RE: CRIME Computers vulnerable at Oregon department

From: Dion Baird (dion_baird@private)
Date: Wed Sep 25 2002 - 08:07:49 PDT

  • Next message: Steve Layman: "Re: CRIME Computers vulnerable at Oregon department"

      I am not talking about adding more dead weight to government, what I
    am talking about is taking the best and brightest IT managers and
    technicians and keeping them and cutting those who don't make the grade,
    and the easiest way to do that in state government is form a new agency.
    Taking the IT budgets from all the departments and centralizing their
    funds, both hardware/software and personnel, would be a part of that.
    You could then hire as needed to fill the now vacant positions.  The
    only 'up-front' money needed would be that for the director of the new
    agency.  
    
      It would be his job to take a month or so, evaluate, talk to managers
    and techs, find out what works and what doesn't, and after gathering
    this information, come up with a plan and be free to run with it.  Once
    the ground work is planned then it's just a matter of technically
    imposing it.  So I guess I don't see where that would cost anyone
    anything.  The overhead monies would be all in hardware or software
    depending on decisions made, except for the agency manager.
    
      One of the thing you talked about was Gore being a 'Tsar' (and here I
    thought he was the anti-christ) at cutting spending and starting with
    the DOD.  All I know is being in the Army at the time, we got tons of
    new computers, and software and I'm sure it wasn't free.  Maybe that was
    the up-front monies you were talking about.  T
    
      The bottom line is that the common goal is to better the system and
    make things easier and hopefully cheaper in the long run.  Just because
    the Feds did things a certain way doesn't mean that it would work for
    the state, or even that it's the best way for the state.  Hell, no one
    person here is right about everything, but that's what a forum is for
    right?  Discussing issues and getting ideas that are new?  In any case I
    appreciate a chance to be heard and get feedback, and please remember
    these are only my opninions.
    
    Dion Baird
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: c.radley@private [mailto:c.radley@private] 
    Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 1:35 PM
    To: crime@private
    Subject: Re: CRIME Computers vulnerable at Oregon department
    
    
    
    A new agency is not necessary, nor is it necessary to 
    have centralized IT.   Nor is it even necessary to have 
    a single person in a permanent position to enforce 
    standardization.
    
    Each of those things may or may not help.
    
    But the Federal Govt achieved something similar without 
    doing any of those things.
    
    Oregon can learn a lesson from the Federal Govt.
    
    (Disclaimer - please do not make inferences about my 
    personal political affiliations from this post - I am 
    attempting to be objective.)
    
    The Clinton/Gore administration was elected in large 
    part on the platform of reducing government waste. 
    Gore became a "Tsar" in this respect.     
    
    Even more than the State of Oregon, the Federal 
    Governemnt is a huge sprawling beurocracy comprising 
    hundreds of agencies, each with different technologies, 
    different practices and standards.
    
    Gore set about to slay the biggest dragon first - the 
    Department of Defense, making a prominent example for 
    the rest of the federal administration.
    
    He succeeded.
    
    In the early-1990's Gore met with the Secretary of 
    Defense (proabably several times).  The result was that 
    the Sec agreed to a complete purge of DOD, getting rid 
    of ALL the MIL-STD's, and replacing them with cheaper 
    commercial equivalents.    This of course was immensely 
    unpopular in the various armed services, and different 
    procurement offices.
    
    But Gore and the Sec stuck to their guns and forced it 
    through.  Exceptions were (and are) granted in cases 
    where no equivalent commercial standard exists.   In 
    many cases DOD actually went to the private sector 
    (mostly ANSI and ISO) and worked with them to convert 
    the government military standard to a commercial 
    equivalent which could be used by industry as a whole, 
    and be administered via ANSI (a not for profit) instead 
    of via the DOD.
    
    There is little doubt that this is saving a ton of money 
    in the long term, although it required quite a bit of up 
    front investment and banging folks heads together in the 
    short term.
    
    The cultural sea change was painful, but actually 
    happened remarkably quickly.   In the space of about 2 
    years it was a done deal.
    
    Nothing was centralized, no new beurocracies were 
    created.    There was simply an agency wide dictate 
    coming from the White House, and persistence from 
    a "Tsar" (Gore) to make sure and follow through.
    
    Once the biggest dragon was mortally wounded, all the 
    other agencies saw the writing on the wall and did not 
    kick up much fuss when it came their turn to standardize.
    
    As a part of this, ISO-9000 compliance now is a 
    requirement for the entire Federal Government.
    
    Something similar could be done in Oregon, if the top 
    executive decides to make it happen.
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 09:07:47 PDT