FCW Insider


A peek inside the Fed 100 process

The annual Federal 100 awards gives us at Federal Computer Week an opportunity to recognize some of the brightest stars in the government. It’s a privilege we’ve enjoyed for 23 years now.

To understand how much care goes into choosing the winners, you need to know that we spend about a third of every year on the process. For this year’s event, we started taking nominations in the last week in October. Over the next two months, several hundred came in. Meanwhile, our editors were working behind the scenes to recruit our ten judges, who are themselves some of the brightest minds in government and industry.

After we closed the nominations, we compiled all of the entries into binders and sent them to the judges, who had some time in December to read through them and make their initial determinations. Then, on a Saturday in January, the judges gathered in our offices in Vienna, Va., along with Anne Armstrong, president and chief content officer of the 1105 Government Information Group, Jennifer Weiss, publisher of FCW, and some senior editors. The judges spent the day discussing (and sometimes debating) relative merits of each nominee, before finally making the nearly-final judgment calls.

That process is fascinating to observe. Many of the entries were clearly worthy and got quick yeses from the panel, and some got quick nos. Not all of the nos came because the nominees were not worthy, though. In many cases, the judges agreed that the project in question was quite meritorious, but most of the hard work is still in the future. Because our award is for work done in the previous calendar year, some of those deemed premature will almost certainly win in the next year or two.

After that first pass through the hundreds of entries, the judges had picked several dozen winners, but there were still a lot of open spots. At that point, the process became more deliberative. The judges considered each one of these “maybe” entries in detail and, with some discussion and occasional disagreement, spent several hours choosing the remaining winners and 10 more to serve as alternates.

Picking those alternates is important, because in some cases the judges agreed a nominee was worthy of the award if the account in the nomination was true, but there might be some reason to doubt. And as always happens, a couple of the original 100 didn’t pan out during the verification process, and the first names on the list of alternates became winners.

In the weeks following the judging, I marked up the nomination forms to highlight the work that the winning nominees had won for, to make sure it clearly stands out from the rest of the text on the entry forms. These marked-up forms provide the basis on the assignments that our reporters use as they write the profiles of all 100 winners, to be published in our March 30 issue.

And that’s where we are now. The reporters have their assignments and are starting to work on writing the profiles. Meanwhile, plans for the annual gala, to be held March 28 at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C., are well underway.

To those who won, we hope you’re proud to have earned the honor and know that it has a real significance. To those who were nominated but didn’t quite make it, we hope you understand you had some stiff competition.

Posted by Michael Hardy on Feb 01, 2012 at 7:26 PM0 comments


A peek inside the Fed 100 process

The annual Federal 100 awards gives us at Federal Computer Week an opportunity to recognize some of the brightest stars in the government. It’s a privilege we’ve enjoyed for 23 years now.

To understand how much care goes into choosing the winners, you need to know that we spend about a third of every year on the process. For this year’s event, we started taking nominations in the last week in October. Over the next two months, several hundred came in. Meanwhile, our editors were working behind the scenes to recruit our ten judges, who are themselves some of the brightest minds in government and industry.

After we closed the nominations, we compiled all of the entries into binders and sent them to the judges, who had some time in December to read through them and make their initial determinations. Then, on a Saturday in January, the judges gathered in our offices in Vienna, Va., along with Anne Armstrong, president and chief content officer of the 1105 Government Information Group, Jennifer Weiss, publisher of FCW, and some senior editors. The judges spent the day discussing (and sometimes debating) relative merits of each nominee, before finally making the nearly-final judgment calls.

That process is fascinating to observe. Many of the entries were clearly worthy and got quick yeses from the panel, and some got quick nos. Not all of the nos came because the nominees were not worthy, though. In many cases, the judges agreed that the project in question was quite meritorious, but most of the hard work is still in the future. Because our award is for work done in the previous calendar year, some of those deemed premature will almost certainly win in the next year or two.

After that first pass through the hundreds of entries, the judges had picked several dozen winners, but there were still a lot of open spots. At that point, the process became more deliberative. The judges considered each one of these “maybe” entries in detail and, with some discussion and occasional disagreement, spent several hours choosing the remaining winners and 10 more to serve as alternates.

Picking those alternates is important, because in some cases the judges agreed a nominee was worthy of the award if the account in the nomination was true, but there might be some reason to doubt. And as always happens, a couple of the original 100 didn’t pan out during the verification process, and the first names on the list of alternates became winners.

In the weeks following the judging, I marked up the nomination forms to highlight the work that the winning nominees had won for, to make sure it clearly stands out from the rest of the text on the entry forms. These marked-up forms provide the basis on the assignments that our reporters use as they write the profiles of all 100 winners, to be published in our March 30 issue.

And that’s where we are now. The reporters have their assignments and are starting to work on writing the profiles. Meanwhile, plans for the annual gala, to be held March 28 at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C., are well underway.

To those who won, we hope you’re proud to have earned the honor and know that it has a real significance. To those who were nominated but didn’t quite make it, we hope you understand you had some stiff competition.

Posted by Michael Hardy on Feb 01, 2012 at 7:26 PM0 comments


Virgin Mobile's security fail

I confess: I am not cool enough to have a smart phone. My mobile phone is not smart at all. It’s a touch-screen LG model with a slide-out keyboard, and I can use it for calls, text messaging and very limited web browsing.

But as not-smart as it is, it may be smarter than the provider I use, Virgin Mobile. I say this because this morning I received a text message alerting me that my secret security question has expired. It directed me to go to the Virgin Mobile website and update it … and then helpfully provided my secret personal identification number.

Get that? The verbatim text is, “Your Secret Question has expired. Please update it at virginmobileusa.com with acct PIN … " and then my actual PIN, right there in plain view.

Was it a phishing attempt? Unlikely, for two reasons. First, the site MyCallBot.com verifies the number it came from is one Virgin uses. Secondly, whoever sent it already has my phone number and PIN. They don’t need to phish for anything else.

Now as it happened, I had my phone with me and saw the message. But what if I had lost it, or it had been stolen? If that had happened, Virgin would have just handed a stranger the key to unlock my account.

And why? Virgin’s customers should keep up with their PINs and not need the company to provide them, especially not without some security measures to ensure the person getting the message is the one authorized to access the account. That the company would do that at all is surprising; that they would do it on their own initiative, without the customer requesting it, is mind-boggling.

As you implement your own mobile device security policies, that should be one to include: Don’t send people their own passcodes in plain text, especially if you have no reason to think they need it.

Posted by Michael Hardy on Jan 11, 2012 at 7:26 PM11 comments


What is your e-mail address?

My e-mail address is:

Do you have a password?

Forgot your password? Click here
close
SEARCH
contracts DB

Trending

  • Dive into our Contract Award database

    In an exclusive for WT Insider members, we are collecting all of the contract awards we cover into a database that you can sort by contractor, agency, value and other parameters. You can also download it into a spreadsheet. Read More

  • Is SBA MIA on contractor fraud? Nick Wakeman

    Editor Nick Wakeman explores the puzzle of why SBA has been so silent on the latest contractor fraud scandal when it has been so quick to act in other cases. Read More

Webcasts

  • How Do You Support the Project Lifecycle?

    How do best-in-class project-based companies create and actively mature successful organizations? They find the right mix of people, processes and tools that enable them to effectively manage the project lifecycle. REGISTER for this webinar to hear how properly managing the cycle of capture, bid, accounting, execution, IPM and analysis will allow you to better manage your programs to stay on scope, schedule and budget. Learn More!

  • Sequestration, LPTA and the Top 100

    Join Washington Technology’s Editor-in-Chief Nick Wakeman as he analyzes the annual Top 100 list and reveals critical insights into how market trends have impacted its composition. You'll learn what movements of individual companies means and how the market overall is being impacted by the current budget environment, how the Top 100 rankings reflect the major trends in the market today and how the biggest companies in the market are adapting to today’s competitive environment. Learn More!