Welcoming Uncle Sam To Innovate

Karen Kerrigan Today’s competitive economy offers businesses a simple choice: innovate or perish. Savvy businesses have adopted management practices emphasizing performance, accountability and cost efficiency. Those who have not would be wise to begin.

Technology and marketplace realities have rapidly transformed the private sector. Business and workforce productivity continue to increase as firms improve efficiencies in delivering and procuring both goods and services.

Not surprisingly, the government lags behind in moving toward this efficient, technology-driven paradigm. As a monopoly immune to competition, government does not face the same imperative to “change or die.” Government can use inefficient and obsolete methods without fear of losing market share.

Despite Uncle Sam’s inherent resistance to change, there are encouraging initiatives underway to improve how it operates and uses our tax dollars.

Information technology has been widely deployed to provide services in a more convenient, and consumer-friendly manner. President Bush’s e-government initiative, highlighted by his signing of the “E-Government Act of 2002” strives to make government more “citizen-centered, results-oriented, and market-based.”

The Office of Management and Government’s (OMB’s) overhaul of the “competitive sourcing” contracting system vows to shorten and simplify the process through which private sector companies compete to provide public services to citizens.

A government study found that these competitions saved taxpayers an average of 30 percent at the Center for Naval Analyses. Further studies show that when the private sector does win a public-private competition, a small, women-owned or minority-owned business wins 60 percent of the time.

The General Accounting Office’s 2001 report on “Major Management Challenges and Program Risk – Department of Defense” encouraged the Pentagon to draw lessons from the private sector (such as requiring program managers to deliver quality products on time and within budget). It’s an ideal time for the DOD to apply these practices in its acquisition management process for upcoming military projects. The Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), for example, is one such project important to securing the homeland.

The Navy’s program calls for the construction of dozens of Littoral Combat Ships to help fight the war on terrorism. Military planners envision the LCS, which would be the smallest member of the Navy family of combat ships, as lightning fast and capable of operating in shallow waters. Military planners also expect the LCS to be relatively inexpensive, highly survivable in combat and ready for action by 2008. Terrorism has implored military planners to think innovatively in combating our enemies. Getting these defense tools to market rapidly and efficiently requires a resourceful and creative approach.

For example, LCS can be built virtually anywhere (including shipyards that have not traditionally built major Navy combat ships) because of the ship’s small size and reduced need for built-in combat systems. This is great news for small port cities in search of economic development opportunities. LCS’ fast-track schedule for immediate delivery should compel the Navy to take advantage of this rare opportunity to consider a non-traditional shipyard.

The Navy’s LCS program is just one example of an opportunity for the government to think outside the box. The Bush Administration should be congratulated for it modernization efforts and market-based approach that aims to use taxpayer dollars more efficiently. But because government is slow to act -- implementing new processes and procedures is often more like navigating battleships of old rather than piloting the agile LCS – vigilance on the part of internal reformers is key.

On the outside, average taxpayers will be taking note to determine if the innovative approach translate into a more competitive and efficient government.
__________________

Karen Kerrigan is president of Women Entrepreneurs Inc. and chairs the Small Business Survival Committee.

Print page