While federal agencies have lagged commercial industry in recognizing AI’s potential impacts and adapting accordingly, the U.S. government is now rushing to catch up. On March 28, the White House Office of Management and Budget released its new AI governance memo as a follow-up to the October 2023 White House Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Use of Artificial Intelligence, and federal agencies have completed all required actions to date under the Executive Order on schedule.

As required by the executive order, all federal agencies must now designate a Chief AI Officer (CAIO) to coordinate their agency’s use of AI, promote AI innovation in their agency, and manage risks from their agency’s use of AI. As a consequence, the government is looking for 400 CAIOs and many federal departments and agencies have already named one.

The creation of CAIO positions is a significant step toward an AI-enabled federal government. However, it presents challenges akin to those faced in the private sector. To navigate these challenges successfully, CAIOs should take five immediate actions to set the stage for success:

Lead the Mission: CAIOs must articulate a clear vision for AI adoption within their agencies, ensuring alignment and serving as the focal point for implementing AI priorities. The Chief AI Officer should report directly to the department or agency head to demonstrate that they have their full-throated support.

Balance Innovation and Risk: Many government functions are considered no-fail missions—protecting the nation, providing uninterrupted financial and medical benefits, securing domestic and international travel, building weapon systems, and serving as the nation’s eyes and ears through intelligence collection and analysis. Even seemingly small error rates may be intolerable. Yet with AI, risk aversion offers a path to stagnation and obsolescence. CAIOs should fight to strike a balance between each agency’s legitimate concerns about risks, and the imperative to accelerate AI adoption and integration.

Quick Wins and Strategy: CAIOs should identify low-hanging fruit that, with focused senior-level attention and a burst of resources, can deliver demonstrable outcomes that are clearly AI-driven. This creates a virtuous cycle of success that opens the aperture for the more difficult and ambitious work to come. AI pilots can be chosen thoughtfully to demonstrate hypotheses that can then be affirmed in each department’s AI strategy. These quick wins can build momentum for broader AI strategy implementation.

Budgeting and Procurement: The budgets that CAIOs are working with now were likely built in early 2022 before large language models or generative AI were widely available. CAIOs should work with agency chief financial officers and department comptrollers to identify current-year funds for reprogramming. At the same time, they need to shape future year budgets in ways that reflect the required infusion of resources in support of the entire AI lifecycle.

Yet even when funds are identified, procurement processes often move slower than the pace of technology — a product on the cutting edge today may be on the path to obsolescence tomorrow. CAIOs should work with acquisition and contracting officials to take full advantage of extant authorities while seeking new and more flexible authorities to accelerate AI procurement.

Talent Acquisition: The scarcity of AI talent necessitates creative approaches to recruitment and retention within the public sector. CAIOs should push to hire AI experts directly, but to move faster they should also hire outside AI experts for temporary assignments through pathways such as fellowships from corporations, think tanks, and academia, or in excepted service or special government employee roles. CAIOs can pursue a strategy of establishing a centralized AI talent hub that the rest of the department or agency can access, or of placing talent in key directorates and offices that are leveraging AI. A blend of different human capital solutions will help accelerate AI adoption across the government.

These strategies are not only aimed at integrating AI into federal operations but also at leveraging its potential to enhance public service delivery. The CAIO’s role is pivotal in this process, requiring a blend of visionary leadership, strategic planning, and operational acumen.

The experiences of the Defense Department’s Joint AI Center and Chief Digital and AI Office and the Department of Homeland Security’s AI Task Force exemplify the multifaceted opportunities and challenges AI presents. These initiatives highlighted the necessity for a centralized strategy to provide direction, coupled with the flexibility to foster innovation and experimentation within a decentralized framework. Absent the proper balance between centralization and decentralization, one of two things will happen: AI will never scale beyond pilot projects — overly decentralized — or the end users’ needs will be marginalized to the point of failure — overly centralized. The balancing act between rapid technological adoption and the careful management of associated risks underscores the complex landscape that CAIOs navigate.

The decision to institutionalize the role of CAIOs demonstrates a clear acknowledgment of AI’s strategic significance. This action signifies a deeper commitment to keeping the United States at the forefront of technological innovation, emphasizing the use of AI to improve public service delivery, enhance operational efficiency, and safeguard national interests. As we navigate this still-uncharted territory, leadership, innovation, and responsible governance will be essential in realizing the full promise of AI within the federal realm. CAIOs will play an indispensable role in shaping the government’s AI-enhanced future.

Joel Meyer served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Strategic Initiatives in the Biden Administration, where he drove the creation of DHS’s Artificial Intelligence Task Force and the Third Quadrennial Homeland Security Review. He has led public sector businesses at three artificial intelligence technology startups, including currently serving as President of Public Sector at Domino Data Lab, provider of the leading enterprise AI platform trusted by over 20% of the Fortune 100 and major government agencies.

Lieutenant General John (Jack) N.T. Shanahan, United States Air Force, Retired, retired in 2020 after a 36-year military career. Jack served in a variety of operational and staff positions in various fields including flying, intelligence, policy, and command and control. As the first Director of the Algorithmic Warfare Cross-Functional Team (Project Maven), Jack established and led DoD’s pathfinder AI fielding program charged with bringing AI capabilities to intelligence collection and analysis. In his final assignment, he served as the inaugural Director of the U.S. Department of Defense Joint Artificial Intelligence Center.

Both authors serve as Commissioners on the Atlantic Council’s Commission on Software-Defined Warfare.

The post The CAIO’s role in driving AI success across the federal government appeared first on FedScoop.

Surveying the global landscape of governmental evolution, we see reason for optimism. We’ve identified more than 200 cases worldwide that offer proof of radical transformation, where government agencies have achieved quantum leaps, delivering upwards of 10X improvements across areas ranging from operational efficiency to customer experience to mission outcomes.

Here are eight seismic trends redefining governance in 2024 and beyond:

• Government at Warp Speed: Government leaders worldwide are seeing ever-greater benefits of increased operational speed. By introducing new technologies – such as AI and machine learning, along with reimagined processes that break down isolated silos – governments can deliver services much faster.

• Unleashing Untapped Government Productivity: Advances in Generative AI can usher a new era of increased productivity in the public sector and diminish the adverse effects of today’s talent and workforce gaps. In order to test and scale powerful AI technologies and applications, government leaders can build solid foundations of data and digital capabilities to identify work streams that are well suited for automation.

• Agile Government: In an era of rapid change, government leaders are abandoning traditional processes and moving toward flexible approaches to policymaking, funding, technology development, and decision making. Whether it’s streamlining permitting and procurement processes, introducing flexible resourcing, or breaking down obsolete bureaucratic barriers, instilling a culture that prioritizes outcomes over rigid processes will enhance government agility.

• Radical Improvement in Customer Experience: Customer Experience (CX) serves as a primary touchpoint between government and its constituents. Boosting CX has the power to increase public trust in government. Targeted investments in digital public infrastructure – like digital identity, digital payments, and data exchange platforms – can anticipate people’s needs and enhance their experiences with government services.

• Achieving Innovation at Scale: Addressing modern challenges demands innovation at a scale that government cannot achieve alone. As a result, governments are adjusting incentives for stakeholders to foster a network of problem solvers that span private sector industries, academia, and every level of the public sector.

• Cross-Boundary Mission Effectiveness: Some of today’s most pressing problems transcend agency boundaries and require effective cross-agency collaboration. By embracing technology infrastructure like cloud-based data analytics and artificial intelligence, government agencies can compile diverse expertise and resources for a more holistic approach to complex issues.

• Government’s Resilience Imperative: Building resilience against various threats – including geopolitical shocks, climate change, supply chain snarls, and cyberattacks – is central to the continuity of effective government. By enhancing the capacity to navigate these disruptions while ensuring community safety, governments can actively combat disruptions and challenges to daily operations.

• Fair and Equitable Government: Agencies will continually evaluate and evolve to serve constituents equitably. By focusing on three primary spheres of influence within government organizations – the workforce, vendor ecosystems, and communities – government leaders can advance equity within and outside of their agencies.

As we navigate the complexities of our time, embracing these trends will be paramount in building a government that is not only responsive, but also proactive in addressing the needs of the individuals and families it serves. By harnessing the power of technology, prioritizing collaboration, and striving for innovation, agencies can overcome adversity and thrive in 2024.

To hear more about these trends, listen to William Eggers on the Daily Scoop Podcast discuss Deloitte’s Top Trends in Government 2024 report.

The post Eight trends that are redefining government at ‘warp speed’ appeared first on FedScoop.

Take for instance the U.S. government’s General Services Administration (GSA), which went from 17 different email and messaging services to one, creating a faster and more efficient platform; or how the National Institute of Health (NIH) changed its approach to cancer research by securely and safely sharing a wide collection of up-to-the-minute datasets and providing powerful new analysis tools. 

We saw these advances in government enabled by one particular technology: cloud. As promising as these results are, what matters most for the long term is approaching cloud services through the lens of solving issues of the present, while simultaneously setting up for the future. 

Ending an old habit 

Having spent three decades providing technology to the government, I’m no stranger to building solutions by applying a technological know-how with a deep understanding of public sector agencies and their missions. Too often in government, we see the sustainment of past technologies, which keeps systems afloat, but does nothing to address present and future needs. Legacy solutions, simply put, just don’t have the scale or speed capable of handling the workloads and requirements of today’s world.

Like much of the private sector, our government services are becoming more data-driven, demanding an IT environment that will support the digital-first approach. Government is first and foremost a people business, delivering citizen-centric services, education, public safety, national security, and more, all of which require secure and reliable systems where AI and ML capabilities can promote quick, agile, and efficient services to constituents. And all AI and ML capabilities boil down to one thing: data. That data must exist in a secure environment, and the best way to secure an environment is to modernize.

We’ve seen too many security breaches from exploits of buggy software and obsolete security systems, and at a local level, ransomware attacks are rife.

Modernizing the infrastructure through thoughtful cloud implementation can solve these issues. In the cloud, system management and upgrades are easier; performance data more readily available. Personnel training is more flexible and accessible. Application modernization is more automated. Data management and analysis are more nimble, with faster output and lower time to insight. 

Bringing the cloud forward

Infrastructure modernization goes beyond simply moving data and applications from on-prem to the cloud. Modernizing means reimagining the approach to the entire IT environment and rebuilding with a new mindset that assumes cloud as the default. Cloud-native is that approach. 

Unlike monolithic applications, which must be built, tested, and deployed as a single unit, cloud architectures decompose components into loosely coupled services to improve the speed, agility, and scale of software delivery, making applications easier to deploy, edit and integrate with other applications. Because of its inherent pliability, this approach lends itself better to building and deploying emerging technologies, like edge computing, AI, ML, and more. 

For example, to train AI/ML models, agencies need high volumes of diverse, credible data with a lot of computational power and that can only be done in the cloud. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Technology Engagement Center, the U.S. spends $143 billion on information collection just at the federal level. This is a wealth of information that — in a modern infrastructure that can protect and process said data — could create opportunities for citizen engagement and service delivery that we’ve only dreamt of until now. But for that, government agencies will need to begin thinking differently about their cloud strategy. 

In order to be a cloud-native organization in the public sector, you cannot continue to just do things the way you have always done them. This is why, over a decade after establishing FedRAMP, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) outlined modernized guidance on cloud deployment, steering government agencies away from dedicated GovClouds. The OMB has recognized that dedicated GovClouds are not cutting it for government agencies to modernize their infrastructure and that agencies need a better approach to cloud computing that delivers commercial-grade scale and flexibility, all the while remaining secure and compliant. 

In 2024, we are going to see a major shift in the technology landscape in government towards modernization. In order to do so, government and public agencies must evolve culturally and procedurally with flexibility and the courage to modernize by reimagining for the future.

The post Reimagining tech modernization for the future in government  appeared first on FedScoop.

But AI also carries a whole host of inherent risks and poses a serious set of challenges.

The success of any government effort to safely and effectively leverage AI will hinge on each agency’s data culture, along with its ability to execute robust, transparent and trustworthy operations. Data will serve as an agency’s most important asset and set the foundation for efficacious AI models. And that’s where the Chief Data Officer steps in.

As of last year, more than 75 federal agencies and sub-agencies have appointed CDOs. Major policies — including the Foundations of Evidence-Based Policymaking Act and the Federal Data Strategy — have bolstered the CDO’s authority to improve the accessibility and serviceability of federal data. However, although a significant amount of responsibility rides on the shoulders of government CDOs, they still face a number of ambiguities in their roles. A 2022 Data Foundation survey found that only 52 percent of federal CDOs reported that their individual responsibilities are “very” or “completely” clear, and only 17 percent of federal CDOs believe they have all the resources needed to succeed.

For government agencies to safely and successfully realize the transformational potential of AI, CDOs must guide the way. And to get there, CDOs can deploy four key strategies and rely on this playbook to drive change across their respective agencies.

• Build a Roadmap to Gain Cultural Buy-in. It all starts with a plan. CDOs have an opportunity to integrate AI into agency data strategies that are directly aligned to mission objectives. By building an easy-to-follow roadmap – including overall program goals and the anticipated steps to achieve them – CDOs can engage other key stakeholders and departments on smaller, bite-sized projects of the data strategy to build a coalition for change around a shared vision.

• Create a Living Inventory of Data. By carefully outlining steps and engaging with the right people and teams, a CDO should then be able to effectively identify what data an organization has and what data it doesn’t have. To develop this inventory, CDOs should establish foundational pillars – such as communication channels, processes, tools and technology solutions – which will later help maintain and update the inventory in an efficient and continuous manner.

• Identify Sponsors and Key Stakeholders. While working on pilot projects, CDOs should build strong relationships with key partners and C-suite executives to ensure ongoing support and steady resources. Because CDOs play various roles, their potential sponsors may differ from agency to agency. For example, in organizations where the CDO drives technological change, key sponsors may be the Chief Technology Officer. In organizations that focus on data literacy initiatives, CDOs might need to engage human capital leaders. Nurturing these relationships can help create a healthy stable of advocates who can speak to the power of data and its role in the safe and successful implementation of AI.

• Track Progress Consistently and Effectively. CDOs have the ability to craft data strategies that help to catalyze change across all areas of an organization – from leadership to the rank-and-file. They must continue to remain flexible as new needs emerge and ensure that resources are properly aligned to mission and vision. By regularly monitoring and evaluating their data strategies, CDOs can identify areas for improvement, adapt to changes and hold stakeholders accountable.

It’s true: AI has the potential to revolutionize how government operates. But government CDOs must play a critical role in preparing their agencies for the technology and advancing AI adoption safely and effectively. By continuing to drive transformational change within agencies and maximizing the use of secure, trustworthy and transparent data, CDOs can help unlock impactful technologies across the federal government.

Adita Karkera is the chief data officer for Deloitte’s Government and Public Services practice and a fellow at the Deloitte AI Institute for Government. She spent nearly 20 years with the Arkansas Department of Information Systems and served as Arkansas’ Deputy State Chief Data Officer from 2017 through 2021.

The post How federal CDOs can unlock the power of artificial intelligence appeared first on FedScoop.

What the piece does not raise, but what may be the biggest problem with a successful PMA, are the actual managers themselves. Not the mid-level supervisors in various agency bureaus, but the professional-managerial structure — predominantly housed within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the General Services Administration (GSA) — who dream up and attempt to impose new PMA requirements on agencies every four years. Even worse, most management agendas are created without any consultation with Congress, which is both against the clear letter of the law and ensures that no lawmakers are likely to partner with the administration to provide new authorities or resources to implement even the most sophisticated PMA.

Too often, the PMA managerial phalanx — OMB and GSA — use two core tenets of each management agenda to further justify their existence and enact their priorities. First are a set of cross-agency priority goals that are wrapped up in the kind of management jargon one might hear at a mid-level consulting firm, with language and objectives that mean far more to OMB and GSA than to agencies and Congress.

Second, each PMA has an implementation plan that siphons money away from agency needs to fund dozens of OMB and GSA staff that mostly churn out power points, spend millions of dollars — at the discretion of OMB’s deputy director for management — on random ideas of bureaucratic waste (remember the Gears of Government Awards?), and convene multitudes of executive meetings to extol the virtues of PMA to often silent audiences. 

Stated simply, this kind of superstructure exists for navel-gazing, not driving vital and necessary improvements to the core functions of government. It is time for Congress to take a serious look at the foundations of the GPRA Modernization Act and ensure taxpayers are actually benefiting from the President’s Management Agenda. 

Recently, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) has advanced multiple bills to increase transparency of PMA operations and drive stronger performance outcomes across the government. The Federal Agency Performance Act of 2023 would codify recommendations from the Government Accountability Office that address key deficiencies in the current PMA process, such as the lack of timely, useful performance information posted on Performance.gov. Other bills, such as the Clear and Concise Content Act of 2023, would ensure that all government information (specifically information related to the PMA and agency-specific performance plans) is drafted in plain writing — so actual citizens can understand what the federal government is doing with their tax dollars.

Last Congress, HSGAC advanced the Governmentwide Executive Councils Administration and Performance Improvement Act, which would codify and overhaul the GSA office that supports the PMA and make them more accountable to the governmentwide councils authorized in law (such as the Chief Information Officers Council and the Chief Acquisition Officers Council) — not OMB. The bill would give more authority and autonomy to those councils, who are led by C-suite executives actually responsible for management performance and effectiveness in their agencies, and ensure any PMA reflects their collective input. Chairman Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., should reintroduce this important legislation soon.

While those bills are yet to pass, at the end of the 117th Congress, legislators took the most decisive steps to bring real transparency and accountability to the PMA in over a decade. Buried in last year’s appropriations bill were new restrictions on PMA finances to ensure that OMB and GSA were actually consulting agencies before developing any management agenda and that any funds provided for the PMA actually benefited the agencies themselves. And, smartly, Congress enacted strenuous new oversight provisions to ensure that OMB and GSA were actually showing value in their coordination and implementation of the PMA. This was Congress reminding OMB and GSA that receiving these tax dollars is a privilege, not an entitlement.

Federal management and performance improvement may seem arcane, but it is vital to building trust between citizens and the government and delivering high-quality benefits and services to states, localities, and individuals. Congress, as the branch most accountable to voters, must ensure that any management agenda is designed, developed, and delivered in a way to actually benefit the American people, not the OMB and GSA managerial industrial complex. With greater transparency and more accountability, the PMA can become a truly valuable initiative that has buy-in from all stakeholders and deliver actual good government reforms that Americans deserve.

Matthew T. Cornelius is a former senior professional staff member on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. He also served in several senior executive branch policy roles, including at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget,  the General Services Administration, and the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

The post What the President’s Management Agenda needs is better management appeared first on FedScoop.

As someone who was involved in the very early stages of the discussion on the concept that became TMF, and a former congressional committee staffer myself, I share many of the concerns of my former colleagues in Congress. The TMF must find a way going forward, if it is to go forward, to be more open and transparent with Congress and the American public about the projects TMF has funded. Even as a close observer of the program, it’s often hard to tell exactly what’s being funded, who’s involved, and what we expect to achieve. If I were wearing my old congressional staffer hat, I’d be frustrated too.  

That said, when I heard the news last week, I was among the first to point out the important role that TMF has played in funding critical zero-trust cybersecurity and customer experience initiatives, helping in many ways to implement the requirements of the cyber and CX executive orders, as well as laws like 21^st Century IDEA that are, for all intents and purposes, unfunded mandates. I said then, and I’ll say again: I think the proposed congressional action to rescind $290 million from TMF is short-sighted, particularly at this moment in our history. With our federal networks facing near-daily cyber incursions from rogue nation-states like Russia and China, we should be investing more, not less, in cybersecurity and IT modernization — and TMF is one tool in that toolbox.  

So, what do we do?  

First and foremost, let’s not give up on TMF. If Congress doesn’t think all of the projects that TMF has funded are worthy, sunlight is the best disinfectant. I encourage rigorous oversight, as the House Oversight and Accountability Committee is doing on the $187 million login.gov award, to determine where improvements can be made. If there are projects that Congress determines should not be funded, tackle those on a case-by-case basis.

Second, the TMF program management office needs to commit to being more open and transparent, as I noted above. Where’s the annual report to Congress that walks through what was funded, why it matters, who’s involved, when it will be completed, and expected outcomes? Something as simple as this would go a long way. The TMF PMO also needs to learn to promote their successes, acknowledge their failures and make the structural changes that may be necessary to get the program back on more solid ground. 

And about that requirement to pay back the “loans.”

The Senate Financial Services and General Government report accompanying the fiscal 2024 appropriations bill highlighted the lack of reimbursement by agencies that have received TMF funds as one of the main reasons for the proposed rescission. After the TMF received the $1 billion infusion from the ARP, OMB and GSA — having listened to agency concerns — issued new guidance related to the TMF. That guidance, in addition to encouraging the prioritization of both CX and cyber-related submissions, offered three new reimbursement paths: full, partial and zero. The reason for this, as I understand it, was that agencies had expressed concerns that the requirement for full reimbursement made participation in the TMF a bridge too far for many. Why? At the end of the day, true savings are hard to identify and even harder to realize (and cost avoidance isn’t real money). Often, even after an IT modernization project is complete, there is a time of transition, where the old and new systems may have to run side-by-side. The financial result of this is that whatever savings we may have hoped to find are likely to take a while to (or may never) be realized and you can’t pay back what you don’t have. The reality is that some reimbursement flexibility is necessary. Or as we saw in the early days of TMF, no one will want to participate. Congress needs to recognize and accept the reality of the reimbursement requirements.  

I’ll close with this, paraphrasing what I told FedScoop last week: The TMF is not perfect, but it has provided a key source of funding for a variety of projects that may not have been funded otherwise. If Congress is serious about IT modernization, improving customer experience and protecting critical federal networks, TMF must be part of the equation going forward.

Mike Hettinger is a former House Oversight Government Operations Subcommittee staff director and founder of Hettinger Strategy Group.

The post Technology Modernization Fund rescission: A chance to change course or the end of the road? appeared first on FedScoop.

At the U.S. General Services Administration, which I lead, our Technology Transformation Services (TTS) works across government to help federal agencies meet that expectation. This work represents an essential component of what has always been GSA’s core mission: helping government deliver efficiently and cost-effectively for the American people. In other words, providing a strong digital infrastructure that gives the public what they need is a natural evolution of GSA’s long-standing work to deliver value through federal acquisitions and real estate.

As we do this work, we’re guided by some fundamental principles. We believe government websites should work for all Americans, including vulnerable communities. We believe government technology should be developed for the public benefit, not private gain, and that individuals – not corporations – should control access to their own sensitive information. 

Above all, we believe that accessible, equitable, and secure digital infrastructure – developed for the public by an accountable government – is vital to delivering the services Americans need, when they need them. 

Our commitment to accountability also means owning up to mistakes and taking responsibility when we fail to meet the high standards taxpayers expect and deserve. 

For example, over a year ago, GSA leadership found out that Login.gov, a secure sign-on service operated out of TTS, had been representing that it was compliant with a technology standard when, in fact, it wasn’t.

Misrepresentations like that are unacceptable, and we spent the last year working to bolster trust and transparency with Login.gov customers, to strengthen oversight and management controls, and to take other steps to prevent something like that from happening again. This included alerting the Inspector General, putting in place new leadership, and improving the Login.gov product offering. As a result, Login.gov is now stronger than ever — offering enhanced anti-fraud controls, 24×7 bilingual customer support, and in-person identity verification at over 18,000 U.S. Postal Service Post Office locations nationwide.

We know there is still work to be done to restore trust with our customers and the public, and I’m committed to seeing that work through and to delivering secure, effective, and accessible digital services to the millions of people we serve. 

The ability of the American people to securely and equitably interact with their government online is critically important, and we are committed to making sure government technology works for everyone, including those who need it the most.

That’s why we’re working in a comprehensive way to strengthen and expand our technology programs so they can deliver even more effectively for the American people.

We established a new Technology Law Division within the Office of the General Counsel to support programs like Login.gov. We’re strengthening the leadership team TTS-wide, hiring a new TTS director in December and, this month, a new deputy director and a new senior adviser for operations. And we’re ramping up our efforts to deliver impactful, lasting solutions that save money for taxpayers and help agency partners deliver excellent customer experiences for the American people — from veterans seeking healthcare to seniors accessing Social Security benefits to farmers and ranchers needing consistent and streamlined information. 

After all, technological advances in areas like artificial intelligence make it more important than ever that our government recruits talented, dedicated technologists to thoughtfully and responsibly buy, build, and oversee government technology in ways that are consistent with our values and serve the public interest.

Turning away from that responsibility is not an option, and this administration will continue to scale up its commitment to technology modernization as we prepare for the future. 

Robin Carnahan currently serves as Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration.

The post Americans deserve government tech that delivers appeared first on FedScoop.

Digital identity is critical infrastructure that at its core relies on trustworthy approaches for verifying that the right person is accessing the right service for the right reason at the right time.

When this goes wrong, Americans are left to suffer — unable to receive the services they need or worse, someone else benefits at the expense of taxpayers. For too long, government agencies have relied on outdated approaches to digital identity verification and fraud risk management. We all witnessed how during the pandemic billions were lost to bad actors, nation-states, and fraud rings while many Americans who were eligible to receive benefits, often from vulnerable demographics, were forced to jump through unnecessary hoops just to prove who they were online.

Sadly enough, we knew this could happen years ago. When I served in government, many of us saw the problem on the horizon and raised the alarm in the 2018/2019 president’s budget. We called for the creation of a dedicated project to identify a diverse set of modern approaches to digital identity, including public-private partnerships, new technologies, new acquisition approaches, and new processes.

The goal was to foster a diverse marketplace of identity-proofing solutions that protect the American people’s privacy, as well as prevent the misuse of their taxpayer dollars in improper payments due to fraud. Although this project was funded, unfortunately, a lack of accountability and focus resulted in little to no changes in the years that followed – a recipe for disaster as the country headed into an unprecedented health emergency. If we are to avoid repeating history, the status quo must change.

Earlier this month, the White House recognized the need for a trustworthy, scalable, and accessible digital identity verification in its National Cybersecurity Strategy. It says: “Today, the lack of secure, privacy-preserving, consent-based digital identity solutions allows fraud to flourish, perpetuates exclusion and inequity, and adds inefficiency to our financial services and daily life…Operating independently, neither the private or public sectors have been able to solve this problem.”

This is a strong message, but it’s the execution that counts. To provide good service, any public-private partnership on digital identity needs to measure success, share information, and learn how to improve. Creating these foundations is vital for building trust and security for the nation’s digital identity ecosystem.

So how do we build this foundation? To start, the government should require digital identity providers (both commercial and government) to publish their auto-approval rates – meaning the ability of a provider to successfully confirm someone’s identity online without subjecting them to forms of manual review or human intervention that might cause someone to abandon the process as a result of undue friction such as online video chats, in-person processes, or other
types of manual reviews.

Careful focus should also be paid to meeting standards for accuracy, precision, security, and equity. These are essential metrics that indicate what percentage of people can be verified with a high degree of confidence. Without these metrics, it’s impossible to determine if identity verification is working as intended. This scale of transparency is not a novel idea – the IRS publishes its auditing performance and impact and the GSA provides an interactive dashboard that shows government contract acquisitions.

Right now, a lack of transparency is hurting trust among the public and within the government itself. In December, a House Oversight Committee investigation found an identity provider misled the IRS by giving inaccurate wait times for manual verification. This month, GSA’s Inspector General found the agency misrepresented privacy protections around Login.gov.

When it comes to a heavily used and vital service like digital identity, these issues are unavoidable unless agencies and private vendors provide clear metrics and reporting mechanisms. Increasing transparency will increase public confidence in digital identity and guide government officials on best practices.

The White House has already committed $1.6 billion from the American Rescue Plan to start fulfilling its digital identity objectives. These once-in-a-lifetime investments will be wasted if steps aren’t taken to ground decision-making in the analytics needed to optimize approaches to confirming that good people aren’t blocked from getting the support that they need while simultaneously taking proactive measures to stop fraudsters in their tracks.

The Biden administration has signaled the time has come for a serious rethink of digital identity — I for one agree it is long overdue. Only through a greater push to increase accuracy, measurement, and transparency can we instill the accountability mechanisms to create the changes needed for delivering trustworthy digital identity.

Jordan Burris is vice president of public sector strategy for Socure. He was formerly the chief of staff in the White House’s Office of the Federal CIO, where he was responsible for orchestrating the execution of technology and cybersecurity efforts across two presidential administrations to include the oversight of the federal government’s $90 billion+ technology budget.

The post America needs trustworthy digital identity appeared first on FedScoop.

After some colorful commentary to the unit equipment custodian, how do you convey this problem to command, so it doesn’t happen to another warfighter? GEARFIT, an Air Force app allows Air Force aircrew to submit direct feedback about their gear, better-informing decisions about critical flight equipment.

Or, imagine you are a Special Tactics operator in the Air Force Special Warfare Force (AFSPECWAR) and your team is tasked to rescue a downed pilot behind enemy lines in a dangerous and isolated location, where GPS navigation and connectivity have been jammed. Your team needs to work jointly with an Army Special Forces unit that is already on the ground to locate the pilot and complete the rescue.

To enable you to integrate operations effectively, your team and the Army unit are equipped with tactical mobile devices that allow you to receive and share data from a multitude of systems such as microsensors and small unmanned aircraft systems. This kit allows your team and the Army unit to successfully interoperate, navigate the GPS-denied environment and successfully rescue the pilot without any casualties.

You can credit part of the mission’s success to the Special Warfare Technical Integration Support Center (TISC). TISC is a joint solution in support of Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) and United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) that allows TISC to remotely deliver tactical air-to-ground integration, conduct global access and support personnel recovery, precision strike, and battlefield surgery operations.

Finally, imagine you are a member of the USAF 341st Training Squadron, tasked with keeping track of the training, health, and welfare of over 1600 military working dogs worldwide. Military working dogs are treated by our troops as fellow warriors, deserving the same quality of care and medical attention as their human counterparts. The jobs that military working dogs do are both risky and physically demanding and the military needs to make sure they have state-of-the-art medical care when they need it.

To keep these fellow warriors healthy and happy, not only do you need to keep track of the approximately 900 dogs/puppies at Lackland AFB but you need to ensure that the health and welfare of all of the dogs that are stationed worldwide are closely tracked and monitored. To keep track of these working dogs worldwide, the 341st Training Squadron and by AF Security Forces use the Working Dog Management System (WDMS) a global system application serving all of the Armed Forces and the Department of Defense. The WMDS application contains over 7 million training and utilization records and enables the DOD to track training, vaccination, and medical records for our canine warriors.

What do these applications that enable mission delivery solutions have in common? Cloud One. These mission system applications, along with 97 other apps, are hosted on the Air Force’s cloud platform. Without Cloud One, these apps would not be as secure, scalable, and rapid. 

Cloud One was created in late 2017 (formerly called Cloud Computing Environment, or CCE) and is the Air Force’s state-of-the-art cloud secure computing platform for compute, storage, data management and networking. In five short years, Cloud One has changed the game and provided access to data across to globe to hundreds of thousands of Airman. Cloud One has been a cornerstone for how to do cloud computing and many other government agencies and allies have worked with Cloud One to bring the capability to their organization.  

Taking aim at the enemy — Securely

There is no room for error when it comes to security, making it the most important aspect of Cloud One. The team has a 100% success rate against a staggering 10 million adversarial attempts per year to penetrate the cloud. Security is critical to all apps in Cloud One, such as the Theater Integrated Combat Munitions Systems (TICMS).  TICMS is used to track all on and off aircraft actions for Air Force munitions assets and components across 210 worldwide locations. Since moving into Cloud One in 2020, TICMS has seen a tremendous improvement in uptime and a dramatic decrease in infrastructure-associated costs. Without Cloud One and its impeccable security, the warfighter would not have access to the right munitions at the right time.  

Bringing the fight to the enemy — Worldwide, 24/7

All Cloud One-hosted applications benefit from secure, accessible, and reliable cloud platform that provides 24/7 worldwide access and improved uptime performance. For example, WICKR RAM (Recall, Alert, & Messaging) is an end-to-end encrypted collaboration application built for the warfighter. The application empowers individual users, the DOD enterprise, and the federal government to securely communicate while mobile and disconnected from secure networks.  
“Using Cloud One allows our personnel and teams to collaborate securely both at the tactical edge and at the strategic level; both in-garrison and deployed,” said Todd Wieser, chief technology officer, U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command. “Cloud One’s ability to run on many different platforms and its feature set enables us to reduce security risks and operate successfully.”

The enemy threat changes – React Fast!

Cloud One already brings together industry and government to deliver best-of-breed technology to service members at the base, in the field, and at the tactical edge, providing unmatched security in even the harshest environments.  As Ms. Lauren Knausenberger, Air Force CIO said in a July 2022 FedScoop article: “The short story is we’re not waiting, we haven’t waited, we will continue to not wait for anybody else to come and provide us with capability. We’re moving forward, we’re moving out, we’re continuing to improve Cloud One.”

To find out more or join our Cloud One team in propelling the Air Force’s Digital  Transformation, go to  https://info.cloudone.af.mil/#/  or email the Cloud One Program Manager, Major Andrew Beckman at Andrew.Beckman.1@us.af.mil.

The post Cloud One: Taking aim at the enemy, one application at a time appeared first on FedScoop.

That was Dr. Bill LaPlante, DoD’s top acquisition executive, at a recent defense conference.

He also said: “If somebody gives you a really cool liquored up story about a DIU [project] or OTA [contract] ask them when it’s going into production, ask them how many numbers, ask them what the [unit cost] is going to be, ask them how it will work against China. Ask them all those questions because that’s what matters. And don’t tell me it’s got AI and quantum in it. I don’t care.” 

Dr. LaPlante is right to focus on volume production of munitions. This is a critical issue for Ukraine and for our own national security. I can appreciate his passion for wanting DoD to send a demand signal to ensure sufficient, long-term manufacturing capacity for Javelins, Stingers, High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), and other advanced munitions that America and its allies would need in a future conflict.      

His flippant comments on commercial technology, however, are misleading. “Tech bros” aren’t providing artillery, but the Ukrainians are directing the warfight on iPhones, social media, secure messaging apps, Starlink, and software applications they’re building on the fly. They are getting their intelligence from commercial satellite companies. And they are directing strikes using commercial drones. Commercial technology matters in the current conflict. More so than in any recent combat operation. 

I’d humbly suggest to Dr. LaPlante that if commercial technology isn’t scaling fast enough inside the DoD, it is precisely because the DoD isn’t focused on scaling commercial technology. And that falls squarely in his inbox as DoD’s chief acquisition executive.

The existing defense industrial base isn’t sufficient

Beyond underplaying the value of commercial technology in Ukraine, Dr. LaPlante set up a false dichotomy about volume production versus emerging commercial technologies. We need both. And indeed, neglecting either could leave the U.S. military unprepared for the next fight, as numerous studies have warned. 

Building the necessary capabilities to aid the Ukrainians and deter China requires considering not only how much we produce, but also what we produce, and how fast. This is one of the central findings in the interim report of the Strategic Competitive Studies Project (SCSP) Economy Panel. It calls for a new American techno-industrial strategy that harvests the best of traditional defense manufacturing and emerging technology through improved public-private partnerships. 

We will not be able to maximize our probability of deterring future conflict with China by focusing on systems that align with our current concepts and operational plans. That is exactly the same mistake Russia made, and we should not repeat it. 

Let’s be honest: will the existing traditional defense contractors create small unmanned drones, new cyber tools, and space-based communication and sensing capabilities — at high volumes and radically lower costs? That we can easily share with allies?  That can be rapidly adapted, integrated, and repurposed—even in the fog of war?  

Heidi Shyu, the DoD CTO, has identified 14 critical technology areas that are vital to national security. And the former Defense Innovation Unit Director, Mike Brown, observed that commercial industry already leads in 11 of those 14 areas. Maintaining our technological edge depends more on partnering with “tech bros” than ever, even if that’s not the industrial base that makes the Pentagon comfortable. 

Of course, we need traditional defense contractors and weapons systems. But they are not sufficient. We need to focus on how fast the DoD can incorporate emerging commercial technologies into its existing arsenal and future plans. 

As former Navy acquisition executive James “Hondo” Geurts and Gen. Joe Votel have argued, we need to take “full advantage of [technology] initially intended for commercial purposes … and agilely adapt such emerging technologies to defense use without costly and time-consuming reinvention and reduplication.”

VC-backed startups and scaleups: commercial innovation we need

The good news: many of the newer, innovative companies we need already exist. 

Startups and especially scaleups — startups that have good product-market fit and are rapidly growing revenue — can help DoD field important new capabilities. There is an entire ecosystem of ambitious defense-tech and dual-use companies in Silicon Valley and in other innovation hubs around the country. U.S. defense and aerospace startups raised $10 billion in 2021, triple the amount from 2019. More broadly, across industries, artificial intelligence and machine learning startups raised $115 billion in 2021, according to Pitch

Insight Partners, where I work, has invested in Rebellion Defense, Hawkeye360, Shift5, and LeoLabs — and we have met with most of the national security entrepreneurs seeking venture capital. We are also one of the larger venture and growth investors in AI, cyber, and enterprise software companies — many of which are also serving the U.S. government. 

I can say from a firsthand perspective: the innovation is here today. In most cases, commercial vendors are delivering important new capabilities at a much faster rate than any of the large defense contractors.   

Software and data analytics — which drive the intelligence that DoD desperately needs to deter next-generation conflict — do not rely primarily on physical production. Instead, software and AI are made, iteratively, by product managers, software developers, system reliability engineers and data scientists. 

Fortunately, VC-backed scaleups attract some of the best software and AI talent in the world. Scaleups compete on talent density, which creates product velocity and faster customer feedback cycles. And increasingly, talented technologists want to work on national security problems.  

Focus on the program executive offices

More good news: thanks to the efforts of current and past public servants — most notably the late Secretary Ash Carter, who was instrumental in pushing the DoD on this topic — thousands of startups and scaleups are already working with DoD. Through labs, rapid prototyping groups, and innovation units, venture-backed companies are coming through the DoD front door, alongside the traditional defense industrial base. It’s a positive development that the Department has become more startup-friendly with its R&D dollars. Now, it’s time to move the winners — those that have product-market fit inside the DoD — into production. 

The DoD should accelerate the buying and integration of commercial technologies by focusing on where procurement happens at scale: the program executive offices (PEOs). From ships to planes to enterprise logistic systems, PEOs are how the Defense Department buys and integrates technology into existing platforms, primarily through large defense contractors.

The Department should provide incentives for acquisition professionals inside the PEO portfolios to buy emerging tech for integration into existing programs. Winning technologies should be able to scale across different programs — what is known as “portfolio management” — even programs that comprise a number of different traditional defense contractors. Imagine the impact that would result from technology companies competing to become a “capability of record” for the DoD, rather than owning a smaller piece of a single program of record.   

PEOs should support innovative commercial companies by committing to procurement actions at the speed of relevance—and committing to experiment continuously with their capabilities. PEOs could accomplish this by creating a new executive role — a Portfolio Innovation Director — and giving them resources, tools, and most importantly, an innovation scaling mandate.

Building bridges with the PEOs is a two-way street, and the innovation community needs to do its part. I’ve been honored to participate in the U.S. Air Force training program, Banshee, talking with talented mid-career acquisition officials about how VC-backed companies differ from the defense contractors they are more familiar with. And as part of the Defense Ventures fellowship program, Insight Partners has hosted active duty service members — including acquisition professionals — to build greater familiarity with the VC-backed innovation ecosystem. 

Let’s get Silicon Valley tech into production

Dr. LaPlante’s “tech bros” comments divert attention from the real issue: DoD won’t win a future war without embracing commercial tech. Commercial technology has changed the course of the conflict in Ukraine. Deterring a peer adversary like China will require the DoD to exploit a wide array of commercial technologies across the U.S. and our Allies. And if deterrence doesn’t work, the side that can introduce new emerging technologies and updated software faster than the other is likely to gain a competitive tactical and operational advantage.  

As a former public official, I know how hard it can be to make changes in a large bureaucracy. It takes knowing the system deeply, starting small but aiming big, and partnering with unlikely allies. Heck, I wrote a book about it. The DoD machinery of requirements generation, acquisition, and budgeting is big and complicated. It’s easy to criticize DoD from the outside, and hard to make meaningful change from the inside. But with leadership commitment, it can be done.

Dr. LaPlante, you are the chief buyer for the entire Defense Department. You can lead the way. Will you put Silicon Valley into production? 

Nick Sinai is a senior advisor at Insight Partners, a commissioner on the Atlantic Council’s Commission on Defense Innovation Adoption, and a senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy School.

The post Forging the defense industrial base for the digital age appeared first on FedScoop.