Molaski: The need for measures

We really do not know which federal agency is managing its IT best

We all applaud the government’s efforts to develop performance measures to evaluate programs and expenditures. The private sector runs its operations using many different performance measures — earnings per share, profit percentage, revenue growth and others that have been developed over the years. Each industry — manufacturing, financial services and transportation, for example — has unique measures. Federal contractors also measure their business performance by factors other than revenue or expenses. They look at margins, growth, profitability and cost per employee.

In a high-value consulting business such as Booz Allen Hamilton or Accenture, revenue of more than $100,000 per employee is probably typical. By contrast, in the low-margin, high-volume business of commodity or administrative services, revenue is about $50,000 per employee.

The public sector does not have widely accepted performance measures analogous to those in the private sector that they use to manage agency business operations. Government agencies rely on a somewhat novel performance metric: How big is my budget?

Growth in information technology budgets is good. The Bush administration is seeking a 2.8 percent increase in IT spending in fiscal 2007. By contrast, a decrease is bad. The Homeland Security Department gets a 21.2 percent increase, so that is good. NASA gets a 5.6 percent decrease, so that is bad. Right?

What do those numbers actually mean as good or bad performance measures? They don’t mean anything.

Perhaps the federal government should use a simple performance measure of IT expenditures per employee. We would get some interesting results that could lead to perceptive questions and help us manage IT spending better.

Who would have guessed that the Education Department spends more than three times more on IT per employee than DHS? IT spending per employee at the Energy Department is more than nine times the amount the Interior Department spends. Why does the Transportation Department spend more per employee than the Defense Department?

Which agency gets more bang for the buck? Is it DOE, which spends $140,000 per employee, or Interior, which spends $14,000 — a tenfold difference?

Although those figures do not reveal which agency is managing IT better, the data offers a starting point from which we can ask meaningful questions. But if we had standards with which we could compare, we could make better judgments and spend more efficiently and effectively.

We do not know which agency is managing its IT best because we do not have accepted performance measures. We need to develop them. Someone should ask questions to try to understand and explain the reason for the differences in agencies’ IT spending.

Molaski is president and chief executive officer of e-Associates, a consulting firm in Falls Church, Va. He was DOT’s chief information officer from 1999 to 2001.

Click here to enlarge chart (.pdf).


FCW in Print

In the latest issue: Looking back on three decades of big stories in federal IT.


  • Shutterstock image: looking for code.

    How DOD embraced bug bounties -- and how your agency can, too

    Hack the Pentagon proved to Defense Department officials that outside hackers can be assets, not adversaries.

  • Shutterstock image: cyber defense.

    Why PPD-41 is evolutionary, not revolutionary

    Government cybersecurity officials say the presidential policy directive codifies cyber incident response protocols but doesn't radically change what's been in practice in recent years.

  • Anne Rung -- Commerce Department Photo

    Exit interview with Anne Rung

    The government's departing top acquisition official said she leaves behind a solid foundation on which to build more effective and efficient federal IT.

  • Charles Phalen

    Administration appoints first head of NBIB

    The National Background Investigations Bureau announced the appointment of its first director as the agency prepares to take over processing government background checks.

  • Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)

    Senator: Rigid hiring process pushes millennials from federal work

    Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said agencies are missing out on younger workers because of the government's rigidity, particularly its protracted hiring process.

  • FCW @ 30 GPS

    FCW @ 30

    Since 1987, FCW has covered it all -- the major contracts, the disruptive technologies, the picayune scandals and the many, many people who make federal IT function. Here's a look back at six of the most significant stories.

Reader comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

More from 1105 Public Sector Media Group