Stan Soloway | Old personnel policies harm government

The Intelligence Science Board published areport in late 2006 warning that the intelligencecommunity is losing rather thangaining connectivity to the technologycommunity.The ISB report states that"the government now has farless control than before over theproblems addressed, the selectionof personnel to perform thework ... and less knowledge thanever before of what work isactually being done" in technologydevelopment. As NationalJournal reporter Shane Harriswrote about the report, "today,the private sector directs almostall new research."These findings paint a starkpicture for U.S. intelligenceactivities. They also reiterateone of the most significant drivers inthe growth of federal professionalservices contracting: the dominance ofthe private sector in technology developmentand ownership and the corollaryhuman resources reality that technologyworkers follow the technologywork and ownership. In a world inwhich virtually all business processesand innovative solutions are technologydriven, that reality looms especiallylarge.That puts the ISB report at odds withthose who argue that the government'sbest interests would be served by greatlyreducing its reliance on contractorsand rebuilding its internal capabilities.Coupled with other important analyses,such as the 2003 report of the NationalCommission on Public Service, alsoknown as the Volcker Commission, theISB report is an important reminderthat the government's role in the economyand personnel marketplace is vastlydifferent today than it was 15 or 20years ago.This is not to say the governmenthas no control over its operational destiny.As the Government AccountabilityOffice, secretary of the Navy, director ofthe CIA and others have suggested,despite the dramatic changes that havetaken place, the government mustnonetheless retain the critical skillsneeded to effectively align, integrateand manage technology, cost, scheduleand performance.On one level, Congress is listening.In a speech to the ProfessionalServices Council, Rep. HenryWaxman (D-Calif.), chairman of theHouse Oversight and GovernmentReform Committee, spoke of theneed to enhance the federal acquisitionworkforce. Legislation reportedby his committee and the SenateHomeland Security andGovernmental Affairs Committeecontains important provisions aimedat the acquisition workforce, as dovarious other bills. Agencies are alsoemploying new tactics, through contractclauses and revised personnelpolicies to stem the exit of skilledprofessionals.Authorizing and funding positionsand training is important, but it is notnearly enough. Likewise, some of thecontractual and policy practices ofagencies are understandable, if alsounfair, but they too ignore the rootproblem. Indeed, almost no one isfocusing on the predicate conditionsthat are essential for government toaddress its personnel needs in acquisitionand elsewhere.As the Volcker Commission reported,and groups like the Partnership forPublic Service and Council onExcellence in Government stress, thegovernment has not revamped itsorganizational structure or personnelpolicies to meet the challenges of themodern era. Despite some limitedprogress, the personnel reforms advocatedby the commission and othersremain far from reality.Hundreds of unfilled positions existin acquisition alone, and many of thegovernment's top technology leadersopenly acknowledge a continuingstruggle to recruit and retain the technologyskills they need. As publicopinion surveys and the government'scontinued personnel struggles demonstrate,unless and until major personnelreforms become a reality and thegovernment is able to more effectivelycompete for talent, its chances of substantiallyaltering current trends areslim at best.Until that time, Congress and theagencies need to be careful that theydon't make assumptions in regulation,law or practice about the future ?including the role of contractors ?that current realities cannot support.Doing so will solve little; indeed, it'slikely to make matters worse.