Government 2.0: Myth or Reality?

Achieving Effective Operations

Over the last several years, there has been a great deal of talk about Government 2.0. The concept suggests that all types of government agencies and departments will operate leaner, smarter and more effectively. And as the name implies, enabling technology is a big part of the equation.

Like a lot of ideas tossed about in the press, this one has some truth to it, though it can’t be so easily applied across the board when it comes to the U.S. Federal Government. This is not a simple software upgrade after all.

In our experience working with a range of agencies and in my own personal experience as an officer in the U.S. Navy, we’ve found that many agencies are embracing change wholeheartedly and seeking to operate in 2.0 fashion. What’s more interesting than measuring progress against some imaginary milestone is the manner in which these agencies are driving productive change.

By applying best practices and proven techniques in areas such as vendor management, organizational change management, and program management, agencies as diverse as Defense, Homeland Security and Agriculture are making significant advances. Greater process orientation and a new leadership style are also taking hold as public sector leaders recognize their organizations’ reliance on external partners and broad-based teams.

The emphasis on fulfilling the mission and achieving results has not changed. But how agencies achieve goals has changed considerably and, in our view, for the better.

Matching Process to Vision

The foreign military sales (FMS) program is the primary means by which the Department of Defense (DOD) provides equipment, services and training to other nations. Strategically, FMS helps the U.S. achieve foreign policy objectives and boosts national security by strengthening relationships with allies. Operationally, this program has faced major challenges, many of them born of complexity and scale. This is a program worth $28 billion annually, and involving nations from Albania to Zambia. Further, FMS doubled in size from 2004 to 2008. As it expanded, new layers of requirements, data and systems were piled on top of a creaky and outdated process.

A few years ago, the DOD initiated a major reform effort to streamline processes and ensure interoperability across the entire program – from U.S. military personnel and defense contractors at home to the systems of our overseas allies. The goal was dictated from the top, and detailed in the Biennial Defense Review.

The idea was to integrate systems so that requirements definition, contract and specifications translation and other tasks could be made more efficient. For example, letters of offer and acceptance, which serve as the official contracts for sales to our allies, were standardized and made accessible via a database. That increased visibility into contract terms and helped deals to close more efficiently. The database also improved interactions across the entire lifecycle of these critical relationships, including training, maintenance and upgrades.

With current, accurate data, it took less time to write requests for proposals (RFPs). Proposals could be refined more quickly and overall sales timelines shortened. Customer satisfaction has shot up as a result of these fixes. And performance against the contracts was much easier to measure and manage.

Superior technology and improved data quality was a big part of the story, but they don’t explain everything. A dedicated program management team guided the program, engaging with allies, communicating the need for change and managing action steps to stay on track against key milestones. The team included highly qualified and certified project management professionals, which are a necessity on large-scale programs like this one.

The PMO’s greatest success was in establishing and sharing standards and best practices to manage a large number of sub-projects. Previously, multiple change initiatives and Six Sigma implementations were often in conflict. But the PMO, with visibility across all elements of the program, was able to coordinate, synchronize and prioritize all related efforts. Getting intra-program interoperability helped to get all the ships sailing toward a common destination, so to speak.

Vendor Management for Team

Program management is also part of efforts to optimize how the Team Submarine organization operates. This unit is responsible for cradle-to-grave management of the Submarine Force. Its biggest challenges were the huge number of contractors and vendors involved in its many operations, including research and development, technology acquisition, procurement and ongoing support.

The Team is about to standardize its approach to contracting; instead of a mix of “cost-plus” and fixed-fee arrangements, the Team will standardize on cost-plus contracts, with some performance-based incentives. It will also settle on a few main prime contractors, who will take over greater responsibility for managing sub-contractors. The idea is to manage projects and contractor relationships with greater consistency and efficiency. The new approach also seems likely to minimize the risk of the “revolving door” of officer-managers, which can be a challenge for many military projects.

In parts of the Federal Government and military, outsourcing to external contractors and private firms has been a controversial topic, but the experience of Team Submarine shows how effective program management can lead directly to superior ROI.

Further, in my work on Navy projects, I’ve seen an increasing recognition that program management is a “difference-maker.” That is, officers have come to understand that “how” things get done is critical to ensuring that the right things get done and, thus, fulfilling the overall mission.

Voting for Change Management

Speaking of how to change, we see lots of government entities embracing change management best practices to ensure they capture the power of change and “operationalize” it for the long term. Those techniques include strong communication from leaders, detailed change plans and right-sizing and “right-pacing” change.

In terms of planning for change, the devil is in the details. Infinitive Change Engineers documented hundreds of processes and workflows at one public sector agency. That level of modeling was necessary to ensure restructured operations complied with a new mission and increased regulations. At the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a huge number of technology, process and organizational requirements were captured and built into the new agency when it was created.

Getting granular is the best way for large organizations to achieve and sustain alignment between the big-picture vision and daily operations. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, for instance, has six major objectives, requiring it to allocate funds and resources and balance its structure appropriately between international competitiveness, food safety and other goals.

Getting the scope and speed of change initiatives is also important when administrations can change every four years. Attempting too much change too quickly can lead to breakdowns on the individual components and sub- projects, and exhaust the organization. If healthcare reform is enacted, it will offer a very interesting test case for both right-sizing and right-pacing change.

Change management is especially important now because of the pressures on the Obama administration to deliver on the change it promised during the campaign. And because of the growing sense of urgency and consensus that change is necessary in several areas of government.

We’ve already mentioned healthcare, but energy, financial regulation and various entitlement programs are widely seen as near the breaking point. Delivering effective change in, for example, the deployment of alternative energy sources could greatly increase the credibility of the Department of Energy and the U.S. Government in general. That’s an opportunity for change management to deliver value.

A New Leadership Paradigm

Perhaps Government 2.0 will be manifested most clearly in the pronounced shift away from traditional top-down and command-and-control management styles. This seems especially apparent in the military, defense and public safety sectors. My years in the Navy saw a great drop in the number of senior officers who led and managed by old-school methods, like screaming, yelling and intimidation.

The most effective officers were those who established a clear vision, communicated it widely and empowered teams of junior officers and enlisted personnel to execute it. Hierarchical leadership will always have a role in the military, of course – it’s not called the chain of command for nothing. Today, however, the top-down approach is best used for clear communication, making sure teams have all the tools and resources they need, and shaping a culture of success.

The move away from top-down creates value in a number of ways. For instance, it helps engage front-line workers, giving them a stake in organizational success and greatly reducing the risk that they will act as barriers to change. This sort of bottom-up energy is critical to ensuring change – whether it’s a new technology or a refined strategy – takes hold for the long term.

Soliciting input and opening communications channels for dissenting opinions are other proven ways to engage anyone and everyone responsible for executing change. In departments with many long-time workers, it may be impossible to gain their support without providing an opportunity to share their thoughts and insights for improving operations.

The good news is, by encouraging overt resistance, managers may discover new ideas and fresh thinking to move the organization forward. Our view is that open acknowledgement of unpopular viewpoints and candid dialogues can lead to more effective change at all layers of government.

Bottom Line: Mission Fulfillment

One thing that hasn’t changed is the emphasis on fulfilling the mission. Results matter more than ever. Many agency leaders seek to maximize productivity with finite resources and shrinking (or at least under-pressure) budgets. Like their corporate counterparts, many public sector executives must do more with less. Many leaders who were appointed have a small window of opportunity to complete specific tasks or programs while there is sufficient political will to do so. That’s true whether it’s military leaders seeking to suppress foreign insurgents or the Department of Agriculture wanting to get out ahead of the latest food-borne public health threats.

Interestingly, Government 2.0 may turn out to be less about grand, sweeping innovations that reinvent bureaucracies all at once than it will be about driving change through the rather more mundane-sounding principles of change management and program management. Applying best practices in these areas will give the next generation of Federal leaders an edge as they try to deliver meaningful change and address the challenges the government faces today.