become compliant with standards that enable interoperability, data exchange; and to empower leadership to force the sum total of the IT asset portfolio to support DoD priorities like visibility of personnel, finances and materiel, etc. instead of skunks works, cherry picked requirements building efforts, and pet projects.
We want these Transformation systems (investment review, enterprise architecture, annual review, etc.) to work in order to empower decision makers to make better informed decisions - to spend smarter - to create some continuity over time - to stop duplication and sub-optimized efforts in all Components - to gain some control over the spaghetti mess of IT spending across the Department and re-direct resources that are currently being wasted by poor or conflicting decisions to areas where resources are sorely needed - to enable the real mission of the DoD.
If you are a DoD acquisition professional or if you know one, get the documents into their hands. The documents explain the law and the implications pretty clearly.
Keeping out of trouble and moving the DoD towards interoperability, continuity, and data sharing isn't as difficult as some would have us believe. From an Acquisition professional's perspective, adding a paragraph or two to a SOW (e.g. A. Contractors shall prepare proposed solutions architecture models using DoDAF format B. solutions submitted for consideration will be compliant with X standards as expressed in the DoD Business Enterprise Architecture) and changing the wording on relevant deliverables tables from "Word" or "Excel" format to 'DoDAF" format are really a pretty simple maneuvers.
Adding the words "Certification" and "Annual Review" to a project calendar is pretty easy too. Backing up the proper amount of time from those calendar entries and setting a reminder or two in order to make sure there is sufficient time to conduct a solid "due diligence" review is good for the project and good for the DoD.
If we can get this word out to the Acquisition community and the Acquisition community makes a few simple changes, time and cost savings would be enormous. This would put the acquisition community one more time in the VIP seat on the Transformation team.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Happy Halloween!
Everyone deserves to be a little frightened on Halloween day. A little government humor to do the trick (or treat). Enjoy and have a great weekend!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)