Q&A: On the job with IT strategist Alan Balutis

Alan Balutis is a Distinguished Fellow and Senior Director, North American Public Sector for Cisco Systems' Business Solutions Group, the firm's global strategy and consulting arm. Previously, he spent 27 years working in the federal sector, divided between the Department of Commerce--where he headed its management and budget office for over a decade and was its first CIO--and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now the Department of Health and Human Services). FierceGovernmentIT editor Judi Hasson chatted with Balutis about Web 2.0, cloud computing, and what he thinks things will look like at the end of President Obama's first term.

JH: How does the government get comfortable with 2.0? Will privacy and security issues stand in its way?

AB: There are a number of excellent 2.0 projects already in place around government (see www.collaborationproject.org). But when one digs a bit deeper, the number of agencies and top leaders involved is rather limited. Government tends to go through one additional step between talking about an initiative and actually doing it. In my government days I referred to this as moving from giving a new idea "lip service" to giving it "passionate lip service." I think that's where we are now on 2.0; government is really talking about it a lot.

Security and privacy are legitimate issues to deal with in rolling out a 2.0 government, but they shouldn't stand in its way. I feel these two concerns are often used as objections by those who oppose 2.0 for other (i.e., cultural) reasons.

JH: Will the government need to rely on shared services to bring costs down and consolidate duplication?

AB: Shared servicing, implementing the IT infrastructure line of business, virtualization, software-as-a service, use of private sector clouds; there are a number of things government can do to reduce duplication and bring costs down. And they should be doing so, with $70-plus billion being spent annually on IT, and an additional $65 billion to $100 billion embedded in the stimulus package for similar purposes.

JH: What kind of relationship do you see between the CIO and the CTO?

AB: There's lots of experience in the private sector on the role of the CIO versus the role of the CTO. I know a good bit of such background was shared with the new Administration during the transition. The early signals are clear: The CIO will have a more tactical role focusing on government IT spending and initiatives; the CTO will focus on the more strategic uses of technology to strengthen the economy and improve the nation's competitiveness.

The main thing, however is that these two men (Vivek  Kundra and Aneesh Chopra) know one another, respect one another and have worked together previously. Neither has a reputation for being turfish or having sharp elbows.

JH: Is cloud computing another answer to lowering the government's IT cost? Can it be done securely?

AB: Yes and yes. Cloud computing is not a fad and it's not something that government should ignore. As Gartner noted last year, cloud computing heralds an evolution of business that is no less influential than e-business.

At the same time, I understand that the distinctive features of public sector information management mean that government needs to carefully evaluate whether, where, how and when they might adopt cloud computing. And in a survey conducted last summer by IDC, security was identified by three quarters of the respondents as the main issue/challenge ascribed to the cloud model.

JH: Is the federal IT world too tough to wrestle down to a streamlined, efficient operation? What do you see at the end of President Obama's first term?

AB: I think the real issue is performance, not streamlined or efficient. One of the forces behind the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996--what we often refer to as the Clinger-Cohen Act--was a report issued by Senator Cohen's staff called "Computer Chaos." It reviewed a number of studies by the GAO, IG's, and others on what some dubbed runaway systems--IT projects that were over budget, behind schedule, or not delivering the promised functionality. It also noted that the government acquisition process took too long and, as a result, we were paying today's prices for yesterday's technology. It's been 13 years since the legislation was enacted and couldn't we write a very similar report today? And the irony is that some of the same projects noted in the 1996 report would be in the 2009 report, as well.

At the end of the first term, I see IT being seen as an enabler, as on the critical path to solving some of our nation's challenges in healthcare, transportation, energy and other policy arenas. I see a national broadband strategy, designed to bring America back into a global leadership role. And I look for progress toward a government 2.0 model: agile, flatter, more connected, transparent, resilient, collaborative and accountable.