Recently I had the privilege of listening to Mr. Dave Patterson, executive director, National Defense Business Institute (NDIA), lead an open forum Oct. 5 on how the national debt crisis impacts the Department of Defense and the defense industrial base.
The forum addressed the recognized and unintentional impacts of the debt debate and the critical consequences for DoD budgets and also examined the industry health index. Keep reading →
The Department of Veterans Affairs has reached the final stretch of what’s been a long effort to employ technology that allows private hospitals access to veterans’ medical records that can be used to evaluate health history and deliver better care.
The move is one of many within the VA as it strives to overhaul its image and provide the best care for America’s veterans and protect the security of their records. Keep reading →
After five years of steady growth, information technology spending by the federal government is expected to decline about 1 percent a year over the next five years in inflation-adjusted terms, from $81.2 billion in fiscal year 2012 to $77.7 billion in fiscal 2017, according to a new forecast being released this week by the TechAmerica Foundation.
By most measures, IT budgets are expected to stand up to some of the most intense budget pressures in years, in part out of the belief that IT is critical to streamlining government operations. Moreover, a number of forces are accelerating federal IT demand in government, including: Keep reading →
When it comes to buying and delivering government technology projects, few approaches seem to have caught the attention of federal officials the way agile development has.
And there’s good reason, according to management specialists from the Department of Defense, the Department of Agriculture, the FBI and the General Services Administration who spoke at a Washington forum Oct. 14 about how agile development is making inroads in government. Keep reading →
As the Defense Department begins making good on plans to cut upwards of $450 billion from defense budgets over the decade ahead, one thing seems certain: A tidal wave of military personnel will soon be looking for work.
A new report, published on CNNMoney.com however, suggests that men and women in uniform will find a relatively wide assortment of high paying jobs in the market that require many of the specialized skills they learned while serving the nation. Keep reading →
The Office of Federal Procurement Policy issued a long-awaited set of guidelines that clarifies what government functions “must always be performed by federal employees” and when it’s appropriate to turn to contractors to for a variety of services.
In a 75-page final policy letter, OFPP and Office of Management and Budget Officials lay out a new set of terms, guidelines and examples concerning government contracting. Keep reading →
The Department of Defense today launched a new website to highlight DoD’s first unified strategy for 
announced on July 14.
The website is a being used as a tool to help explain and consolidate DoD’s cybersecurity accomplishments and describe the Department’s efforts to move forward for military, intelligence and business operations in cyberspace. Keep reading →
A long-standing reliance on proprietary technology solutions and antiquated acquisition rules have left the Defense Department “pretty much in the stone age as far as IT is concerned,” the nation’s second highest ranking military officer said today.
Marine Gen. James Cartwright, outgoing vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said speeding up acquisition cycles is essential if the America is to maintain its military advantage. Keep reading →
COMMENTARY:
Many cybersecurity professionals and military strategists have anxiously awaited the public version of the Department of Defense’s Cyber Operations Strategy and on July 14 the wait ended when DoD released the 13 page document.
The document follows much of what has been talked about or insinuated in discussions that have taken place in the not so distant past. It breaks down the strategy into five distinct stratagems and initiatives that frame DoD’s operational intent. Keep reading →
Making High Quality Decisions In Government
By David DejewskiA “high quality decision” in this context is a somewhat complex concept that deserves a few words.
High quality decisions maximize resources and minimize fail. They produce the biggest bang for the buck, mitigate “tail” or after-the-fact costs, and put “rounds on target” meaning they satisfy the organizational requirement for a given period of time (vs. a perceived requirement or collateral requirements).
High quality decisions endure over time and reach distributed audiences in tact. They are clear, capable of being executed, and understood by all stakeholders involved.
It also bears mentioning that making no decision at all can cost as much as making a poor decision. I have seen cases where not making a decision can cost as much as $1 million per day. A high quality decision, therefore, is also timely.
The Department of Defense (DoD), like other federal departments, is struggling with some important problems. Pressure to manage resources more effectively is mounting, bureaucracy is slow, and business systems (like financial management and material management systems) are not working together as well as we would like them to. Interoperability, clean audit, financial visibility and common supplier engagement on a Department level are a few problems that remain elusive. Transformation of the DoD remains a top priority of the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
These problems are not new. The DoD has been wrestling with them for more than two decades. In my 20 years working with the government, a long line of leaders have stepped into the batter’s box and taken their best swings. Each time a new leader steps up to the plate, hopes run high for about two years. Again and again, the “new” leader’s ideas don’t seem to work as planned and energy fizzles. Status quo washes away most of the progress made by individuals like ocean waves wash away sand castles.
When one leader can’t seem to make things work, we usually let them run their course and install a new one. Occasionally, we get rid of them early. In either case, spirits soar once again. It is clear to everyone that the “new-new” leader is a good person and has some good things going for them. We continue to hope that each new leadership selection is the one that will take us across the goal line to real and lasting transformation.