I do not envy those folks over at grants.gov. What a hurculean undertaking to provide a unified entryway into finding and applying for federal grants [author's inquiry - is there a grants.gov plan to support the full grants lifecycle, from apply to closeout?]. The politics involved. The clear communication needed. The strong leadership and management structure needed.

As mentioned in Rick Weiss’ Washington Post article and David Cassidy’s commentary [here and here], the grants.gov project will have a new prime contractor take over the development effort.

Assigning Blame

Can I assume that the previous contractor failed? Did they not deliver on time, within cost, and with agreed-upon quality measures? If they failed, was it entirely their fault or were there federal government management lapses? Can the American public not renew the contracts of any federal government leadership that may have failed?

Of course I’m being facetious, but I want to point out that at the end of the day, a project fails because its leadership did not plan accordingly. And of course when a project fails, is the solution to simply hire a new contractor who may have won on a low bid, quickly bring them up to speed, and then assume they will be the silver bullet to satisfy all stakeholders? Without knowing the capabilities of both the former and current contractor, it seems the easy target is to give the contractor the boot rather than to conduct a “lessons learned” within your own ranks and make necessary changes (both to personnel and policy).

Compatability

I’ve talked about incompatability issues between the Mac OS platform and grants.gov in the past [see here], so it does not surprise me that there still is no resolution to this issue. To be quite honest, I’m surprised that the issue is important enough to warrant a Washington Post article.

But that brings us back to a fundamental theme. Although the federal government is required to provide an option for people to transact with them electronically, do they serve the public’s best interests by favoring one operating system over another or by forcing people to conduct their business electronically? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:

“So, the question is, why does this federal site (grants.gov), which has the authority for consolidating the business of grant funding among a majority of federal agencies, have the authority to mandate a technology that can only be used by users of one operating system? There are federal mandates such as Section 508 that provide for equal access to web applications for handicapped individuals. Shouldn’t there be an equal access technology policy too?”

Rick and Dave point out that a Mac client solution has been underway, but it seems the better plan might be to simply create a cross-platform solution, perhaps using the Java platform.

Tags: [grants.gov, Mac, grants, David Cassidy, Rick Weiss, Northrop Grumman, Anteon, General Dynamics, PureEdge, IBM Workplace Forms]

“There are federal mandates such as Section 508 that provide for equal access to web applications for handicapped individuals. Shouldn’t there be an equal access technology policy too?”

My point being that official G2C business systems should allow for multi-platform accessibility. Granted, I’ve spoken about the alternative of using Citrix, but this is not a particularly intuitive solution for many people. At least there are some offers of help.

Frankly, I do not think that it would be such a stretch to create a product that is available on multiple platforms. Sure, perhaps they cannot have something available “for every platform imaginable,” but this is not forging new ground. For instance, a tool like JEdit is Java-based and can therefore be run on multiple platforms. It is a text editor that handles a variety of plugins, including fairly robust XML editing. Now, although I do not know all the technology requirements for a tool to be able to transmit the data to grants.gov, it seems to me that something similar can be created that meets the requirements for offline application creation.

If Grants.gov is unwilling to “host” grantees’ data centrally, then it seems that this saved money could easily be used to resolve this issue. It’s just a shame that they did not think to include the multiple platform requirement when they initially contracted with PureEdge. I guess the saying goes “better late than never,” but it sounds as though there are some angry people – I’ve been monitoring this dissatisfaction for almost 2-3 years now.

Tags: [Grants.gov, grants, federal, government, G2C, usability, UX, PureEdge, Mac, Apple, NSF, Citrix, fair access]

Today’s Washington Post catches on the problems Mac users have identified for a while now – that Grants.gov does not support Mac users unless these users use a Citrix workaround.

Scientists should focus on science, not on how to submit applications for funding. It seems to me that the process should be intuitive and quick – not painstakingly difficult to figure out. The Grants.gov issue starts off with usability problems because it does not support a variety of computing platforms. Why does the grant community gush about NSF’s Fastlane system? Well, you don’t need to get bogged down in instructions to figure out how to use it and it is platform independent.

Perhaps Grants.gov should determine why scientists love this system. Previous posts about Grants.gov here and here.

Tags: [Grants.gov, grants, federal, government, G2C, usability, UX, PureEdge, Mac, Apple, NSF, Citrix, fair access]

Back in May I discussed the potential misuse of a powerful mapping tool like Google Earth. Today, the New York Times reports that international governments are afraid of the potential for misuse of this technology. Since the New York Times will eventually make the link to their article obsolete (unless you pay for a subscription), I felt compelled to include some of the more interesting tidbits…

From the Dec 20, 2005 edition of the New York Times, “Governments Tremble at Google’s Bird’s-Eye View”

“Lt. Gen. Leonid Sazhin, an analyst for the Federal Security Service, the Russian security agency that succeeded the K.G.B., was quoted by Itar-Tass as saying: “Terrorists don’t need to reconnoiter their target. Now an American company is working for them.”
…
“India, whose laws sharply restrict satellite and aerial photography, has been particularly outspoken. “It could severely compromise a country’s security,” V. S. Ramamurthy, secretary in India’s federal Department of Science and Technology, said of Google Earth. And India’s surveyor general, Maj. Gen. M. Gopal Rao, said, “They ought to have asked us.”
…
“Andrew McLaughlin, a senior policy counsel at Google, said the company had entered discussions with several countries over the last few months, including Thailand, South Korea and, most recently, India.”
…
“When you have multiple eyes in the sky, what you’re doing is creating a transparent globe where anyone can get basic information about anyone else,” said Mr. Gupta, the Sandia analyst. His recommendation to the Indian government, he said, would be to accept the new reality: “Times are changing, and the best thing to do is adapt to the advances in technology.”

Tags: [memory maps, Google Earth, satellite, security, information security, national security, terrorism, map, gps]

I have heard that Grants.gov is not Macintosh compatible. What do I do if I use only a Macintosh?
Grants.gov is aware of the issues facing Macintosh users who apply for Federal grants electronically. Grants.gov has provided the following response regarding this issue on the FAQ page of their website:

“Grants.gov has been working with PureEdge [since acquired by IBM and renamed IBM® Workplace Forms™] to offer a viewer that is compatible with as many operating systems as possible. Once a MAC compatible viewer has been developed information will be posted on our website. Our goal is to ensure the widest possible acceptance of Grants.gov and not exclude anyone from the electronic grants submission process.”

Pure Edge anticipates having a platform independent solution available by November 2006. Until then, PC emulation software for the Mac will allow Macintosh users to prepare and submit their applications to Grants.gov. Grants.gov has provided information [PDF] on using the PureEdge viewer with a Mac.

Grants.gov and NIH are partnering to provide free access to Citrix servers for Macintosh Users who are looking for an alternative to using PC emulation software with the PureEdge™ forms. This service will be available for use at the end of December 2005.

A Citrix server connection allows Macintosh users to remotely launch a Windows session on their own machines by using the free Citrix client application. While connected to the server, Mac users can develop their grant application using PureEdge™ forms. Applicants will need to download and install the free Citrix client application in order to work on the SF424 (R&R) application package with the specific grant for which they are applying.

While connected to the Citrix server, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR)/Signing Official (SO) can submit the application to NIH via Grants.gov.

Applicants can also use service providers (see Service Providers) for a platform independent solution.

Applicants having trouble submitting their application electronically to Grants.gov should contact Grant.gov customer support for assistance.

Statement from OER Deputy Director regarding Macintosh compatibility:

“We truly regret the inconvenience that Grants.gov’s lack of platform independence is causing Macintosh users. As stated in the FAQ’s posted on this website, the Office of Management and Budget, part of the Executive Office of the President, has chosen Grants.gov as the single portal for all submissions of federal grant applications, and NIH’s parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), as Grants.gov’s implementer. As the federal government’s largest research granting agency, NIH is expected to be a key player in the DHHS implementation of Grants.gov. We and others have made Grants.gov aware of the difficulties that Macintosh users are experiencing and are working with Grants.gov staff to implement a temporary solution (Citrix). We recognize that this solution is not ideal but ask for your patience and forbearance as we work toward the very complex task of electronic submission of all NIH applications by May 2007. Grants.gov is working with PureEdge toward a platform independent solution by November of 2006. For additional information about Grants.gov please visit their website at www.grants.gov.”

- Norka Ruiz Bravo, NIH Deputy Director of Extramural Research

Tags: [federal government, research administration, Apple, Macintosh, pureedge, IBM, Grants.gov, grants, NCURA, FDP, NIH, eRA]

Azmi [FBI CIO] is aware of the mountain that faces him—not to mention the consequences if he fails to deliver the support systems the agents need to fight against high-tech crime and terrorism. “Looking at the mission of the FBI and how critical it is, I will tell you that we are at war,” he says. “And the best tool we have is information, and if information doesn’t get to agents on the street in time, then we haven’t done our job properly.”

Last year I wrote a paper entitled, “Effective Culture Change.” The paper was written as part of a graduate school team experience for the Department of Justice’s Library Services division. Although the paper was targeted to a specific audience within the DoJ‘s Justice Management Division, I feel the paper could be used to address some of the culture problems within the FBI and the DoJ as a whole.

First, let me define organizational culture. Claver, et al. (2001, p.248) define organizational culture as:

“A set of values, symbols and rituals shared by the members of a specific firm, which describes the way things are done in an organization in order to solve both internal management problems and those related to customers, suppliers and the environment.”

This culture manifests itself at both a visible level (age, ethnicity, gender, dress, organizational structure, symbols, slogans, etc.) and an invisible level (time, motivation, stability vs. change, orientation towards work, individualism vs. collaboration, control, how management views IT, etc.).

I believe the primary reason for failed IT projects and a revolving door of CIOs at the FBI is primarily due to the agency’s culture, not failed technologies or poor CIO leadership. Let me elaborate…

New IBM employees receive a laptop computer when they start working for this technology company. Right from the get-go, these employees receive the cultural message that, “We are a company that relies on information access and information sharing.” What if federal employees in agencies such as the FBI could receive this cultural message too by receiving their very own laptop? Unfortunately, according to the Washington Post,

“Nearly 60 percent of federal employees are over age 45, compared with about 31 percent of the nation’s workforce. More than half of all federal workers will be eligible for retirement or early retirement within five years.”

Could part of this technology resistance be related to the average age of federal employees, including FBI employees? I find it abominable that former FBI Director Lois Freeh didn’t even have a computer at his desk! The CIO Magazine article goes on to state

“The FBI’s dismissive attitude toward IT was embodied by former FBI Director Freeh, who ran the Bureau from 1993 to just before 9/11. “[Freeh] was not an IT person,” says a former DoJ IT manager familiar with the FBI IT culture. He and the businesspeople around him were uncomfortable within technology.”

The CIO Magazine article implies that the culture still hasn’t changed, even after FBI Director Robert Mueller started his post in September 2001. What’s particularly interesting about this is that under Attorney General Ashcroft’s leadership, the 2002 DoJ Information Technology Plan stated:

Establish an Environment That is Conducive to Change

“There will be a large number of changes introduced so DoJ should take steps to increase its capacity to successfully adopt to change. The culture must embrace and reward change attributes, such as flexibility, adaptability, innovation, and resiliency.” (USDOJ-JMD, 2002, p.31)

That “success factor” was documented in a 2002 publication. So, how successful is the FBI? What about the DoJ? So, is it the responsibility of FBI CIO Zalmal Azmi to effectively change the agency’s culture? Here are some of my recommendations:

Leadership

Leadership should clearly and openly communicate (and model) to employees the value of the desired change. Culture change doesn’t occur simply by implementing a new technology or Director Mueller giving Azmi authority over the IT budget. Leadership means ALL leadership – extended to Director Mueller all the way to the Attorney General. Azmi cannot do it on his own – he must have true support from top-most leadership. The previously mentioned “success factor” stresses a need for change, but have leaders implemented specific policies and reward systems (versus technology solutions) that communicate a support for risk taking and change and provide tolerance for employee mistakes?

Training and Organizational Development

Training is vital for an organization that desires effective culture change. A few suggestions might include:

• Team-building activities involving cross-functional, or even cross-divisional teams, may foster greater trust and provide better opportunities for information sharing.
• Large group interventions are organizational development activities that involve representative stakeholders meeting at length to discuss problems and create plans for change.
• Survey-feedback activities allow leadership to conduct a cultural analysis to determine where the organization stands on these desired dimensions.
• Initiate a mentorship program like that offered by Fannie Mae [no longer available - scanned hardcopy to PDF - 12.2 MB]

Structure

The Department of Justice has a traditionally divisional structure. This structure works well when adapting to the needs of its environment, but this structure (in addition to the needed levels of information security) often leads to poor levels of communication and coordination among divisions. I am not convinced that the Department can abandon its divisional groupings because of its sheer size. However, by implementing a horizontal structure within each division, boundaries would more likely be broken within the DoJ, promoting collaboration for learning and change, which requires changes in employee empowerment, information sharing, and culture. One radical idea might be to look from a macro level to see if the DoJ organizational structure could be combined under an umbrella consisting of the following groupings:

• Policy;
• Investigation/enforcement;
• Litigation; and
• Administration.

Collaboration

Fostering a collaborative culture in the DoJ and the FBI will affect the likelihood of successfully implementing a technical solution. Damodaran (1996, p. 304) lists the following benefits of user involvement:

1. Improved quality of the system arising from more accurate user requirements.
2. Avoiding costly system features that the user did not want or cannot use.
3. Improved levels of acceptance of the system.
4. Greater understanding of the system by the user resulting in more effective use.
5. Increased participation in decision-making in the organization.

Learning from Success Stories

The FBI is not the only federal agency that struggles to change its culture so that it embraces information sharing. The Department of Defense provides the best example of how a federal Department can change, and it seems that the FBI can look to these kinds of success stories to see how it might become more of a learning organization. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in the late 1980s, the Army realized that they would need to focus their energies on more complex threats. Leadership determined that there needed to be an abundance of tools to provide all personnel with the information needed at any given time. The Army required training and education programs that rewarded the sharing of “Lessons Learned” and “Best Practices.” In addition, they implemented a number of sophisticated knowledge management systems, including Army Knowledge Online – that provides a wealth of timely information to all personnel. Future plans within the DoD include integrating this system with knowledge management systems from the other defense branches.

Conclusion

Many people are not willing to change unless they perceive a problem or crisis. Resistance to change is often a result of self-interest (fear of loss of power, prestige, pay, benefits), lack of understanding and trust, uncertainty, or differing assessments and goals. The DoJ and the FBI has been accused of having problems with effective information sharing, including the accusation that the Department fosters a culture that resists this activity. The DoJ and the FBI must effectively address these issues and identify strategies for becoming an organization that embraces change attributes and the importance of effective information access and sharing.

When efforts to implement change fail, a common cause is insufficient attention to the people side of change. Too many times CIOs are really CTOs, brought in to implement these cultural and stretegic changes. Unfortunately, their expertise might be more concentrated on implementing technologies, not changing people. I would urge leadership to treat information as a resource (on par with human resources, financial resources, physical resources) and consider how they can change the organization’s information culture first through the people-side of change.

Tags: [culture, IT, technology, FBI, DOJ, Information Management, Information Sharing, Project Management, CIO]

So, the question is, why does this federal site, which has the authority for consolidating the business of grant funding among a majority of federal agencies, have the authority to mandate a technology that can only be used by users of one operating system? There are federal mandates such as Section 508 that provide for equal access to web applications for handicapped individuals. Shouldn’t there be an equal access technology policy too?

Back in 2003, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) issued a report [PDF - 880 KB] in response to the Department of Homeland Security’s naming of Microsoft as the Department’s “primary security provider.” An August 28, 2003 ComputerWorld article states

The contract, awarded June 27, named Microsoft as the “primary technology provider” to the Department of Homeland Security, supplying desktop and server software critical for the agency.

In a letter yesterday to Tom Ridge, the secretary of the DHS, Ed Black, the CEO and president of the Washington-based CCIA, asked the agency to “reconsider” its decision to use Microsoft software inside an agency with critical security needs (download PDF).

From an economic and efficiency standpoint, it would be much easier for the federal government to adopt Microsoft as the defacto standard computing platform. Unfortunately, there are a few problems with this stance:

1. Security - Much like when one invests in the stock market, diversity is the key. One shouldn’t invest 100% in international stocks. Although these stocks might have a chance for a high return, if they tank you are out of luck. When investing, advisors make sure your portfolio is diversified, as a way to protect yourself if the event that stocks plummet in one part of your portfolio. Similarly, if a corporation or federal agency diversifies its technology portfolio, then it is less likely to experience a fatal security breach.
2. Innovation – Look at the innovators right now – Apple Computer, Amazon, Google, etc. These companies do not rely on one technology from one company. They innovate, in part, from using diverse technologies (hard and soft).

The federal government needs to seriously look at the technology policies it implements. I think I agree with a recent CIO article calling for a Federal Technology Czar. To combat technology and cybersecurity issues, the government should institute policies that promote technology diversity and should allow citizens to conduct business with the government using any technology available to them.

Tags: [federal government, Microsoft, Apple, CCIA, pureedge, Grants.gov, Section 508, cybersecurity, FDP, eRA]