by clicking on the page. A slider will appear, allowing you to adjust your zoom level. Return to the original size by clicking on the page again.
the page around when zoomed in by dragging it.
the zoom using the slider on the top right.
by clicking on the zoomed-in page.
by entering text in the search field and click on "In This Issue" or "All Issues" to search the current issue or the archive of back issues respectively.
by clicking on thumbnails to select pages, and then press the print button.
this publication and page.
displays a table of sections with thumbnails and descriptions.
displays thumbnails of every page in the issue. Click on a page to jump.
allows you to browse through every available issue.
FCW : January 2014
STEVE KELMAN is professor of public management at Harvard University s Kennedy School of Government and former administrator of the Of ce of Federal Procurement Policy. Commentary | STEVE KELMAN Two presidents in a row have seen their administrations badly wound- ed by problems with management: George W. Bush with Hurricane Katrina and Barack Obama with the HealthCare.gov rollout. Those ascos are not just bad for presidents, they are bad for Ameri- ca. Only extremist anti-government ideologues can welcome the humili- ation our country suffers because of those failures. There are many talented political executives and senior civil service managers in the federal government who are improving the performance of their agencies. But those efforts are mercilessly swept away like a child's sand castle overwhelmed by a giant wave. Even important government performance improvements, such as the reduction of backlogs at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Of ce or the progress many agencies have made in reducing improper pay- ments, leave no trace in the public consciousness. Management is boring, especially for politicians for whom focusing on reports about operational tests for a technology application --- even one as important to Obama as the HealthCare.gov website --- is an unnatural act. Now, however, we might need to demand that politicians be saved from themselves. Obviously, presidents cannot and should not manage the entire government. But there is a chasm between that extreme and the cur- rent situation. What can Obama pro- actively do now, and what should his successors do in the future? I think presidents should have a list, which would obviously change over time, of ve hot-button issues for which successful management is important to political and sub- stantive success and that have a high risk of creating big problems for the president. It is impossible, of course, to predict perfectly which problems will gain media and public traction. But it is a good guess that one issue on any president's list should be the Federal Emergency Management Agency because of the guaranteed high visibility of major natural disasters that are mishandled. And given the importance of health care reform to both Obama and his opponents, it should hardly have taken a rocket scientist to see that management issues with the rollout would be on that list as well. For those key projects, a presi- dent should get regular brie ngs --- maybe once a month or more often if needed --- on overall status, trou- ble spots and decision alternatives. I feel con dent that developing and following up on such a list would reduce the number of government management ascos. What else could Obama do? His administration already has a list of high-priority performance goals, with several for each Cabinet department. Those goals are being tracked by departmental deputy secretaries and the Of ce of Man- agement and Budget, and key of - cials get together on a regular basis to discuss progress, obstacles and lessons learned. It would be a powerful statement of concern about improving the performance of the federal govern- ment for the president to choose two or three of those priority goals and become directly involved in the ongoing conversation. The next election is three years away. A group of distinguished citizens who care about the country and the performance of the govern- ment --- some corporate CEOs, university presidents and retired senior journalists perhaps --- could get together to formally focus on that issue. They could ask each of the candidates to take a pledge to pay attention to the management of the federal government and explain how, as president, he or she would demonstrate that concern. That would be one way to improve the country on which both parties could agree. ■ Take the pledge: 'I will care about management' The president should be more directly involved in key management challenges that have the potential to become public disasters Presidents cannot and should not manage the entire government. But there is a chasm between that extreme and the current situation. January 2014 FCW.COM 11