Archives
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
Categories
- Congress
- Defense
- General News
- Health
- Health IT
- Homeland Security
- IBM suspension
- Industry
- Info Security
- Intelligence
- International
- IT management
- Law
- OMB
- Oversight
- Policy
- Politics
- Privacy
- Procurement
- Program Management
- Project management
- Risk management
- Security
- Spending
- State and Local
- Technology
- Telecommunications
- Tip Thursday
- Virtual World
- Web
- White House
- Wireless
- Workplace
What's happening in the federal IT community
By Thursday, June 26, 2008 | 3:53 PM
The Washingtonian.com yesterday posted an article asking readers to suggest who could fill the position as federal chief technology officer. Presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama said he would appoint a CTO to coordinate the federal government's technology infrastructure and to promote transparency into policymaking. The article reports such technology luminaries as Vint Cerf, known as the father of the Internet; Microsoft's Steve Ballmer; and Amazon.com founder and Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bezos.
Putting aside whether any of these or other top tech executives would leave their day jobs in charge of some of the most powerful technology companies in the world (it's hard to picture these barons of the tech industry in a government position), it raises the question of what skill sets are needed for such a position. Would someone coming from a high-profile private-sector job have the necessary knowledge and skill to manage through the bureaucracy? Would they become too frustrated with the rules and culture of resistance? Or would someone with government know-how (and some private-sector ingenuity) get more accomplished? Or, on the flip side, would they not be willing to take bold steps, if bold steps are needed?
Stanford University law professor Lawrence Lessig, who is head of the Center for Internet and Society, told Washingtonian.com that the position required a "true geek." Is it all about bits and bytes? I have a feeling the person also would need a resume showing some healthy experience in change management. And some strong leadership skills wouldn’t hurt, either.
What kind of person would be best for the role?
Comments
Sorry, I don't see Steve Ballmer, Vint Cerf or Jeff Bezos taking this job.
Good point, FJ. I also was under the impression that the election was taking place in November.
Bill Murray | Thursday, July 3, 2008 | 3:32 PMThose suggested are motivated to make their business interests as profitable as possible. Their entire decision dynamic is completely different that that needed for a government. If the government was run like a business, our leaders would be chosen by a board of directors, not by a democratic process.
Looks like the media (nextgov included) has already decide that O has the office; not a wise assumption. Who he would choose is perhaps less important at this point than articulating why this position is important, regardless who the nation chooses as the next president.
The CTO would need strong leadership skills, charisma, and a healthy respect for information technology to succeed. While knowledge of information technology management is a must, an in the weeds techie traditionally doesn't have the people skills to be a change agent. It is one thing to completely own your world and run it the way you want to, it is a whole different animal to get a bunch of government leaders to work together toward a common goal (that doesn't have a terriorist on the business end of an M16). IT is a support function, the change agent must effectively relate it to mission with sufficient impact to be heard.
Annette | Friday, June 27, 2008 | 12:43 PMIs the election over? Why wasn't I informed?
FJ | Friday, June 27, 2008 | 11:21 AMVint Cerf would be an OUTSTANDING candidate for such a position. He is a true geek, with the ability to make the technical understandable to the lay population. He has experience dealing with the government sector and has worked with international governments. He has proven leadership skills, especially in his role as Chairman of the Board of ICANN
Anonymous | Friday, June 27, 2008 | 11:06 AMThanks for the shout-out, Allan! I think getting fresh, private sector blood into the government isn't a bad idea. Like Obama, we need someone with a new approach. If a lifelong bureaucrat became CTO, they would be operating with the same set of standards they've grown accustomed to, and it'd be hard to push them to out-of-the-box thinking. That being said, getting things done in the government is not easy—there's a lot of red tape and hierarchy. So the "fresh blood" would not only need innovative ideas, he or she would also need a good dose of grit and some seriously thick skin.
-Emily from Washingtonian
Emily | Friday, June 27, 2008 | 9:28 AMYou need someone who has a clue about Government. Balmer and Bezos would be horrendous choices. Those guys might be able to head NIST (research), but the Government-wide tech czar would need to be a pragmatist -- someone who would implement smart solutions in a measured way such that failures do not waste gobs of tax dollars. IT implementations almost always involve modernization, which means less-proven technologies, which means risk. It is important to minimize the risk of wasting tax dollars while our economy is still lurching. People pan how slow the federal government moves on things, but taking a measured approach to tech implementations prevents money and time wasted on dead-end technologies.
So pick a bright, well-respected Government techie. No, not household names. But smart, capable people respected by their peers and respected by people who know Government Tech.
Dick Burke (Retired OMB Chief Architect(basically Chief Architect for the Executive Branch))?, Mike Carleton (HHS CIO) or Colleen Coggins (DIO Chief Architect)? John Grimes (DoD CIO)? Robert McFarland (former VA CIO who was frustrated by the slow pace of change in Gov't)?
It would be silly to pluck a random entrepreneur with no idea of the size and inertia of the federal government.
IT Consultant to Govt | Friday, June 27, 2008 | 9:00 AMIMHO, this is a silly discussion. A CTO would have nothing to do in the Federal government, any more than a Federal CIO or any other CxO. Because decision-making on infrastructure, staffing, privacy, and any other topic is divided among the executive and legislative branches (and, after yesterday's gun ruling, the judicial branch). Poor Karen Evans and her predecessors have ended up as spokespersons for technical strategies and policies they cannot implement. I can imagine a Federal CTO laying out a grand technology strategy for identification and authentication across the Federal enterprise (including a FIPS 201-type token and a uniform infrastructure for issuance and validation) and then being turned down by both the Executive Branch and the Congress. I believe the budget side OMB has never allowed direct budget requests for HSPD-12 implementation nor have the appropriators ever demanded that such costs be accounted for in appropriations or allotments.
Andy Boots | Friday, June 27, 2008 | 6:39 AM