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 : March 15, 2014
Commentary | MICHAEL GARLAND MICHAEL GARLAND has been a sales executive at Siemens Enterprise Communications (now Unify), Avaya Government Solutions and BearingPoint. He is currently pursuing a master of laws degree in government procurement at George Washington University. In the immediate aftermath of the HealthCare.gov debacle, criticism focused on the government s inabil- ity to ef ciently procure technol- ogy. Even President Barack Obama stated that the government prob- ably needed to "blow up how we procure for IT" and that there was "probably no bigger gap between private sector and public sector than IT." Around the same time, the blogosphere erupted with the nar- rative that a small and exclusive set of IT companies win government contracts because only they have the ability to navigate complex procurement rules. Furthermore, Standish Group research found that from 2003 to 2012, just 6.4 percent of large government IT projects were successful. How did we get to this woeful state of affairs? Some brief history is in order. In response to a series of acquisition scandals in the 1980s, Congress reformed laws to make it easier for the government to buy consumer products, including IT. In 1996, the Defense Department spent less than 1 percent of its budget on commercial items. By 2011, that number was about 20 percent --- equating to $75 billion. Not all of that was IT, of course, but the trend line is clear. However, unlike any other cus- tomer, the government requires adherence to a rigid set of regula- tions that prescribe internal busi- ness operations for commercial companies --- in an expensive and intrusive way. Worse still, a rm must change its business processes and adhere to those rules simply to seek $1 of government business. It s a simple economic choice for young innovators: When com- mercial markets are growing, why bother to endure all the "one-off" requirements to sell to the govern- ment? As a result, only IT com- panies that are already mature or have reached slower growth rates are willing to direct meaningful marketing efforts to the govern- ment. Although some of those rms do great work, a cohort of radi- cally innovative disrupters nds the federal market repellent. For many rms, the government is the IT mar- ket of last resort. The extraordinary cost of compli- ance is exempli ed by the General Services Administration s IT Sched- ule 70. That schedule is probably the easiest way to get a foothold in the government, but it is not for the faint of heart. Its requirements are spelled out in a dense thicket of 129 pages where hardly a single clause would be familiar to even the savviest IT company. Many clauses are uniquely onerous, and none are negotiable. Furthermore, Schedule 70 busi- ness comes with considerable risks. In the past ve years, sophisticated vendors like Oracle, NetApp, Cisco Systems and EMC have collectively paid more than $400 million in nes for violating terms of the GSA schedule. It doesn t have to be this way. Rather than ask IT innovators to wear the full cloak of compliance before a single dollar of revenue, the government should allow new market entrants to graduate into compliance. This could easily be handled through a GSA contract vehicle created exclusively for this purpose. If that vehicle removed the most repellent clauses for three years or a sum of $20 million in revenue, it could invite entry for innovators regardless of size or sophistication. The government has compelling reasons for many of its regulations, which often involve promoting social policies or protecting tax dollars. Nonetheless, by temporar- ily lowering the barriers for new companies and taking a graduated approach to the most expensive compliance standards, the govern- ment could invite innovation with little risk. And young innovative companies could instead look at government as the market of rst resort. ■ Making government the market of rst resort Rather than spend time and money adhering to the government's rigid procurement requirements, new companies should have the ability to graduate into compliance By temporarily lowering the barriers for new companies, the government could invite innovation with little risk. 12 March 15, 2014 FCW.COM
March 30, 2014