In his classic work describing the state of the Chief Technology Officer discipline ”The Role of the CTO”, Tom Berray of Cabot Consultants articulates four models of CTOs:

• The Infrastructure Manager
• The Big Thinker
• The Technology Visionary and Operations Manager
• The External-facing Technologist

These well defined models were based on discussions with hundreds of technologists as well as written surveys. It remains the definitive work on CTO roles, and has been referenced by some of the greats, including the personal blog of Amazon CTO Werner Vogels. Werner writes there: “I believe Tom Berray’s quadrant gives the best framework for reasoning about what makes CTOs successful.” I have to agree.

As a CTO, I immediately appreciated Tom’s groundbreaking work in describing the community, since it helped me talk with people about my own role. Too frequently people misunderstand what a CTO does, in part because CTOs perform different roles in different enterprises. Ambiguity can impede effectiveness so the clarity of this model has been very helpful.

Ambiguity over the role can also contribute to challenges for organization seeking a new CTO, which leads to another important aspect of Tom’s work. He provides a mapping of CTO roles to organizational needs in a way that can help companies determine the best type of CTO for their needs.

If you are preparing a search for a CTO, a study of Tom’s framework can help provide context which can ensure you are looking for the right set of skills. If you already have an executive on your team responsible for technology strategy, you may want to ask them if they are familiar with this study, since it may help them in their dialog with others over their role.

Bob Gourley is the co-founder and CTO of Crucial Point LLC and is the former CTO of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Bob blogs on enterprise IT at CTOvision.com

In the context of enterprise IT, a “mega trend” is a long term movement in time that drives large masses of people and is a forcing function for strategic directions. One of the mega trends sweeping over us all right now is Web2.0. This trend will continue to impact government in 2008. Here are a few probable ways:

• Enhanced innovation: Most large organizations, including government, find the most innovation where there is interaction with others. Innovation frequently seems to come from the edge. With more Web2.0 in government, there will be increased interactions among users internal to government and with citizens. Every interaction is an opportunity to learn of an unmet need which is an opportunity to fuel innovation.

• More deployment of applications for (and by) users: The trend toward enabling users with tools that let them create their own solutions will continue in 2008. Enterprise mashups based on enterprise data is already an expectation among the workforce, but the deployment of this capability in government has been slow to start. As government organizations see how others do it the deployment of secure enterprise mashup capabilities should accelerate.

• Expect less emphasis on huge integrations and more on what Forrester has been calling “dynamic apps.” These are applications designed for people and built to enable people to change them. As John Crupi, CTO of JackBe has noted in his recent post on “What’s Out, What’s In”, “Knowledge workers need ad-hoc and situational data which is dynamically integrated in small amounts.” Government IT departments will begin to deliver on dynamic apps in 2008.

• Enhanced retention and enhanced job satisfaction. People stay in their job for a wide range of complex reasons. One factor in job satisfaction (and dis-satisfaction) in the government workforce has been the relative inability of big IT departments to deliver modern tools to users so they can efficiently accomplish their mission. As more government enterprises deliver secure mashup capabilities, the ability of the government workforce to efficiently and effectively accomplish their mission should increase, which should have a positive impact on retention, fueling additional benefits to the mission of government.

Really we all know the best way to predict the future is to make the future. My hope is that enterprise IT departments from throughout government are planning now to enhance the delivery of Web2.0 capabilities into their environments. Doing so will make it a brighter future for all of us.

Bob Gourley is the co-founder and CTO of Crucial Point LLC and is the former CTO of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Bob blogs on enterprise IT at http://ctovision.com

IT leaders in government are wrestling with several competing forces in the Web2.0 world. The greatest force is a push for change towards more user-focused computing.  But a resisting counter force threatens to delay this change.

The counter force here is institutional inertia. Big organizations are just slow to change, and the larger, more complex the organization is the slower it can be to change.  Change in IT is particularly hard since new IT must work with the old IT and since users have varying degree of control over the organization’s IT budgets. All this adds to inertia in the adoption of new Web2.0 service models.

There are ways to address inertia and speed the delivery of Web2.0 concepts in large organization.  Here are a few proven methods:

1) Stay mission focused
2) Make fast gains that scale to the size of the enterprise
3) Leverage out of band networking
4) Address security and policy concerns up front

Here is more on each:

1) Stay mission focused. The greatest cause of inertia in large government organization is the need to keep everyone focused on critically important missions.  Use that fact to help speed the delivery of your Web2.0 project by ensuring everyone understands the mission-focused nature of your project.  You can build an overwhelming case for your project if you logically show a transformational improvement to your agency’s ability to accomplish its goals and support the mission. I’ve seen the power of staying mission focused help small teams make dramatic change at some of the largest agencies in the government, so this is a force you definitely want on your side.  

2) Make fast gains that scale to the size of the enterprise. Make your first Web2.0 project one that will serve a great number of users and help them all do something better.  For example, hosting a blog or wiki server is something that can reach all ends of your enterprise for a relatively low cost and will help you prove to management that you are focused on the mission. By fielding capabilities that can be used by the entire workforce you will be demonstrating to all that Web2.0 has incredible potential.  After fielding blogs and wikis you can move to secure enterprise mashups, a way to bring the true power of Web2.0 to every user in the enterprise. 

3) Leverage out of band networking.  The chain of command is very important in government organizations and all large enterprises, and I would never advocate going around it.  But direct contact with users, vendors and other mission partners is also critical to success of modern IT.  So why not use modern IT to help with your networking?  Interact with your users in their collaborative environment.  And meet them where they connect online… Does your agency have a database of experts?  Sign up.  Do your users and vendors use capabilities like LinkedIn.com or Second Life?  Meet them there. Don’t limit yourself to technical interactions.  Direct face to face connections via conferences and executive networking (like through our own ExecutiveBiz, of course) are critically important to ensuring strategic alignment between IT programs and the workforce.

 4) Address security and policy concerns up front.  A huge concern in all agencies today is the need for protection of the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information.  Web2.0 capabilities can be built with security, but only if that security is planned in from the start.   Policies for Web2.0 capability usage are also important to address.  Management will feel more confident in the program if you can propose sound policies that will accomplish the role out of new capabilities.  For example, what type of postings will be considered appropriate to your agencies internal blogs? And which ones will be considered appropriate to those that face your agencies customers?  Policies associated with Web2.0 capabilities, like all policies, are only effective when made public.  For a good one see the policy for the public facing blog of the US Government at http://blog.usa.gov/roller/govgab/page/policies

All citizens and the entire government workforce can benefit from the introduction of Web2.0 into government IT.  But we should all understand the government IT workforce faces some daunting challenges in fielding these capabilities.  It can take lots of work and lots of prior planning to succeed in this environment.  Success will come sooner by focusing on the mission, delivering early successes, staying connected with all mission partners, and by addressing security and policy issues up front.

Bob Gourley is the former CTO of the Defense Intelligence Agency and is the co-founder and CTO of Crucial Point LLC.  Bob blogs on enterprise IT at http://ctovision.com

At times, public and private sector organizations that fall under media scrutiny feel as if they are engaged in a bruising boxing match; withstanding a series of relentless jabs - some which inevitably land below the belt. And just when they are ready to launch a counterattack the bell dings and the round is over.

While Google’s experiment allowing news subjects to respond to articles they are featured in has limped along thus far, other efforts undertaken by news organizations to allow news subjects a viable platform have proven more substantive.

The Washington Post recently added a “Commentary” column to the Monday Business Section; an editorial outlet that culls bylines, blog entries and event presentations from regional executives and newsmakers. Because daily newspapers offer so few slots in the editorial page for private sector executive bylines, opportunities like this - where executives can speak and respond to coverage of a broader industry trend rather than provide marketing spin - are invaluable.

In today’s column, Brad Antle, president and chief executive of SI International, responded to the congressional and media scrutiny that has swirled around government contractors the past few months. Speaking unofficially on behalf of the Federal Contractor community, Antle addressed not only how - pardon the Halloween analogy - a few sly tricks and under-the-table treats can spoil the whole pumpkin batch, but also how the Contractor talent pool is integral to the current and future success of government and military operations.

Federal contractors are no doubt suffering lingering effects of the cozy relationships exposed between lobbyists and members of Congress and the Administration, as well as the unfettered flow of talent that seemed to pass between the two entities. Antle is quick to point out that, bad pumpkins aside, the Federal Contractor community depends on knowledge transfer from individuals who have experience in an Agency or military setting.

Antle himself, as referenced in the column and my earlier post on current Federal Contractor executives with a Navy background, served on active duty as a surface warfare officer for the U.S. Navy and as a naval reservist for three decades. His background in this capacity, and that of hundreds of other former federal civilian and military personnel who currently serve in the Federal Contractor workforce, is vital to meeting the need for qualified, experienced, technical personnel - especially as government-employed Baby Boomers near retirement.

Much of the innovation and success flowing through the Federal Contractor industry was on display earlier this month at The Greater Washington Government Contractor Awards - which celebrated established and fast-growing leaders such as SI International (named Contractor of the Year award in the $300 million plus category). The Awards event - as well as Antle’s commentary in the Washington Post - serve as reminders of what motivates Federal Contractor workers in providing the service they do each day.

Antle’s piece was not a call to quash legitimate investigations into wrongdoing. The Federal Contractor industry - like many others - is still grappling with ways to improve transparency and for the right blend of self- and government regulation. Instead, it was a call for a measured and appropriate response that does not undermine positive, tangible industry efforts.

Somewhere along the line - as partisan mudslinging increased over the Iraq War - the concepts of patriotism and service to one’s country became contorted to fit the various political agendas. One pundit argues that it is unpatriotic to question the War, and a politician comes back and says it would be unpatriotic not to.

All of this political rhetoric faded - if only for an afternoon - when I listened to CACI Chairman Jack London speak of his 12 years of active duty in the U.S. Navy at the ExecutiveBiz “Been There Done That” lunch series event held last month. Mr. London cited and how traits and skills developed during military service – tenacity, integrity and commitment – contributed to his success in a corporate environment. These three traits overlap with the stated Navy Core Values Charter, under which the servicemen pledge honor, courage and commitment. It was evident that afternoon Mr. London’s passion for serving his country had nothing to do with politics, and instead was in many ways shaped by two centuries of ancestors who served in the U.S. military.

Interestingly enough, it turns out that Mr. London is not alone among government contractor executives when it comes to a Navy background. Cross checking Navy alumni with some of the largest and most respected government contractors in the DC region and you are left with a who’s who of local business leaders. While there is no shortage of executives who served time with other branches of the military, Naval experience seems top pop up frequently on their resumes.

Mr. London’s reflections on the Navy’s role in shaping his professional and personal development mirror those of Bill Hoover, President and CEO of American Systems. During his spotlight interview with ExecutiveBiz, Mr. Hoover, a veteran officer of the US Navy and US Naval Academy graduate, shared that time with the Navy taught him to set his goals high and help others believe they are capable of accomplishing anything.

Jerry B. Agee, Corporate VP and President, Northrop Grumman Mission Systems, joined the company in 1987 following an extensive career as a U.S. Naval Intelligence officer. During his ExecutiveBiz interview, Agee credited his time with the Navy in providing the foundation for a leadership role. He added that the Navy was a uniquely dynamic environment requiring rapid but sound decisions, and that officers learned how to analyze the big operational picture.

While each man’s path was a little different, the final destination was the same. And the more you listen to these executives talk about their personal and professional experiences, the less coincidental it becomes. At a high level, you see a group of men who passionately served their country for years – in some cases decades. When their active tours of duty ended each looked for outlets where they could continue to serve in some way. Logically, each found himself with a company in some way responsible for arming the military and other agencies with the weapons, technology and expertise necessary to protect citizens.

But that could hold true for every branch of the military, so what is it about the Navy? Dig a little deeper and you find that these executives cite a powerful combination of leadership skills and marketable IT and technical skills that their active duty service in the Navy provided – skills that became readily transferable to the corporate environment.

The IT and technical skills are on full display when perusing the background of Jim Ballard, Perot Systems Government Services (PSGS) group. During his 24-year career in the United States Navy, his field assignments included: Repair Officer; USS McKee (AS-40); Nuclear Repair Officer; Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and Planning Officer; and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. His naval headquarters assignments included: Deputy Program Manager and Technical Director for ocean engineering programs; Director of Submarine Safety and Quality Assurance; and Major Program Manager for Nuclear Attack Submarines.

Translation: if I were locked in a room with a ticking bomb that needed to be diffused in 30 seconds – and Jack Bauer was unavailable – Mr. Ballard would be my man.

Phil Nolan, Chairman, President and CEO of Stanley, Inc., was even more direct in addressing the dual set of skills he acquired during his time on active duty in the Navy. In a December 2006 ExecutiveBiz spotlight interview, Mr. Nolan spoke of how working on a daily basis with contractors provided an essential understanding of the government-contractor relationship and the ins and outs of the selection process. Those tangible skills, Mr. Nolan added, were supplemented with the Navy’s emphasis on teamwork and leadership that he took with him to the private sector.

Earlier I spoke of perspective, and how it is often hard for those with strong viewpoints to put themselves in someone else’s shoes. Perhaps the most valuable takeaway for these executives when it comes to providing services and support for men and women in the military is that they’ve been there. They understand the perspective of the soldier during both times of war and peace.

Brad Antle, CEO of SI International, hinted as much when he told ExecutiveBiz during his spotlight interview that serving in the Navy on both active duty and the Reserves offered an appreciation and sensitivity for what it means to be a soldier. It isn’t a bunch of suits making business decisions thousands of miles away from the front lines, but instead these former Navy servicemen have been there, and understand what it takes for those serving in the Navy - and other branches of the military - to do their jobs successfully.

While active duty service may have officially ended for each man, their employers, the region and the country benefit each day from their unwavering passion and commitment to the country they still serve.

–
Brian Lustig is co-founder of Lustig Communications, a Rockville, MD-based communications firm that works with growing technology and government IT firms. Lustig is also a contributor to local business and industry publications.

Isn’t it always a company’s goal to grow? Not necessarily, according to a Washington Post article published earlier this week. If it means the firm will have a hard time winning essential government contracts, staying small might be the best bet. 

According to the Post’s analysis, medium-sized contractors have been getting squeezed out of the picture as more and more government dollars go to the largest firms. At the same time, these middle children don’t qualify for special small-company contracts. Stuck in the middle like Jan Brady, they’ve been left frustrated lately with fewer and fewer government dollars.

Mid-sized businesses used to dominate the contracting market. So why the sea change? The government has altered its method of awarding contracts. Whereas individual contracts used to be assigned by individual agencies, now we’re seeing more government-wide contracts. That means in order to compete for the job and handle the work, a company has to be quite large.

So, if you’re a mid-sized company and you want to stay in the game, what do you do? Mergers and acquisitions. It’s one option many firms have already undertaken or are seriously considering. In fact, the Post shared some interesting statistics from Richard Knop, head of the defense and government contractors group at BB&T Capital Markets, Windsor Group. According to Knop, defense companies “became aggressive buyers of services and technology companies” after the 9/11 attacks. He added that the sector has recently seen about 400 mergers and acquisitions every year.

What about companies that don’t want to merge or buy out other firms? They had better have a darn good niche so they can compete for appropriately-sized contracts rather than the huge ones that are out of reach. Either that, or they could look for opportunities to be part of a larger team in drafting a wider-ranging proposal.

The final option—one that some have chosen—is simply to stay small. With government dollars specifically set aside for small businesses, this could be the best way for some companies to remain secure and profitable—and for their executives to sleep at night. (Signs of too much stress include excessive hair loss, ingestion of 15 Excedrin or more per day, and uncontrollable toe-tapping.)