Mar 10, 2006

Carrier Pigeons

I work for the Federal Government (capitalized not in this case to convey any grey-suited respectability upon me, but to convey the massive, plodding monolith that it can be). Someone four or five levels up from me needs to know something that I know. She tells someone under her to report this info when he gets it, he tells his people to report that info to him when they get it, and so on, all the way down to me. Once that message has gotten to me (thankfully this one’s a standing order so days aren’t wasted just to let me know to do something), I can react, and give that info out. Sometimes that info may need to be doctored or sterilized or whatever, but not this info. Not ever. But it does have to be sent up the chain, from one person to the next, or people’s noses will get bent out of shape. Did I mention that this info needs to be conveyed quickly?

This could have been written in 1924, in the days of expensive telegraph messages, carbon paper, and carrier pigeons. When I send something out in 2006, though, I use email, which allows for CCing everyone who needs to see the info, flattening the organization, and speeding things way up. But our management style is cemented to 1924, cutting Mercury’s winged feet off everything from email to collaborative content management systems.

Here’s a once in a blogtime event: I’m about to compliment our President. The Presidential Management Agenda is a smart move that so far has been fairly successful. Sure, it’s simplistic, but it quickly tells someone with a limited attention span whether an agency is successful or not (it even uses stop light colors for increased clarity: Keep It Simple, Stupid), and it suggests where changes may be necessary. Further, it's identified ways in which the system is supposed to embrace egov initiatives, modernize communications, etc. Where it falls short, though, is in internalizing the concepts of sharing information and shifting reliance from chains of command to networks (crazy as he is, Admiral Poindexter’s right about stovepipes). The huge majority of egov initiatives have focused on things like putting existing forms online without looking in the mirror at our processes and organization.

If we the people want to actually make government respond to our needs cheaply and effectively, we need to do three things. First, force CIOs into the limelight, with definite responsibilities, mandates, and rewards. Second, convince kids with green hair and home-made blogs that there is somewhere that they can make a difference. And third, enforce their autonomy and good ideas on the dumb old animal that is the federal system so that they will.

5 Comments:

Blogger Mal said...

Or maybe you'd prefer a pterodactyl?

Have you seen the FedEx Superbowl commercial? The spot opens with a caveman dressed in animal skins, tying a stick to a Pterodactyl's leg. As the Pterodactyl takes off into flight, it is attacked by a Tyrannosaurus Rex and the stick falls to the ground. The caveman, saddened by the event, enters his boss's cave to tell him the bad news. The boss responds by firing him for not using FedEx. The caveman pleads with the boss explaining, that "FedEx doesn't exist yet," but the boss does not seem to care. Frustrated, the caveman storms out of the cave and kicks a baby dinosaur that is crossing his path. As if his day is not bad enough, the spot ends with him being stepped on by a huge Brontosaurus foot!

Hierarchy is the natural state of humans. What we observe as ancient and plodding in the management and administration ( notice the term 'leadership' being non-inclusive, but inherently assumed) of the governing process is actually an expression of our hierarchical society exactly as our genetic code dictates. I gotta believe this 'top-down' management style you articulated is something that has been passed down since the dawn of man, only to continue far into the future. Captain Kirk was always getting his ass kicked by Star Fleet Command for bending and bucking the rules!

What you describe as a cure for this condition can more aptly be labeled as anarchy. (Seal's song 'Crazy' just popped into my head!) Not in it's most extreme or violent entity, but in the way when it exists that simply goes against the status quo. To do this requires design, or in a concerted effort to sustain this opposite momentum of the status quo. For it to flourish takes work. The change you propose has already begun in its idea form, simply by you proposing it, now it has to be nurtured and protected until it can take root and grow. Since anarchy is not an inherent genetic impulse in human beings, I'm guessing it will take 'more than a notion' to see any real change in Uncle Sam's management style, anytime soon.

But I would definitely welcome it.

"not to put too fine a point on it"

10:57 AM  
Blogger Mal said...

You can see the FedEx vid at- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8181801990250175607.

12:21 PM  
Blogger jim said...

I disagree that hierarchy is the natural state of affairs. It's one state but not the only one, and not the best one for every situation. I spent five years in the Navy, learning the benefits of hierarchy but also noting where hierarchy broke down. Incidentally, boot camp isn't necessary because we all had to learn to fold our underwear (we spent an embarrassingly huge amount of time on this), it's to teach people to function in a hierarchy, which doesn't come naturally to many.
You're right, though, about the pace of change in a big organization, if there's no effective leadership on a given issue. I just think it's funny that not only do most people agree that the current system doesn't work, but they're also using the tools that could change the system, and their habits and prejudices are so ingrained that they STILL don't know how to change...

11:52 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

"The huge majority of egov initiatives have focused on things like putting existing forms online without looking in the mirror at our processes and organization."

On paper, redesigning a process before you implement its replacement sounds great. Maybe it even seems like the *only* way. Now that I've been at this software design crap for a few years though, and having seen more than my fair share of migrations from mainframe and even paper, I'm starting to think that sometimes it's just better to move the intact system, flaws and all, into the digital (or client/server) realm before you start making changes.

I've just seen too many programs get squashed under the enormity of scope creep, which is inevitable and grows exponentially with each level in the hierarchy. When you need to get shit done, sometimes it's easier to say "ok look, we're not making any changes, we're just giving you a new program that works *exactly* like the old one."

Then, once you're sure you've got all the bugs worked out and you're sure it's doing everything the old system was responsible for, it'll be easier to make policy and application changes, assuming you've designed the system to handle changes well.

10:26 AM  
Blogger jim said...

"assuming you've designed the system to handle changes well"

Bureaucrat: 'So, when you made this replacement system based on our ambiguous requests and bid out to the rock bottom lowest price, you designed it so it could flexibly accommodate anything we might want to do later, right?'

Software engineer: Gales of laughter before shooting self

11:54 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home