Dan Chenok

Late last week, the President signed into law the Digital Accountability and Transparency (DATA) Act.  As summarized by the Administration’s release statement, the DATA Act will

Increased connectivity has transformed and improved access to government – citizens today can connect with government agencies and leaders in ways that were unimaginable just a few years ago.

We are pleased to announce our latest round of awards for new reports on key public sector challenges, which respond to priorities identified in the Center's long-term research agenda, see businessofgovernment.org/content/research-stipends.

We expect the following reports to be published in early 2015.  Details of each report are included in the below short summaries.

In light of the ever-increasing demand for health care services due to demographic shifts, technology innovations, and consumer expectations, government plays a critical role in delivering services to a diverse population through a wide range of health-related programs.

Understanding the link between cybersecurity, physical assets and economic growth can help the government design an approach that provides both IT and economic security. A cyber incident can have physical impacts, while a physical incident can have cyber implications -- and both are likely to come with economic costs.

To foster a climate in which cyber and physical assets foster economic vitality, both risks must be addressed and technology must be seen as a key player in economic development.

First, a reflection of events from Sep 11, 2001: I was the career deputy advisor for OMB on IT and E-Government issues. On that day, our office was working closely with the Council for Excellence in Government (CEG) to host a meeting of international IT leaders – one of the early meetings of CIOs and equivalent executives from multiple countries, done in partnership with CEG (which for many years led government, industry, academia, non-profits, and civil society groups generally on technology and management excellence initiatives).

In a panel discussion (watch the video) led by the Partnership’s Judy England-Joseph, three government leaders detailed the lessons learned from their experience that can help other agencies in the sound use of analytics to make decisions. Specifically: Social Security Administration (SSA) - Gerald Ray runs the Disability Appeals process. He observed that the disability review process required significant knowledge of regulatory compliance as well as the specifics of each individual case.

Brian Murrow, an expert on strategy and analytics at IBM, participated in interviews conducted by the Partnership for Public Service as they prepared a series of podcast conversations with pioneers in the use of analytics in the federal government. In a series of guest blog posts over the next few weeks, Brian will share his key takeaways from these interviews. You can also listen to the full interviews yourself if you find yourself wanting to know more.

(This article was previously published by Government Executive and was written with Kymm McCabe of ASI Government.) The recent series of columns “3 Myths That Cripple Acquisition” stressed that acquisition transformation, not just reform, is critical to enable the federal government to effectively lead in the Collaboration Age. Now it’s time to chart a course forward toward such transformation. The expectation that government and acquisition should be zero-defect enterprises undermines innovation and constrains transformation by requiring layers of oversight and generating risk aversion.

(This article was previously published by Government Executive and was written with Kymm McCabe of ASI Government.) The recent series of columns “3 Myths That Cripple Acquisition” stressed that acquisition transformation, not just reform, is critical to enable the federal government to effectively lead in the Collaboration Age. Now it’s time to chart a course forward toward such transformation. The expectation that government and acquisition should be zero-defect enterprises undermines innovation and constrains transformation by requiring layers of oversight and generating risk aversion.