05/13/08 11:42 am ET
When news broke several weeks back about the Census Bureau and the decision to scrap plans for the use of handheld devices and a so-called “high-tech count” in 2010 I can’t say I was “shocked.” I held off commenting because it brought back so many memories from 1980, from 1990 and from 2000. In fact, if I unearthed meeting notes, memos, and briefings from then, I likely could produce an account that mirrored what is swirling now: One of those “ripped from today’s headlines” accounts.
But it saddens me in so many ways:
That in 2010 one of our nation’s most important statistical, financial and political exercises will be conducted by pen and paper; that tests done in 2000 – over the objections of the bureau back then I might add – to allow people to enter and file online were not used to guide this current effort or as a base for improvement; that a new president, a new secretary and a new census director – all of whom will take office next year – will inherit not only this mess but also a bill for $14.5 billion, up almost $3 billion from earlier estimates (that number will no doubt grow even higher); that the bureau sent 400-plus new and revised requirements to prime contractor Harris Corp. in January of this year, only months before a full field test was planned; that apparently the bureau was continuing to send rosy reports to both the Office of the Secretary and the Office of Management and Budget throughout this period of time; that the recent hearings were filled with ringing rhetoric from members of Congress: “a grossly mismanaged . . . program” (Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va.); “. . . a failure of government management . . . ” (Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va.); and “incompetence comes to mind.” (Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.); that . . . well, why go on?
There is good news. We certainly have a textbook case now of how NOT to manage a major IT project – an excellent case of what Peat-Marwick once dubbed a “runaway system,” over budget, behind schedule and not delivering the promised functionality. And one must ask, in all of this, where was the chief information officer? Where was the CIO from the Census Bureau? And where was the CIO from the Commerce Department? And in a Republican administration, was there no one in the Office of the Secretary who recalled the advice of The Great Communicator to “trust, but verify.”
Ready yourself for more. This story will likely fade, no doubt pushed from the headlines by another “runaway system” elsewhere in government. But two years from now – early in the term of the new administration – watch for the stories of the 2010 decennial census of population and housing: the costs, the response rates, accuracy, undercounts, political ramifications, the effects on the $300 billion in government funding assistance, and so on. And ask again, “So where was the CIO”?
COMMENTS
This article demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the Census Bureau is organized to conduct a Decennial Census. My comments will explain precisely "where the CIO was!"
The Decennial Census is huge. Because of its size and complexity it requires a unique organization structure. This is the case for the 2010 Census just as it was for the 2000 Census.
In a nutshell it goes like this. There is a Director (CEO), a Deputy Director (COO), and a half dozen or so Associate Directors (program experts). Two of those Associate Directors, as well as the Deputy Director, come into play in this article. One, the Associate Director for Information Technology (CIO) and the other, Associate Director for Decennial Censuses.
Just like the 2000 Census, the long and short of it is this. The Associate Director for Decennial Censuses is responsible for the Decennial Census IT program, including contracting out. (the CIO is not!) The CIO is responsible for all Census Bureau IT programs and processes, excluding the Decennial Census. Now that's pretty clear!
The author asks... 'Where was the CIO?". My answer -- doing precisely what the organization assigned him to do and doing it quite well.
If the intent of this article is to point blame or infer management neglect, the CIO is an incorrect place to start.
I can understand the conclusion that anything that even smells of IT is CIO territory and responsibility. Not so! One must understand the operational organization to understand responsibility and accountability.
I would encourage the reader to be cautious about drawing conclusions. I would encourage the author to understand the organization of the Census Bureau and then point a finger if he feels the need.
Charles Hancock 05/16/08 03:45 pm ET
I am echoing Roger Brown's comment, "Managing the Census is the job of the entire management team at Commerce. Where were they?"
For those of you who want the REAL story - the CIO of the Census Bureau was INTENTIONALLY removed from the entire Field Data Collection Automation project, the contract with Harris, and any potential oversight of the Decennial Census.
The most recently retired Deputy Director of the Census Bureau, in that role as well as his former role, is responsible for master minding this handheld plan and excluding anyone and everyone who might inject some common sense into this project. It was not until the project was in trouble that he asked the CIO for help, and by then, both money and time were wasted.
The other major problem is lack of consensus and communication within the various components of Census that actually perform the Census. They couldn't even get their requirements on paper until a year after the system development had begun. I don't know about you, but that does NOT follow any SDLC I've ever seen. But, the CIO was NOT authorized to interfere. What about the CFO, whose Senior Contract Officer recommended a cost-plus contract in the first place that would certainly lead to cost overrun? Again, as Roger Baker pointed out, the entire management team FAILED.
So, please, do not be saddened by something you have no chance of ever really understanding.
Don't Worry About My Name 05/14/08 10:51 am ET
At $3 billion of increased cost, this one is clearly a failure of management above the CIO. In 1998, Commerce Secretary Daley made it clear to his CIO that making sure IT for the 2000 Census was on track was a top priority. From 1998 to 2001, the Commerce IT team spent a LOT of time in Suitland and Bowie making sure the right things were being done there, and putting other IT issues on the back burner.
So, let me pose a different set of questions. Where was the CFO? Where was the Deputy Secretary? Where was the Secretary? At $14 billion, the budget for a Decennial Census dwarfs the entire Department of Commerce, and should consume a large percentage of management team time. What was the CIO asked to focus on during 2007? Was it the Census? Or was it email consolidation?
Managing the Census is the job of the entire management team at Commerce. Where were they?
Roger Baker 05/14/08 09:36 am ET