This is part of a recurring series, where former federal leaders reflect upon the lessons learned since leaving government.
Vance Hitch is specialist leader at Deloitte Consulting LLP and a member of its Federal CIO Advisory Council. He is a former deputy assistant attorney general and CIO of the U.S. Department of Justice.
If you knew then what you know now….
…How would you have partnered with industry differently?
Even though I had industry experience before joining the U.S. Department of Justice, there are still areas that I would go back and change, such as being more open-ended with vendors. There are a number of tools at federal leaders' disposal that can create better results and communication with industry. There is, however, often a pervasive fear in government of unknowingly breaking the rules and paying a big price for doing so. This can result in poor, or in some cases, no communications. To those outside government, it often feels like you are in quicksand. That fear is something leaders should address because it can get in the way of being creative with industry, asking open-ended questions, and asking industry to think differently. If we always ask for things in the same way, chances are, we will get the same results. If I had a time machine, I would go back and address that fear more directly with my team so we could have more direct and open-ended conversations with industry to get to that more innovative approach.
…How would you have worked more effectively within the confines of the Federal Acquisition Regulation?
In hindsight, I would seek to find a "new best friend" or two in the contracting shop. I would look for contracting officers who are grounded in the FAR (to avoid the oft stated possibility of "going to jail") but who are also forward-thinking. The confines of the FAR can be challenging, to put it mildly. Knowing what I know now, I would have found other ways – more non-traditional procurement options, which are still in compliance with the FAR, of course – that can get to better results and better communication with the vendors. For example, I would use a statement of objectives instead of a statement of work. With a statement of objectives, you don't need to get down to a gnat's eyelash in terms of detail. You ask for alternative capabilities and approaches that address your objectives.
Part of the issue is that when you are in government, you may not have perfect knowledge or awareness of everything that is available to you. A statement of work demands so much detail that you cannot have direct or open-ended discussions about what your real challenges are and what the many possibilities or solutions are for addressing them. This level of detail can also restrict good communication, innovation, and outcomes. The ability to have conversations and push innovation and creativity with your vendors is especially important when you are buying commodity items. You need industry to shed some light on the options and hear what they have done elsewhere. Also, they can propose how their off-the-shelf offerings could best meet your objectives. In hindsight, I would have worked harder to better understand the procurement process and the non-traditional options available to have better, more open communication with vendors on what the real challenges and opportunities are.
…How would you have sought out innovative ideas and solutions to help your agency function better?
One approach to drive innovation that I have seen more of, now that I've been back in the private sector for the past few years, is the use of more prototypes and pilots. These prototypes/pilots tend to be much better opportunities to try new solutions, instead of investing in cradle-to-grave procurements. You can try, fail, retool, try again, or scrap it without the program eating years and years of budget and time.
Looking back, I would have also required every program to include an innovation plan and made it part of the Form 300 process. Every program must have a Form 300 filled out to get budget; so this is where you can make innovation a priority in policy, process, and technology. My intent would be to turn up some new, good ideas and that would receive funding. Budgets are so tight; and most people don't want to spend dollars exploring new ideas. However, we need to start somewhere and should encourage people to take some risks. So I would put some heat behind it. Government often throws good money after bad when a program is having trouble, spending more and more dollars, often without a credible rethinking of alternatives. Planning for innovation can help address this problem by encouraging small investments in trying out new policies, processes, and technologies through pilots and other techniques. This can generate some beneficial change to keep things fresh and breathe life into new programs over the years.
Lastly, another encouraging, innovative approach I've seen recently for implementing an enterprise program at the department level is to break up the program into useful pieces and create competition among the bureaus or components. Each bureau can present its solution (to one or more pieces) and demonstrate how it affects not just one component but the whole enterprise in terms of mission or service delivery. Department leaders can pick a few winners that answer this call and put budget, along with employee recognition, behind it. I think we'll see more of this kind of friendly, intramural competition and other innovative approaches across government. I certainly would strive to do so if I were in government today.
ALSO SEE:
