Government Executive had an interesting article on the Census Bureau handheld project problem. In an interview with Government Executive, agency director Steven Murdock said that there was a “combination of events” that contributed to the problems, and he spread the blame among the Census Bureau as well as the contractors.

Director Murdock also said in the interview that he didn’t want to dwell on past problems, which I can fully understand. Right now, the agency has to make certain that the 2010 census can be properly conducted, so all efforts need to be focused forward.

However, this also is the best time to really do a comprehensive post mortem on why the handheld project went south, especially focusing on the decision making process that took place along the way and how it addressed (or didn't) the various technical, contractual, political, managerial, etc. sources of risk.

In case you may have been on vacation and missed some Tech Insider posts, here are some of the most-commented-on entries (with sample comments) during the past month:

Spreading the Blame for IT Project Failures
"We won't get improvement until we educate and train business managers as both project clients and steering committee members." -- Jed Simms

OMB: Agencies Would Lie About IT Project Risk
"How can a government oversight agency such as OMB, charged primarily with budget oversight, be effective when they also assume responsibility for “helping” the very IT programs that they must objectively assess?" -- John

McCain and the Internet -- Part 3
"What I may be seeing from his comments is a lack of interest because he's so busy elsewhere, but the desire to learn and grow with new technology is critical to understanding and leading a country, I believe." -- Debby

DCAA Not Wanting the Truth?
"It seems like the same people who designed the system which they now believe broken are the ones who are now looking for fall guys." -- scared

Be Careful What You Talk About
"Ethics demand transparency to INVESTORs. Everyone else is optional." -- Dan

This entry was posted by NextGov reporter Gautham Nagesh.

According to a release from Level 3 Communications, this week GSA became the first civilian agency to comply with OMB’s mandate to implement IPv6, the next generation of the Internet.

Agencies were required to have the infrastructure in place to accommodate IPv6 by June 30.

Edward Morche, general manager of Level 3’s Federal segment, said the company was “pleased to build on its relationship with GSA and to help the agency transition to the next generation of technology.” He told NextGov that GSA thought it important that the agency show leadership in this area by being the first to embrace the new technology.

"GSA successfully completed all core network testing to ensure IPv6 compliance as called for in the Federal CIO Council IPv6 Demonstration Plan," GSA said in an email statement to NextGov.

IPv6 offers several benefits over existing IPv4 networks, foremost among them are the increased number of IP addresses available. IPv4 uses 32-bit addresses, meaning it can offer about 4.3 billion addresses total. IPv6 uses 128-bit addresses, so it can offer an almost unlimited number of addresses, allowing them to be assigned to all sorts of devices, from cell phones and cars to toasters and refrigerators. The upgrade could be the first step toward finally achieving fully networked functionality among all electronic devices.

GSA’s deployment likely means that the agency will be leading the charge in pushing other agencies to embrace the new platform. While the demand for IPv6 technologies is still almost nonexistent, that could change quickly as more and more developers learn how to take advantage of the new features and enhanced security automation. Along with the Trusted Internet Connection initiative, it’s one more issue to keep an eye on as the federal government tries to regain its place at the forefront of innovation on the Internet.

This entry was posted by NextGov reporter Jill R. Aitoro.

Word around the beltway is that Dale Meyerrose will officially step down as chief information officer at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, allegedly planning a move to the private sector.

While his office neither confirmed nor denied news of his pending departure, which came from a qualified industry source, a public affairs representative with ODNI said he “has not stepped down,” and that the claim “is not something we are going to comment on further.”

The departure of Meyerrose would serve as quite a blow to the intelligence community. Since his appointment by President George W. Bush as the first associate director of national intelligence and CIO in December 2005, he has been a champion for more strategic data exchange across federal government by advocating a “need to share,” rather than a “need to know,” philosophy. He has also worked closely with John Grimes, CIO of the Defense Department, to establish better collaboration between the agencies. The two CIOs signed a memorandum in July 2007, in fact, that established a shared vision for information sharing between defense and intelligence agencies.

Meyerrose served in the military for 30 years, retiring from the Air Force as a major general in November 2005.

This entry was posted by NextGov reporter Jill R. Aitoro.

All levels of government have long promoted a move toward paperless processes -- transitioning information to the Web, offering e-government collaborative tools, and marketing their own initiatives -- which theoretically reduce the number of trees sacrificed. The Office of Management and Budget, for example, made a point to publicize fiscal 2009 as the first time the federal budget was delivered to Congress completely digitally. Given the document was about 170 pages, this was no small feat.

And the progress made at the state and local level also receives kudos. Just this week the Center for Digital Government released results from its Digital Counties Survey. Six Washington area jurisdictions made it onto a list of "top digital" counties. As reported by The Washington Post, Fairfax County, Va., earned the accolade as a result of an innovative e-government program that offers 24-hour access through the Internet, kiosks in county buildings, voice-response systems on touch-tone phones and its cable TV channel. A do-it-yourself model also allows citizens to pay taxes, search for government facilities, access court information, and register for parks and recreation activities -- all from home. That might even put the federal government’s e-government efforts to shame. Loudoun County and Prince William County in Virginia also earned honors from the survey, as did Maryland’s Montgomery, Prince George's, and Frederick counties.

This entry was posted by NextGov reporter Jill R. Aitoro.

Will support for current information technology efforts continue with the next administration? The Army IT chief isn’t so sure.

Chief Information Officer Jeffrey Sorenson, during a morning keynote on Wednesday, predicted 18 months to two years of uncertainty in program funding, leaving all departments in a state of flux. That will be followed by an inevitable change in priorities, which could threaten initiatives that are already under way.

So what happens in the meantime? Sorenson said he will focus on getting current initiatives done, and new initiatives started so the next administration -- if willing -- can pick up where this one leaves off.

This entry was posted by NextGov reporter Gautham Nagesh.

The extradition of Gary McKinnon was placed on hold by the European Court of Human Rights on Tuesday until August 28, when the court will reconvene to make a decision whether to stop McKinnon’s extradition pending appeal.

McKinnon, who went by the online alias “Solo”, is accused of hacking in almost 100 U.S. military and NASA computers in 2001 and 2002. He was tracked down in 2002 by the UK’s National Hi-Tech Crime Unit and indicted by the U.S. later that year. A UK court decided that he should be extradited to the U.S. in 2006, but McKinnon appealed to the High Court, which came down with a final ruling in favor of extradition on July 30.

If convicted, McKinnon could face up to 70 years in prison. American prosecutors have reportedly offered him a four-year sentence if he pleads guilty, but will press for the maximum penalty if he refuses.

McKinnon has admitted to hacking into American military systems but has said he was merely looking for information on UFOs, not intentionally causing damage. Here’s hoping that future conspiracy theorists will find a better way to indulge their curiosity; this is one example that they would be best off not following.

Just like conventional war, it's beginning to look like a cyber war could spread to other nations. Estonia and Poland have lent experts and online space to Georgia to help bolster that nation's defenses against a Russian cyber offensive, ComputerWorld reported. Estonia sent two experts to keep networks running and Poland provided space on its president's Web site for Georgians to post updates on the conflict. Estonia was the target of cyberattacks in April 2007, which many believed originated in Russia, although some still dispute those conclusions.

The consequences of these actions are unclear. But like conventional warfare, would Russia retaliate against Estonia and Poland by conducting cyberattacks against their networks?

Rod Beckstrom, director of the new National Cyber Security Center, has brought a rather deep philosophical bent to his position -- one that isn't seen too often in top-level technology executives.

At the annual Black Hat convention, Beckstrom, in his first public address since being named director, said "as a country and as users of the global Internet still have to figure out how our networks should function in the context of democracy, justice, governance, and international relations," according to an Information Week article.

Sci-Tech Today found Beckstrom just as scholarly, but maybe with a more of an economist bent, reporting that Beckstrom said the government needs to determine how much systems -- and presumably the information stored on them -- is worth and then figure out what is worth investing in to protect them. The government needs to "do more research on things like the physics of networking, the economics of networks and security, and risk management to help figure out what the U.S. cyber protection system will look like," according to Sci-Tech Today.

Nextgov is looking into the question of just how much government should spend on security. The article is due out next month. Please look for it. In the meantime, security experts say something akin to what Beckstrom alluded to: We must think about how we are spending security funds and focus them on the highest risks.

Just when to invoke national security or freedom of expression and use of technology continues to be tested. Three students at MIT had planned to give a talk at the Defcon security conference in Las Vegas yesterday on how they hacked into Boston's subway system to issue fake fare cards. But the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority filed a lawsuit to stop the students from presenting their findings. The authority argued that the students violated a federal law and that their fare card constituted a computer used by a government agency to protect the American public. The suit most certainly will "rekindle a debate about how to properly disclose security vulnerabilities, and whether laws against computer crimes trump the First Amendment," according to a Wall Street Journal blog.

Updated 12:04 p.m., Aug. 11, 2008. Link to report fixed.

A report released this week by Forrester Research Inc. spreads the blame for information technology project failures. It's the bosses' fault, too.

Forrester analyst Lewis Cardin says there is plenty of blame to go around for IT project failures -- not just for the project manager. "Worse still, the conclusion of failure is often incorrect," he writes. Cardin debunks four myths of project failures:

The Pentagon unveiled a new unmanned spokesperson, called the Spokesdrone, recently. The Washington press corps is now busily trying to figure out how to short circuit the drone. Rumors are that Robert Murdoch has created a reporter drone, which will be unveiled soon.

Pentagon's Unmanned Spokesdrone Completes First Press Conference Mission

(PS - in case you haven't figured it out, this is a satirical spoof created by the website Onion.)

Spending on information technology in the federal government has been flat at best for the last few years -- a trend that is unequal in modern times. The government’s fiscal 2008 IT budget hardly budged from fiscal 2007, dropping slightly to $68.1 billion in fiscal 2008 from $68.2 billion in fiscal 2007, according to the Office of Management and Budget. That followed a 2 percent drop in the federal IT budget from fiscal 2006 to fiscal 2007, Government Executive reports in its annual top 200 contractor issue coming out Aug. 15.

But the drought may be over, Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., told Nextgov this week. Moran, who sits on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, predicted that Congress would give agencies, particularly Defense, a bit of a hike, although he didn't say how much. Defense's IT budget dropped in fiscal 2008, from $34.4 billion in fiscal 2007 to $33.1 billion. And President Bush proposed another flat year for fiscal 2009, a budget of $33 billion.

But Moran said IT is "the one area where we most need to maintain a competitive edge over everyone else. I think it will continue to be a growth industry -- more so than some of the heavy weapons" programs.

Some of that may be wishful thinking. Moran's 8th district includes the federal headquarters for some of the biggest Defense IT contractors, was well as as tech companies that serve the civilian agencies, all of which makes his district one of the richest in IT contract spending (more to come on that later).

My former colleague Tom Wailgum with CIO Magazine scored the first media interview with the CIA's chief information officer, Al Tarasiuk. That's saying something because Tarasiuk has been CIO for nearly three years now. The result is what looks like will be an in-depth series on how Tarasiuk is using information technology to transform the agency.

The article is the first of four. In this installment, we learn that "one of Tarasiuk's most critical duties has been, in fact, to infuse more corporate-like thinking into the CIA's IT operations and staff. 'My boss,' Tarasiuk says of CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden, 'asked me to establish "corporate everything" for IT—to the extent possible.'" (We also learn that Tarasiuk is "into muscle cars and has a 1971 Chevelle.")

Tarasiuk is working to transform IT into a more strategic partner in the CIA ("to be seen an as enabler of mission and not just a technology shop that's delivering a desktop," he says) and is trying to improve information sharing as required by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence ("I'm trying to eliminate the technology iron walls that have existed in the past").

The next three installments in the series will cover how 9/11 moved IT to center stage, how Tarasiuk balances making data visible and keeping secrets, and how the CIA uses new applications and Web 2.0 technologies.

Government Executive has three stories (here, here and here) regarding the congressionally described “Dismal State of Information Technology Planning in the Federal Government.”

The stories describe the testimony given at the Senate’s Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security yesterday.

Overall, the testimony paints a discouraging picture of IT risk management – or maybe better termed – risk mis-management – on a large number of government IT projects.

What I find more discouraging is the decision by OMB not to highlight IT projects that poorly manage their risks because, says OMB’s Karen Evans, that “highlighting problem projects would lead agencies to hide poorly performing ones.”

So, OMB admits that government agencies will resort to what amounts to lying about the status of their troubled IT projects if the public spotlight is turned on.

Of course, we all knew that, it is just nice that it is formally on the record.

Taxpayers also will be happy to hear that agencies can't be trusted to tell the truth about the status of their IT projects.

What also is discouraging is how many IT projects still get funding approval year after year given that they are either poorly planned or performing poorly or both: “OMB determined that 352 projects (totaling about $23.4 billion) [on its Management Watch List] are poorly planned. In addition, agencies reported that 87 of their high risk projects (totaling about $4.8 billion) were poorly performing. Twenty-six projects (totaling about $3 billion) are considered both poorly planned and poorly performing.”

Isn't continuing to fund poor planned, poorly performing or worse poorly planned and poorly performing IT projects just throwing good money after bad?

There is a difference between legitimate IT project failures and blunders - the former is where you do everything you are supposed to but hey, bad things still happen. The other is when you don't do the basics (like do proper planning) and things go south as a result.

From what's in the testimony, there are way too many potential IT project blunders being tolerated by OMB (and their funding agencies).