2014 will certainly see the search for the guilty, and assignment
of blame for the very flawed healthcare.gov website rollout. Assuredly, there will be those calling for
scrapping, streamlining, and/or modernizing the current IT procurement and contracting
systems. The “Arcane IT contracting” meme makes for great headlines, for the Administration
and for Congress (each seeking to suggest fault lies in the “system”
rather than is their own execution or oversight shortcomings). I hope that the
notions of “partnering” with the private sector gets true analysis, planning
and controls… rather than irrational optimism, political impatience and marketing
hype from the industry, Administration and Congress. We certainly do not need another round of
simple-minded ‘solutions’ to a very complex set of interrelated problems.
We must remember the
nature of those with whom the government would partner. These systems integration and systems
development firms may have excellent experience, skill, methods, and staff, but
they also have stockholders, risk avoidance strategies, revenue targets, and
other characteristics that may be antithetical to an agency’s needs and goals.
I’m reminded of the tortoise
and scorpion fable: The scorpion asked the tortoise to give him a ride across
the stream. The tortoise protested that
the scorpion would sting and kill him.
The scorpion argued that if he did so, they would both die. Seeing the argument's logic, the tortoise relented. Midstream, the scorpion stung the tortoise. Shocked and surprised, the dying tortoise said “Why would you kill us both?” The drowning scorpion said “It is my nature”.
As the politicians rail
against the Federal IT and contracting bureaucracy, they need to remember the other half of the
equation: the IT contractors who continually participate in IT failures –
knowingly or otherwise. Some of the publicized federal IT failures seem to me
to be dysfunctional relationships with multiple ‘enablers’. The very industry that claims to have the
answers to the Federal IT challenges, is the same industry that is at the
epicenter of most, if not all, major federal IT failures (and many state and
municipal IT failures too).
Oops, there goes another
scorpion-tortoise partnership. Where is
the ‘value added?’ what about the delivery of ‘superior capability?’; ‘leading edge
management expertise?’; ‘solution
sets?’; ‘proven methodologies?’… and all of the other over-the-top marketing buzzphrases. Congress, with analysis from the General
Accountability Office (GAO), should cast a critical eye on the general claim
that the major systems integrators and software development companies are
“autoMAGICALLY” more efficient, less risky, less costly, better qualified, and
better managed than the Federal IT bureaucracy.
New legislation that increases agency flexibility and
accountability is wending its way through the Congress, but if that’s all the
Congress has to offer, they need not bother.
To me, flexibility
means that more subjective judgments will be made by political appointees who
will disappear before the judgments and decisions take effect, for better or
worse. Too many political appointees
arrive with preconceived solutions, approaches, and an inner circle of
acolytes, even before they learn their new organizational environment, culture,
problems, strengths and challenges.
These appointees understandably act tactically to effect change within
their few years of tenure, but that is often at the expense of fundamental
strategic action. Most federal IT
professionals have experienced the attitude of some incoming appointees and
their cadre: ‘if you’re here, you must be part of the problem’.
Accountability means that
somebody gets fired when projects fail.
That’s a minimalist-retroactive approach that means virtually nothing to
the taxpayer or to the agency’s mission.
The money and time is gone, the system isn’t built, and the citizen got
nothing. So the only thing that happened is that some $180K executive(s) got
fired for wasting $100M and several years on a failed system?
That is hardly satisfying or adequate.
In fact, both the Administration and Congress have enough power
to hold Federal IT and contracting bureaucrats accountable. The challenge is to use that power in sufficient time
to make a difference. While failed
project autopsies and Congressional ‘inquests’ are somewhat useful, a better
approach is to proactively prevent failures. The
only solution path to the Federal IT contracting conundrum is through the hard
work of mission-dedicated, skilled, compensated, and respected IT and
contracting work force.
Leave your email address above to receive new postings
