Orszag Wants Innovation

Tom Shoop, the editor in chief and author of the FedBlog at Nextgov's sister site Government Executive, started a bit of a debate on Wednesday over the supposedly sorry state of the government's computing power -- or is that the government's sorry state of leveraging computing power to create interactive apps that the public can use?

To find out, let's look at the chronology of events:

--Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, says on Tuesday during a speech at the Center for American Progress, "At one time, a federal worker went to the office and had access to cutting-edge computer power and programs. Now, he often has more of both clipped to a device on his belt."

--Shoop blogs on Wednesday that he accepts "the notion that much of government isn't on the cutting edge when it comes to computers any more. But more computing power on your iPhone or BlackBerry? That seems like a stretch."

--On Wednesday afternoon, Orszag writes on his OMB blog in response to Shoop's post, asking, "What do we mean by 'computing power and programs?'" And then later explains that:

"cutting-edge computer power and programs" may be best defined as one's ability to use technology to interact with the world in a rapid, user-friendly way. And on my personal Blackberry, I can track the status of a shipment, buy goods and services, make travel, hotel and restaurant reservations, and collaborate with friends and colleagues -- all online pretty much anytime and anywhere. . . . Such innovative uses of technology are scarce to nonexistent within the federal government. For example, there is no federal government equivalent to the over 200,000 applications that have become available to iPhone users in the short time since it has been sold.

--Ed O'Keefe highlighted on Thursday the back and forth in his Federal Eye blog on washingtonpost.com, asking, "Is technology the key to cutting government costs? Should the government invest more in technology?" Some commenters on the blog lamented how antiquated the programs on their desktops were, making it difficult to access modern applications and tech tools.

It seems to me that Orszag may not be giving agencies a completely fair shake. Yes, generally speaking, he is right that "innovative uses of technology are scarce to nonexistent within the federal government." And there certainly are some dinosaur systems out there. But innovative uses of technology in government do exist, albeit many are still in their infancy. And it is exactly what the Obama administration is trying to encourage. Consider:

--The Army conducted an Apps for the Army contest.

--The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency launched a so-called Transformative Apps program, too -- although the House Armed Services Committee likes Army's apps contest better.

--In May, Nextgov honored federal managers who used technology to improve government operations despite facing discouraging bureaucratic inertia and political resistance, which basically meant facing down a lot of people saying it wasn't worth it, it couldn't be done, it was a stupid idea, or were afraid the idea threatened their jobs.

But that brings up the most salient point of Orszag's argument: The problem may not be that government has failed to pursue these technological innovations because, well, it's that amorphous big-bad-backward-thinking government; the problem really is that government, by its very nature of a process-oriented, rules-bound culture, just can't move quickly enough to develop these kinds of apps that create the "anytime and anywhere access" and collaboration environment Orszag wants. It's happening on a minute scale, but it takes Herculean efforts from federal managers who are willing to risk their careers to make it happen. (Refer again to the Nextgov awards.)

The good news about this is that Orszag and his tech team at OMB and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (where Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra works) can create the kinds of incentives -- like those described in the open government directive -- that can encourage agencies to change their cultures so they can unleash the technological creativity Orszag wants. Maybe more encouragement vis a vis rule changes and maybe even legal reforms is needed.