Letters to the editor

A Single IT Broker Would 'Break' the Navy

I am responding to a letter that ran Feb. 26 on FCW.com ["Navy needs IT resource allocation czar"] in which the anonymous author proposed that the Navy appoint an information technology resource allocation czar, a "benevolent dictator" to rule over Navy/Marine Corps cyberspace.

The premises put forward in support of this notion were that:

* The Navy Department has been weakened by a talent hemorrhage at the top.

* Some private-sector firms have successfully employed czars to force/enforce change.

* Examples of imperfect program execution can be found within the departmental portfolio.

In regard to the personnel turnover issue, it is in the very nature of all military organizations to constantly renew their talent pool and to refresh their leadership. This process is even more pronounced at the service secretariat, in which both uniformed and politically appointed leaders come and go.

Former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, Adm. Archie Clemins, Vice Adm. Art Cebrowski and Vice Adm. Jerry Tuttle all led the Navy's information transformation. All were succeeded by very able leaders, including those whose departure the author listed as evidence of a brain drain.

That group has departed, and in its place another wave of talent swells. To name one: Dave Wennergren, the Navy Department's new chief information officer, whom I had the very great pleasure to work with for the past five years.

Regarding the second point, private-sector governance models are routinely examined by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and all of the services to improve warfighting and warfighting support.

Particularly, large corporations with widespread operations are constantly examined by the services for IT governance innovation. The services are aware of the efficiency associated with strong corporate IT models and also of the fragility of this approach.

Good governance models balance the control and uniformity of headquarters centralization with the flexibility, innovation and inherent buy-in of decentralization to the field and do not lose sight of accountability for results.

The Navy Department has worked hard to find better balance in this equation with its investment in enterprise architecture and networks. I would argue that the department has it more right than wrong, particularly with the recent restructuring to establish the Navy and Marine Corps flag officers and general officers as formally designated deputy positions to the Navy Department CIO.

The final premise of the author, dealing with imperfect execution, is one that members of the resource/ requirements, acquisition and CIO communities are dedicated to improving.

Office of Management and Budget leaders have raised the bar in terms of reviewing projects and initiatives to ensure that they demonstrate economic sensibility, architectural compliance and transformational commitment to the President's Management Agenda. They are to be commended — as are DOD CIO John Stenbit and DOD Deputy CIO Priscilla Guthrie — for giving much greater emphasis to Exhibit 300, which documents those dimensions.

The Navy Department has a major initiative under way to greatly improve not only the documentation, but the coupling and alignment of investments to the larger vision.

It is important that the department support the CIO, but by investing neither too much nor too little power in that position. Creation of an IT czar other than the CIO would "break" the CIO position. Making the CIO the proposed IT czar would "break" the collaborative enterprise governance processes that have begun to emerge from dealing with issues related to the Navy Marine Corps Intranet.

Under the guidance and direction of Secretary Gordon England, much thought and effort was put into restructuring the departmental governance strategy to address all of these issues. Let's give the new structure and the new secretary time to make it work.

Daniel Porter

Senior Vice President of Strategic Development

Vredenburg Inc.

and Former Navy Department CIO

The following is a response to an FCW.com poll question that asked: "Is it necessary to create a chief acquisition officer position at each agency?"

Chief Acquisition Officer Unnecessary

Federal agencies each have a senior procurement executive and typically a procurement executive. These individuals are fully responsible for the agency's acquisition program. The Federal Acquisition Regulation mandates the senior position and sets forth acquisition responsibilities.

To permit or require each agency to establish and recruit a chief acquisition officer clearly would create additional confusion in responsibilities and cause turf battles.

Moreover, the concept, in and of itself, contradicts the President's Management Agenda.

Susan Gerbing

Department of Veterans Affairs


We welcome your comments. To send a letter to the editor, use this form.

Please check out the archive of Letters to the Editor for fellow readers' comments.


  • Management
    shutterstock image By enzozo; photo ID: 319763930

    Where does the TMF Board go from here?

    With a $1 billion cash infusion, relaxed repayment guidelines and a surge in proposals from federal agencies, questions have been raised about whether the board overseeing the Technology Modernization Fund has been scaled to cope with its newfound popularity.

  • IT Modernization
    shutterstock image By enzozo; photo ID: 319763930

    OMB provides key guidance for TMF proposals amid surge in submissions

    Deputy Federal CIO Maria Roat details what makes for a winning Technology Modernization Fund proposal as agencies continue to submit major IT projects for potential funding.

Stay Connected