Page 36 - FCW, Jan/Feb 2018

Point/Counterpoint
A modest proposal to
improve government IT
Two longtime federal leaders debate the wisdom of creating a Cabinet-level IT shop
BY ALAN P. BALUTIS AND DON UPSON
Editor’s Note: Alan Balutis and Don Upson are longtime friends who sit on different sides of the political fence. Both have served in government and now work in the private sector — Bal- utis as a distinguished fellow at Cisco Systems and Upson as founder and president of the Government Business Executive Forum. Between them they have won 13 Federal 100 awards.
This is the third in a series of Point- Counterpoint articles they are writing for FCW that focus on current man- agement challenges.
Balutis: In our last discussion, I noted that your old friend Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) recently asked whether a Cabinet-level CIO is the future of gov- ernment IT. You said let us argue about that another time.
How about now? Federal IT spending exceeds $100 billion annually, larger than the budget of many existing departments or agencies.
Upson: “No” to a Cabinet-level CIO. You can argue the budget number, but it is not one number. Rather, it is the sum of dozens of expenditures within a number of department and agencies. Each expenditure is matched with dif- ferent missions and requirements.
Balutis: Thanks for giving the idea such careful consideration, Don. I am attered!
However, this is a White House that has given reorganizing and streamlining government a high priority. We need to do something to get a better return on
the investment we make in IT. The gov- ernment’s acquisition system is broken and profoundly dysfunctional. In addi- tion, the nation, to remain competitive, needs to spur innovation and set R&D priorities. Have any big ideas?
Upson: Why not a Department of Technology and Innovation? Place the federal CIO and CTO in that depart- ment. Give the CIO and CTO expand- ed authorities to oversee federal IT spending, to ensure that “innova- tion” is the key factor in government acquisition, to use new technologies to ful ll government requirements, and to establish a national innovation agenda. We could start by eliminating the Department of Commerce. It has been discussed for years.
Balutis: Just stop there, Don! No one is really going to “eliminate” the Depart- ment of Commerce. You are not going to get rid of the National Weather Ser- vice or the Census Bureau. Besides, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Telecom- munications and Information Admin- istration might well be part of such a new Department of Technology and Innovation. Perhaps the U.S. Patent and Trademark Of ce as well.
Upson: Let us not eliminate it but rather dramatically overhaul it and give it some teeth.
Balutis: Like a technology and innova- tion “repeal and replace”? That could
work. NIST, NTIA and USPTO stay. The federal CIO and CTO are housed there. Maybe the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy labs. The Minority Business Development Agency goes to the Small Business Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion moves to Interior, and the Interna- tional Trade Administration becomes part of the U.S. Trade Representative. Census and the Bureau of Economic Analysis align with the Bureau of Labor Statistics and some other smaller agen- cies in a new STAT-USA entity.
Upson: Just last month, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology held a hearing in which information science experts raised
the risks of the U.S. falling behind in the global race to develop quantum technologies. The same is true in other areas — arti cial intelligence, cyber, the internet of things and so on.
We not only need to invest more in many of these areas, we need a plan, a strategy, a set of objectives and priori- ties. Given that we have a president who enjoys rattling establishment cages and routines of government, now is the time to think big.
From one who stands on the right side of the political spectrum and one who stands on the wrong side, can’t we agree that such an idea might make sense?
Balutis: If we can change “wrong” to “left,” I actually might be able to agree with you, Don. n
34 January/February 2018 FCW.COM