Page 69 - FCW, October 2017

should sit at the Cabinet table. The larger and more important question to be answered is what is and should be the role of the CIO in govern- ment. Substantive reform is long overdue in that area.
Rather than IT spending or IT acquisition, substantial CIO reform legislation should focus on the CIO’s mission, which is “informa- tion” mapped and prioritized to the department’s or agency’s mission — in other words, an information architecture.
Billions have been spent on tech- nical enterprise architectures with- out ever having mapped the impor- tant information flows that direct every government operation, partly because the CIO is often neither empowered nor, in some instances, qualified to make those decisions.
An information architecture argues for different capabilities
in a CIO, and it certainly reorders them. Technical knowledge, while important, becomes subordinate to management knowledge and experience. Former Attorney Gen- eral John Ashcroft viewed his CIO as vital to his mission of moving information and enabling greater collaboration across the Justice Department.
He was concerned about better information flows among the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administra- tion and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and he viewed the processes that would enable those flows as the responsibility of his CIO, Van Hitch. He was empowered by a Cabinet- level attorney general who saw the CIO’s office as it should be seen.
When a CIO’s primary responsibil- ity is to map and move information to the right people at the right time and to prioritize those information flows within available re-
sources, a stronger case can be
made for elevating the CIO position in government. Absent that, the func- tion will fail to meet its promise.
Indeed, the office will become fractured, as can be seen with the proliferation of CTOs and chief data officers across government. Those offices carry no statutory account- ability or structure, and they should be incorporated into an information management framework, with a CIO charged with execution.
Balutis: Hasn’t that already hap- pened, Don? Ironically, coincident with the enactment of the Federal IT Acquisition Reform Act in 2014, which is designed to strengthen and clarify the authority of the CIO, has come a new proliferation of chiefs, especially in the IT arena. To a certain extent, I find those new roles puzzling. Let’s review them:
• Chief data officer. We know government agencies generate lots of data. The Commerce Depart- ment generates 24 terabytes’ worth each day and estimates that it makes use of less than 4 terabytes. The challenge for CDOs is to make better use of that rich array of data, perhaps through partnerships with the private sector. But once data is combined and put into a broader context, it comes under the purview of a...
• CIO. Created in 1996 under the IT Management Reform Act (also known as the Clinger-Cohen Act), the CIO position was introduced
to deal with two major problems: paying today’s prices for yester- day’s technologies and having too many “runaway systems” (IT proj- ects that were over budget, behind schedule and not delivering the promised functionality). But there are other key concerns, so one also needs a...
• CTO. This might be one of the
more muddled roles, and the confu- sion has prompted lawmakers to draft legislation that would better define it. During the Obama admin- istration, the CTO’s responsibility shifted from defining how tech- nology can transform the way the government delivers health care, for example, to serving as a SWAT team to salvage the (using the most common phrase) botched rollout
of the Affordable Care Act; recruit- ing IT talent from Silicon Valley to come to D.C.; supporting the study of science, technology, engineering and math; and encouraging more women to work in the technology field. Regardless, one still needs a... • Chief information security officer and a...
• Chief privacy officer to ensure that individuals’ personal data isn’t revealed. But once information is aggregated and stored, perhaps one needs a...
* Chief knowledge officer. And who will use the data, information and knowledge outside the agen- cies and outside the government? We need to turn to the...
* Chief customer officer.
I know I haven’t covered every new chieftain (e.g., the chief digiti- zation officer).
Upson: OK, stop. It is time for a CIO Act that explicitly recognizes the vital role information management plays in 21st-century government, including accumulation, analysis, dissemination and security. It is time for a statute that sets the purpose, responsibilities, reporting, account- ability and budget.
Such an act would justify in word and responsibility the elevation of the federal CIO to a level worthy of Senate confirmation, just as it would justify the reporting of agency and departmental CIOs to respective Cabinet officers and agency heads. n
October 2017 FCW.COM 49