Federal CIO Agrees with Obama’s ‘Broken’ IT Comments

I am an independent contractor in the IT world in Boston serving mostly financial instituations. believe me when I tell you that most managers outside of IT have no idea whether or not the IT group knows what it is doing. when IT comes asking for another million dollars for new servers who can a: audit their request and b: who is going to dare to tell them 'no'. it is a complete joke. fortunately, they keep paying me a boatload of money to keep them in the know.

Well said, Fred, well said! IT waste and stranglehold on most major corporations is THE underreported story in technology. Don't rock the boat and maybe we can continue to get our email!

I used to work for a Fed govt contractor in IT and totally agree with Fred. Also, there lacks accountability- but I think it's more than IT "broke" in Fed and State govt. I'm aware of a vendor who was paid when all the contract requirements in the RFQ were not met. My main point- not just IT processes are broke in govt agencies. Purchasing processes are broke. Obama- if you read this- please make govt contractors more accountable to the agencies they support and have consequences if they claim they met the requirements and did not.

After a lifetime of swearing I would never work for a govt. contractor, the dot com collapse left me doing just that. I had always hated the idea of working for companies that 'charged $86 for a hammer' etc. Now that I am on the inside and see what goes on, my opinion has changed. Yes there is waste and inefficiency in gov't contractors, but the gov't agencies themselves are frequently to blame for cost over runs. Just one example, I worked for 6 months on a piece of custom billing software that the client (starts with an 'N' ends with an 'A') insisted that we develop as part of the contract with them. Over the course of the 6 months I met with the client about every 2 months to demo the product so we could make any tweaks necessary before moving it to production. Each time, everything worked perfectly with the test data, all the requirments were fulfilled, however the client decided to add more features and pull info from more sources etc. At the end of 6 months, in our last meeting, the client suddenly realized that if he just combined results from 2 existing reports he already had, he would get the same data that we were producing with the new software. At that point, he decided that while the app I had worked and met all his requirements, it was redundant and at that point he released us from that deliverable on the contract. Needless to say, they still had to pay for 6 months of work, they just acknowledged it and threw it away. Your tax dollars at work.

I was just talking about this over dinner with friends. Its not so much the contractors as its the ones contracting. Agencies think they are more important than they are and want all of this specialize software and hardware. Rather than making their requirements fit something they can buy off the shelf they could save themselves tons of money. Right now IT fights with old specialized software that doesn't play nice with new hardware. And the programmer they hired to write the software has left the organization, retired, or died. On top of all this, as stated above, they have people in charge of IT departments that have very (and I mean very!!!!!) little knowledge of the IT field. Just because to can type a good document doesn't mean you know how to rout a network or make it effective. Let me put it like this: I work in the IT field and I drive to work every day....... Does that mean I can take apart a car and put it back together....... and have it run? No!! I take it to someone who knows what the hell he/she's doing!!!! And not the cheapies one I can find!!

Before coming to the 'States, I used to work in Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Canada in the first half of the nineteen nineties. The technology purchasing procedures of the Department of Supply and Services (DSS) were so convoluted and contradictory that, in the process of setting up an expert system to help with the process, we determined that by strictly following the rules and guidelines you could NEVER get paid, even if all of the people involved were willing to sign-off. Now THAT's fiscal responsibility.

Woah susanana your response is typical of an engineer...without IT you wouldn't be able to do your job we know what we are doing

It's important to not miss the President's main point. He's the leader of this nation and he has outdated technology. Any good business man knows that IT is a 'cost center' and the trick to its management is to gain a competitive advantage through its deployment. I would much rather see the White House implement a VoIP phone system integrated with a full Unified Communications suite while it grapples with a $14 trillion dollar deficit or our nations security than to try solving those problems with rotary dial phones. Every cutting edge organization I've ever dealt with knew how to use 'new' technology effectively...Government is no different. (BTW...He's absolutely right about the procurement problem --- government is so concerned about 'fairness', 'openness', 'transparency', 'accountability', 'liability', etc., etc., that it screws itself into the ground. Private sector businesses do not have a tenth the BS to deal with in this regard).

Jon- req'd creep is a drag for software development projects. As govt ctr, a good PM or PMO should remind the agency client that if they change requirements, so does price for solution. One Fed govt agency finally started doing solution scans to see if existing custom built apps already existed and started sharing enterprise wide. Also, same Fed govt agency had redundant custom built software solutions and picked the best, eliminating the rest of redundant solutions. A great civilian boss once told me, business process drives technology. Technology does not drive process. Often times, I would meet with a Fed agency group and they would not know what they wanted- and expected me to produce something with nothing in writing or pinned down. I spent 6 months defining moving requirements. Project was canned when a downward COTS enterprise solution was being implemented. In another vein, some agencies do a huge purchase of IT assets and leave them sitting in a warehouse collecting dust and then surplus them. Agencies want to keep the same amount of funding every year and sometimes do foolish purchasing even beyond technology assets. One final note: SES employees typically rotate out, I think every 3-4 years. I am aware of one project that was not viable and did not move forward- just waited for that SES employee be over different agency. Project was nicknamed "Jason"- it just would not die and then finally did.

Sounds like the President is suffering from the CSI affect. Like so many in society that have little training and experience for the job they have been placed in and don't know the true capabilities of technology.

Forgive me, Derwood, but your obvious dislike of the President of the United States is taking precedence over any point you are attempting to make.

From Obama's vantage point, it's understandable that he's frustrated with technology not even meeting his business needs. Unfortunately, due to the poor accountability in the procurement practices, large expenditures are coming under greater scrutiny in the never-ending focus on realizing immediate cost-savings in this end-of-term fiscal year. Although, I fully respect V. Kundra's approach to embracing emerging technologies and commodity services, it is still a strong emphasis on IT infrastructure savings from mission-targeted applications into the cloud. Under the past administrations' K. Paul (OMB Chief EA), Enterprise Architecture was introduced as a strategic management tool for organizational management of IT investment portfolios. The key is that EA can be used to connect the business with the technology infrastructure and this linkage is essential to decomposing comlexity and assessing risk. If you don't connect the two areas with the appropriated funds (gov't perspective, you will continue to see and realize "stove-piped" solutions (applications, business processes, infrastructure services, etc.) once again that are representative of disconnected pieces of the mission delivery. You cannot reach a horozontal or enterprise view of the organization down this path, with the technology changing at such a rapid pace. We need to re-invigorate EA principles, techniques and methodologies to demonstrate value to the organization (private or gov't) in reaching targeted performance goals. If there is any chance for this administration to sustain the open transparency into another term, the OMB Chief Enterprise Architect must articulate the value of EA as a sustainable ingrained "practice" that is used to integrate many management disciplines cohesively for business decision-makers.

I'm a biologist for the Federal Government after having paid my way through college as a system and network admin... I can't speak for all departments, but the two I've worked for have IT infrastructure and systems that are best described as a sick joke. I'm constantly under fire to keep my work e-mail under 500MB in 2011, where Google gives you 7.5GB gratis and a 2-terabyte drive costs in the $100 range. My agency does not deal in classified information of any sort, but we spend lots of time and money stringing ethernet cable because Wi-Fi is outright banned--not even WPA2/AES, which is used in hospitals with patient data, is secure enough for us. When I left my last department in 2008, we still recorded our time in a system that required a 3270 emulator. That system is still in place as far as I know. My opinion is that too many IT-related decisions are made by people who don't understand the technology. Our local IT support/admin folks are some of the most frustrated people I know, because they do understand the technology but have to work in a box created by people who don't.

There is no one fix to this, but all the President did was point out the hole in the doughnut. The Federal gov't typically only has the coolest and latest IT gizmos in the programs that focus on such things, like the R&D shops. The other agencies & programs are slowed by both gov't employees who are both stymied by procurement regulations or averse to making a decision that may have some risk of failure involved, so the path of decision-making is bourne on no one. In my humble opinion, Feds need to be able to make decisions based on perceived "best value" to the gov't and to take defensible ownership of that decision. They should not be able to hide behind a maze of regulations, and they also shouldn't make IT decisions that result in steady state outcomes. However, if they can make their decision defensible, they shouldn't get dinged for taking some risks and that risk should be spread across a group of decision makers with the executive in charge, i.e. the CIO taking final responsibility. If they're stewards of our country's gov't resources and tax dollars, then let's align those jobs with performance metrics that move the U.S. forward.

You can not compare the cost of a chain store hard drive for your home computer with the cost of a high performance server-grade drive. Prices vary by manufacturer and features but here is a server-grade 600GB drive that costs $1,000: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822332078 This same difference goes for RAM, Processors, and all other components. My company has been moving to blade servers to save on space and power, and these servers are over $10,000 a piece not including the massive amounts of networked storage and the infrastructure that supports it. That said, I agree that the largest problem is the divide between IT and "The Business" with regards to understanding of technology and what that tech should cost. The largest problem we have in IT is convincing the business that they millions they invest in IT are worth it. It's because people go to their local BestBuy and see hard drives for cheap that they believe they are getting swindled. It's also up to the IT departments to make sure that the investments they're seeking are appropriate for the environment they're working in. It's a subtle line to walk and there are too many factors on every side of the equation for it to ever work 100% correctly.

Attn: Tony, This issue is greater than debating whether to buy the cheap or the enterprise-grade drives. The role I play in many financial institutions in the Boston area is to be hired on in a mid-level IT role where I spend my time analyzing the true IT needs of the company and meeting covertly with "The Business" executives where I explain the technology as well as uncover the rampant fraud and deceit perpetrated by IT staff. One quick example: worked into the budget of a mutual fund company was an additional $37,000 for servers. The money was actually used to purchase laptops and home computers for the IT staff as well as a junket to Hawaii! This is not uncommon. This type of behavior sure buys the loyalty of the IT staff who are willing to keep their mouths shut as long as their pockets are being lined. IT departments have no interest in educating "The Business" executives. Fear, Doubt and Obfuscation are still the trademarks of most IT departments. I retire in three months at the age of 48. I do not want to be in this sewer any longer. Parting comment: there is no need for the current complexity in client/server environments. There is the complexity due to the greed and profit motives of all involved. Follow the money, as always.

Well, This is was i was telling when i was working in one of the city agency. But it Bureaucracy , diplomacy, unions environment doesn't allow the the replacement of the old systems with new economical systems and processes.

Last statement is True Joe R. In my experience, some recent IT graduates can impact IT decision purchases far beyond their years and experience, typically because senior management is technically grossly out of touch. For example, OS or App upgrades are not required simply because the Bill Gates Empire decides to release a version upgrade that offers a few enhancements or "better look & feel" appeal.

I have worked in local government for a few years after decades in the private sector. Procurement is horribly convoluted, but it is a product of scandal, abuse, media-driven sensationalism and lawsuit settlements. To avoid the possibility of insider deals, government procurement organizations have gone to extremes that value fairness and transparency over efficiency. The private sector has no such concern, because reporters cannot demand to see the contract-related documents of GE, IBM, Microsoft or any other private enterprise...whatever questionable practices may occur in the private sector are kept quiet because they are usuallly invisible to the news media. Public scrutiny of government behavior is certainly an entrenched - and often beneficial - part of the American system, but the cost of publicizing "unfair", "pay to play" or any other questionable contracting procedures is the replacement of administrative simplicity with risk-averse, cumbersome, expensive and extraordinarily inefficient - but legally defensible - bureaucratic procedures. It doesn't matter if 99% of the contracting practices used to be simple, straightforward and fair...the 1% that weren't have changed the procedures for the other 99% as well. IT is not often the locus of contracting scandals, but it pays the price because the few bad apples affect everything in the procurement bushel.

I agree with Joe R. I am a statistical analyst for a state agency, and unlike what Tony asserts we are not comparing apples to oranges. My IT contracts force me to buy outdated equipment at cost far above the current MSRP for NEW equipment. It takes six months to a year to procure these products, so not only are they outdated at the time of purchase, but even more so when they get deployed. I could go to Best Buy and easily outfit my office with far surperior products at a fraction of what our agency currently pays. I understand the need for consisitency among the Agency's equipment, but that is not the reason for the silly contracts and delays. I don't know why this is the case, as I am not privy to the process whereby the purchasing contracts negotiated. I've also watched one project after another go into serious cost overrun or simply have to be abandonded after agency management decided to develop in-house, and then lacked the capacity to support the project in perpituity or contracted the project but continually changed the project requirements. I have been invovled in these dicussions, and I think the primary problem in my agency is a disconnect between the users of the contract systems and those who control the funding. At the beginning of our projects there is, as there should be, an emphasis on cost control, but too frequently this results in corner-cutting by upper-management. When the franken-product doesn't meet the needs of the agency, this has to be corrected later in the proccess resulting in a HIGHER cost than would have been incurred had the necessary resources to deploy a good product been expended at the outset. All agenices suffer unique issues, but I think from the comments I've read today that these and similar problems exist across the spectrum of government agencies.

Right on.

Getting "dinged" for straying outside the box in government means a few years in Levenworth. Our rules are law, not just policy.

And your bad English. It's EFFECT not affect.

These are symptoms of the overall condition of government as a whole, not just IT. Coming from the private sector roughly two years ago, I am amazed to see the incredibly poor quality of leadership in this entire environment. Greed and apathy have taken hold and the systems across the board are incredibly broken and disconnected from the current realities of our world. Operations still behave as if this is the 70's or 80's and sadly no one seems willing to change that fact, but prefer to stay safe in the "way we've always done things" while we as taxpayers and citizens suffer. Islands of change exist, and a critical mass is coming for government and IT, but sadly we have yet to reach that point. We as technology professioanls should be leading that charge given the very nature of our profession. As IT professionals we are change manaagment professionals as well as professionals who are highly vested in quality control type management processes. We have vision into every organizational silo, but we have to choose to exercise control over those silos, to lead by example and to ensure that our voices are heard. To quote Deming, change is not required, because survival is not mandatory.