Już 62 620 użytkowników uczy się języków obcych z Edustation.
Możesz zarejestrować się już dziś i odebrać bonus w postaci 10 monet.
Jeżeli chcesz się dowiedzieć więcej o naszym portalu - kliknij tutaj
Jeszcze nie teraz ZAREJESTRUJ SIĘlub
Zaloguj »
ZAREJESTRUJ SIĘ
Nie masz konta?
White House Forum on IT Management Reform
Poziom:
Temat: Społeczeństwo i nauki społeczne
Mr. Zients:
Hi.
For those of you who I've
not met, I'm Jeff Zients.
I'm the Deputy Director for
Management at OMB and the
Federal Chief
Performance Officer.
I want to welcome all of you to
the chilly White House today and
thank you for coming here.
It's an important day.
My job is to help make
government more efficient and
effective and work as well as
the American people expect and deserve.
As we all know, a productivity
boom has transformed private
sector performance over
the past two decades.
These productivity gains
are familiar to all of us.
They've transformed
entire industries.
The market leaders driving
these productivity gains have
increased output, lowered
prices, and boosted customer
satisfaction, all
at the same time.
Unfortunately, the federal
government has almost entirely
missed out on these gains.
We need to catch up
and catch up fast.
We need to make government more
productive, efficient, and responsive.
And IT, information
technology, is the key.
Technology has been at the
center of those productivity
gains I just mentioned, both
efficiency gains and service
quality improvements but despite
spending more than $600 billion
on information technology across
the last decade, the federal
government has failed to realize
the potential of information technology.
Too often federal IT projects
run over budget,
behind schedule, and fail to ever deliver their promised functionality.
Fixing IT is our top priority,
and we've been focused on this
since the begin of
the administration.
Let me give you a quick update
on our progress, and then I'm
going to hand it over to Vivek
for the rest of the session.
Last year we launched the IT
dashboard, where you can monitor
every dollar the government
spends on large technology projects.
We're using the information on
the dashboard to power what we
call Tech Stat sessions, where
we get all the stakeholders in a
project, both technology and
business line owners, together
in the same room to diagnose
problems and agree on what's
necessary to fix a project.
This summer we targeted high
priority projects for review,
projects that were either over
budget, behind schedule, or at a
high risk for the kinds of
problems that too often plague
our IT efforts.
We identified 26 high
priority projects.
We completed the review of two
of those projects in October,
and today we're pleased to
announce the results of the next 16.
Here's the breakdown of the 16
projects: One project has been
terminated all together as we
were clearly throwing good money after bad.
For seven projects, we've
significantly accelerated
delivery of meaningful
functionality, insisting on new
functionality every few quarters
rather than every couple of years.
For eight projects, we've
reduced budgets and scaled the
projects back to increase
the likelihood of success.
So across all 16 projects, we've
cut delivery time by more than
50% and reduced life
cycle budgets by $1.3 billion.
Overall, we've now reviewed
more than 50 major IT projects,
reducing life cycle
budgets by $3 billion.
So we now know that we can
improve our IT performance on a
project-by-project basis,
saving money, and accelerating delivery.
But just as importantly, we're
using the learning from this
work to identify the structural
changes required to drive
sustainable improvements
across all of government IT.
The federal CIO council has
been very active in our work.
We've gotten input from folks on
the Hill, and we've been working
very closely with
the private sector.
The president brought 50 CEO's
to the White House to advise us
on what works and what
doesn't in managing IT.
And industry groups have put
forward strong, thoughtful recommendations.
As a result, we now have a clear
understanding of the structural
changes we need to make to
achieve sustained performance
and improvement.
We all believe that IT,
government IT, needs to be more
agile and responsive to
evolving technologies and more
accountable and focused
on delivering results.
But to get this done, we need to
remove the barriers that get in
the way of consistent execution.
We are making five
structural changes.
We are, first, adopting light
technologies and shared services.
Second, aligning the budget and
acquisition process with the
technology cycle.
Third, strengthening
program management.
Fourth, streamlining governance
and increasing accountability.
And last, we are increasing
engagement with the IT community.
When I announced these changes
just before Thanksgiving, I
noted this is one of those rare
occasions in life, rarer still
here in Washington, where all
the parties agree on the root
cause problems and share a
common understanding of what
needs to be done.
This isn't the stuff of
controversial frameworks or
radical new approaches.
The bottom line is that
it's all about execution.
To that end, we're moving
forward with our execution plan.
Vivek will review today the
specific actions we're taking.
For each action we've identified
clear owners and deadlines, and
today we're looking forward to
getting your feedback and help
in refining our execution plan.
I want to thank you for all your
help to date and ask that you
work with us and hold us
accountable for executing on our
plan with discipline
and urgency.
With that, let me hand it over
to Vivek to moderate today's session.
Vivek.
Thank you.
(applause)
Mr. Kundra:
Good morning.
How's everyone doing?
Audience:
Good.
Vivek Kundra:
Excellent.
So, what I'd like to do today is
walk you through the 25-point
implementation plan.
We just posted it on cio.gov.
You can find all the details in
terms of the reforms that we're
going to be advancing.
I'd like to begin by talking
about the results that have been
achieved so far when it comes to
the financial reviews and also
the tech stats on the 26
high priority IT systems.
If you look at this data, as we
reviewed 38 projects across the
federal government, what we've
been able to do by driving
accountability by making sure
that we were looking at what
works, what doesn't work, by
making sure that we're making
the tough decisions that are
required to turn around some of
the worst performing IT
projects, we've been able to
reduce the budget of these
IT projects by $3 billion.
More important than reducing the
budget by $3 billion is the fact
that we've been able to
accelerate delivery by 50%, over 50%.
Think about some of these IT
projects that we've talked about.
They've had deliverables out
there that are five, ten years
out with nothing delivered.
In a lot of cases what we've
seen is seven years later what
the government got was nothing
more than an architectural document.
That is why these fundamental
reforms are going to change the
way we manage information
technology moving forward.
There are two major areas that
we're focused on where the
United States Government
spends billions of dollars.
The first area is around
commodity IT where we spend
approximately $24
billion every year.
The second area is around how we
actually manage large scale IT programs.
These are all the programs where
we're modernizing the United States Government.
This represents approximately
$50 billion in IT spending, and
this is an area where we've had
persistent problems that go back
decades of major IT projects
that just haven't delivered for
the American people.
What I'd like to do right now is
just give you the highlights of
how are we actually going to
make these changes stick, what
are the fundamental differences
between the previous efforts
that have been tried.
Well, I want to begin by saying
that this is not about some
radical new framework or
breakthrough thinking, but you
can go back to the Clinger-Cohen
Act, the E-Gov Act, you can
actually look at the FAR.
All along, we've actually
talked about how the U.S.
government needs to move
towards a model where we're
simplifying the way
we buy technology.
At the same time we need to make
sure we're focused on execution.
It's not about this grand
design, but it's about actually executing.
So, number one, what we're
committing to is that we're
going to turn around or
terminate at least one-third of
the under performing projects
within the next 18 months.
Number two, we're going to shift
to a "Cloud First" policy, and
what agencies are going to do
in the next three months is
identify minimum of three
systems that can move to the
Cloud and execute within
the next one year.
Number three, we're committing
to reducing the number of data
centers by at least 800 by 2015.
Number four, OMB will only
approve funding for major
programs that actually have
a dedicated program manager.
This sounds really basic, but
you'll be shocked by the number
of major programs that don't
have a dedicated program manager.
We will only approve funding if
agencies are using a modular
approach with deliverables that
are meaningful, deliverables
that are not five, six, seven
years out, but actually breaking
them down into six-month chunks.
And finally, we're going to make
sure that they're specialized IT
professionals who are working
on these major programs.
Because buying complex, large
scale IT programs is not the
same as buying pencils.
We're also going to work closely
with Congress to make sure that
we're consolidating commodity
funding when it comes to
departments and agencies
under the agency CIO.
A department like HUD, which
has over 200 data centers -- or
sorry -- Department of Interior
has over 200 data centers.
That doesn't make sense.
And the reason is because the
way the department is funded,
it's bureau by bureau, program
by program, which leads to great
inefficiencies and wasteful,
duplicative spending across the
federal government.
We're also going to work with
Congress to make sure that we
actually give agencies and
CIO's the budget flexibilities
actually necessary to make
sure that we can deploy these
projects in a modular,
agile fashion.
I've been working right now late
at night on the 2012 budget, and
it's not fair to hold agencies
accountable two years out in
terms of what they're going to
spend their IT dollars on, and
then when they're not meeting
those targets, you know, OMB
drags them and says, why did you
fail to meet, you know, these targets?
You committed to making sure that you would hit these 29
feature sets.
They're Congressional hearings.
It's unfair.
It's a structural problem.
And, frankly, this model won't
work, because the technology
cycles moves way too fast
for the budget cycle.
And lastly, what we're going to
do is we're going to launch an
interactive, online platform to
make sure that the industry is
engaged in the pre-RFP phase
so that you know what the U.S.
government is looking to buy, not after a procurement hits the
street, but before.
We want to be able to benefit
from the ideas and the thinking out there.
We've seen programs that move
aggressively in terms of looking
at technologies
that are out there.
They end up making
better decisions.
Unfortunately, there's a
chilling effect across the
government where some people
believe that, you know, you're
going to go to jail if you start
talking to the vendors before
you put out the RFP, or
after you put out the RFP,
and there are a whole host of myths that exist out there that
need to be demystified.
So this platform will be
critical in making sure that
we're getting the best thinking
around how we can procure
technology intelligently.
Now, why is adopting light
technologies and shared services important?
The reason is, we've seen the
number of data centers grow explosively.
We went from 432,000 data
centers to 2,094 data centers
this year, and we're still counting as we continue to do
our inventory.
And what we're committed to is
making sure within the next six
months every agency will
identify a dedicated program
manager for the data center
consolidation effort, and we're
going to launch a task force so
that when we're optimizing our
assets, it's not just within
a department, but across the
federal government.
Think about an open
table for data centers.
Right now, you can make
reservations to your favorite
restaurant online.
Why don't we have the same
system for data center
capabilities across the federal
government so if somebody at HUD
or EPA needs space, what if they
could find it in another agency
that's about to spend
half a billion dollars?
We're going to launch that
within the next 12 to 18 months.
We've talked about shifting to
Cloud First policy, but what
that really means in terms of
execution is that within the
next six months we're actually
going to put in place
infrastructure as a service
contract that's certified
government wide from a security
perspective so we can start
leveraging that.
But more importantly, a
fundamental shift to Cloud, if
you think about e-mail systems,
if you think about financial
systems, we want to be able to
put in place government-wide
vehicles so that we
can stop wasting money.
GSA and USDA have all done an
amazing job by moving to the Cloud.
GSA was able to cut its cost by
50% and save $15 million as it
engages in its
move to the Cloud.
The USDA is actually going to be
saving approximately $6 million
a year with its
shift to the Cloud.
But more importantly, it's
freeing up resources from the
CIO's to do work that's higher
yield and adds value to every
day Americans.
We're also going to be
rethinking our entire shared
services strategy.
The last time this was visited
was almost a decade ago, and the
technology landscape was
very, very different.
Today, we may be able to deploy
better services at lower costs
in a federated web services API
driven world that's going to
allow us to deploy some of these
technologies much faster at a
fraction of the cost that
we've deployed it in.
I want to share with you this
story at the Department of
Interior and the great work
that's happened with the
leadership from
Bernie and Andrew.
Now, Department of Interior,
here's an example of why lights
technologies are important.
This is one of the projects that
were reviewed as part of the
high priority projects.
The Department of Interior
was able to, by applying light
technologies and shared services, reduce the life cycle
costs of the infrastructure investments by $500 million and
is committing to go from 210 data centers down to 115 data
centers by 2015.
What you're seeing here is this
$36 million savings over the
next five years as a result
of moving to the Cloud.
But more importantly, what
you're seeing is this massive
reduction, 55% reduction, in
data centers, and that's not
just in managing those assets.
What that does is it actually
focuses the CIO's in the agency (inaudible).
So I want to recognize the great
leadership that Interior is
providing when it comes to
adopting light way technologies.
Another area for us that's
really, really important is to
make sure that we're
strengthening program management.
Unfortunately, program
management is not even a career
track within the
federal government.
Yet, program managers are the
ones who are spending hundreds
of millions and billions
of dollars every year on
information technology.
And what's happened is we've
unfairly plucked people from
various jobs and said, today
you're going to be responsible
for a $100 million project
without arming them with the
appropriate training, without
making sure that there's a
community where they can share
best practices, without making
sure that their role is lifted
up so they're not buried ten
layers deep within
the bureaucracy.
That is why working with OPM in
the next six months we're going
to be designing a formal IT
program management career path
with direct higher
authority for agencies.
As we were reviewing some of
these projects to the tech stat
accountability sessions, in one
example, at the Department of
Homeland Security, the CIO was
so frustrated, it took him five
months to bring on board a
program manager for a critical project.
The direct hire
authority is vital.
And then we want to be able to
scale that program management
career path across the federal
government, but first we're
going to pilot it with
a number of agencies.
We also want to be able to make
sure that we have integrated
project teams as a precursor of
launching any major project with
the leadership from the
acquisition community, the CFO,
the business side, and
the technology world, the
architects, the engineers who
are looking at these solutions.
Unfortunately, the world we live in today, what ends up happening
is, people are hiding behind their e-mails going back and forth.
And the incentives
are not aligned.
The procurement community
has its incentives.
The program management
community has its incentives.
The architects have
their own incentives.
By integrating these teams, the
shared incentives to make sure
that we're advancing the delivery of this project in a
meaningful way at low cost is going to be much, much easier
when you actually have these team that are collocated and are
precursors to major programs.
The federal CIO council is also
going to launch a best practices portal.
And initially, this portal is
going to be focused very much
around program management.
If we look at what's happening
across the federal government,
the colossal failures that
we've seen across the federal
government, but more importantly
the great projects within the
federal government where things
have worked really, really well,
there isn't a central
repository of that knowledge.
That information is not
shared across the government.
It's within
departments or bureaus.
And frankly, what we need to be
able to do is share those best practices.
Everybody can learn from
successes and failure within
the federal IT community.
We're also going to be launching
a technology fellows program
modeled after the Presidential
Management Fellows program.
This is really exciting because
I get countless people who
approach me when I'm traveling
all over country on how they can
give back to their country.
And we don't have a formal
mechanism to engage them.
We don't have a formal mechanism
to bring in fellows who can come
in for a one year, six month
stints and help us change the
way we manage IT or introduce us to some of the new technologies
that are out there.
But more importantly, the
ability to actually build a
pipeline of talent for the next
generation of innovations that
we need to drive across
the federal government.
We also need to be able to go
back to the e-Gov Act where
an authority was built around
making sure that the industry
and the government could
actually begin rotations, where
you could have somebody from
the industry come into the
government and work on a set of
projects and somebody from the
government could
go to the industry.
The reason it didn't work was
because I think there were a lot
of conflicts of interest.
And I think the challenge is
going to be, how do you do that
without conflict of interest.
Well, you don't do it with
technology companies.
They're plenty of enterprises
out there that have huge
operating units, you know, from
Starbucks, which is a global
enterprise, to looking at companies like Alcoa [phonetic]
and figuring out, well, how do we get some of the folks who are
working on large scale IT
projects to rotate between the
federal government and
the private sector?
Now, here is an example of what
happens when you don't have good
program management.
Richard Spires [phonetic] and I reviewed this program as one of
the high priority projects.
This is a project where the
government spent $40 million in
seven years.
And it got a system that didn't
work, code that was buggy.
And unfortunately, when we
looked at it, we dug deeper, we
realized well, they really
didn't have a dedicated program
manager, there were no
performance metrics, they
weren't providing the
appropriate oversight of contractors.
That is why we made the decision
to terminate this project.
And that is going to be the
future of projects that don't deliver.
We want to make sure that we do
not continue to throw good money
after bad money.
And the old path here would have been to continue to spend this
money until this project
became a national headline.
And then it would
have been cancelled.
But we want to be proactive.
We want to crack down on
wasteful spending across the
federal government.
Now, one of the biggest
challenges that confronts the IT
community is the fact that we
haven't really aligned our
acquisition processes with technology cycle or our budget
processes with the
technology cycle.
Dan Gordon and I are going to be
working very closely on making
sure, when it comes to aligning
the acquisition process with
technology cycle, we actually
have meaningful reform.
One of the things we're going
to be doing within the next six
months is designing and
developing a cadre of
specialized IT acquisition
professionals.
We also want to be able to make
sure that we're identifying some
of the best practices that
already exist, similar to the
program management.
Within the acquisition
community, the challenge has
been that for years we've known
that we should move towards a
modular agile methodology.
As a matter of fact, Dan and I
looked at the FAR language, and
it's clearly spelled out there.
The question is, well,
why isn't it happening?
The reason is, because historically, we haven't been
very execution-focused because agencies want to move towards
agile modular, but they don't know how to do it or we haven't
provided the right tools.
How do we put in place the
appropriate templates that
support modular development?
How do we make sure that we have
model language that it can plug
into their contracts?
How do we make sure that these
integrated teams are coming
together as they're deciding
the future of some of these IT projects?
That is critical in terms of
what we're going to be doing next.
Well, one of the areas that I'm
very, very excited about is item
number 16 here, reducing the
barriers to entry for small
innovative technology firms.
And the reason that's really
important is that the
government, unfortunately, ends
up spending millions of dollars
sometimes when they could find
an innovative solution that
could cost pennies on a dollar.
And the reason is because a lot
of the start-ups that I talk to,
their view is, you know, we
don't really want to deal with
the federal government because
your procurement processes are
too complicated, we don't even
know how it works, by the time,
you know, we get on the
schedules, it's too late.
I was talking to the founder of
Hotmail who told me that look,
you know, from the moment he
started Hotmail, to the moment
he sold it for over $400 million and millions of users, the
