Conversations with Leaders: Dr. Robert Childs

In the corporate world, and throughout the federal government, information is a very valuable asset. Having timely access to this information, and using it to inform strategic decision making, have become critical in today’s competitive, networked, and interconnected world.  Information technology (IT) plays a  central role in making this happen.  We spoke with Dr. Robert D. Childs, senior director, Information Resources Management (IRM) College, about the mission of the IRM College, its successes, its cultivation of the next generation of IT leaders, and its expanding partnerships. 

On the Mission and Evolution of the IRM College — We’ve completed celebrating our 20th anniversary last September [2008]. It made us think about a lot of things that have gone on in the past and how it has very much paralleled [changes] in society. We started thinking about what we really do, and we came up with the line, “Shaping the Future.” We put that in our catalog, and then we talked more about what does “Shaping the Future” mean? What do we really do with our classes and our programs? We discovered that what we’re really doing is crossing boundaries—interagency boundaries, international boundaries, and boundaries with the private sector.  Building communities of like-minded people was the second thing that we do—and by [extension] we transform organizations. We’re organized to really be flexible, innovative, creative, and be a hothouse for ideas that address the concerns of leaders in the information age. From the very beginning, we set out to do four things. The first was: be a distinctive institution—be unique. We visited [and] benchmarked against other colleges, other universities, and other institutes such as the London School of Economics. I went to Singapore, different institutions in Europe, and tried to learn how we could take their practices and use them. What I found out is, we were very unique already. Point two is: focus on the customer, either individuals or organizations. The third point is to secure and sustain the allegiance of DoD (Department of Defense) and the federal community. If you don’t have allegiance, if you don’t have money coming in, you can’t sustain your programs. Since then, we’ve added the private sector and international partners. The last one: achieve national and international recognition. Some people say, “Well, why are you concerned about that?” Well, it’s the fastest way to get attention and to let other people know what you have and what you can contribute.  

On Technologies Shaping the Classroom and Workplace of the Future — I think the classroom of the future and the workplace of the future are almost one and the same thing. We have to tie it to the lifestyle that people want. You have to give them the collaboration tools so they can do their jobs. I had a faculty member on the beaches in Hawaii conducting his distributive learning classes. I mean, why does he have to be in a classroom or in an office to do that? He has his computer;  he has his students connected, so that’s all he needs. There are other technologies that we’ve run into. They tie into a number of things we’re trying to do at our labs.  Telepresence is one; it is such an improvement over video teleconference. You really can be there. We’re using telepresence to project our faculty expertise to conferences we’re going to put on and courses we’re going to offer around the world. 

On the Future of the IRM College — I want to [share] a quote. I was asked to diagram my vision for the future, and I described it as such: 

“It is a series of at least 10 interconnecting crossroads, all meeting at the hub of an English-style roundabout. The titles of the roads were Defense, Policy, Economics, Government, Private Sector, International, Interagency, Business Processes, Best Practices, and Emerging Technologies. Every road was chock full of speeding and honking traffic and [great] potential for collision or collaboration. I was the cheerleading cop at the middle of that traffic circle, swinging my arms, shaking my body, and blowing the whistle. I had total confidence I was about to orchestrate a world-class symphony, and I can’t blame the diagram on exuberance of youth because it happened just a few years ago.”  

My job is to create an environment so that IRM’s creative faculty and staff can bring these things together. How do I see the future? I think it’s going to be totally mobile, incredibly compact, ridiculously “nano-tiny,” and eye-wateringly powerful. And everything around you that you see will become “hyperized,” socialized, “networkized,” and virtualized. 

Read this conversation in its entirety: Dr. Bob Childs

Listen to the complete interview: The Business of Government Hour

Model 3: Performance Management Framework

(a continuation from the December 23, 2009  blog on “Managing Performance”)

The third idealized model described by Bouckaert and Halligan is a “comprehensive and integrated performance management framework.”  This model seems to be favored by both academics and consultants. The two countries in the authors’ case studies that seem to come closest to this approach are Australia and Canada.  (note: these links are to an OECD study on performance budgeting, not to the Bouckaert-Halligan case studies, which are not available on-line.  You have to get their book to read those!).

This model, when implemented successfully, engages stakeholders, contributes to the legitimacy of government as a key provider of services, and is used for predicting customer behaviors.   Those using this approach rely on externally-developed performance frameworks, such as Balanced Scorecards, ISO 9000 standards, the European Framework for Quality Management, or country-specific home-grown models such as the Canadian Management Accountability Framework (which is now in its fourth iteration).

According to the authors, this model is where “performance information is systematically and coherently generated, integrated and used,” and “Information produced by performance measurement systems becomes part of a process of management and ultimately of governance.”

They also observe an interplay among three dynamics: political legitimacy, technical design, and functional processes:   “Auditing a performance measurement system is one way to produce and maintain legitimacy between the executive and legislative branches.  Another way is to create ownership by administrative stakeholders by having them co-design their performance measurement systems. . . . citizen involvement in an operational performance measurement system is another way to corroborate the legitimacy of performance information.”   This in turn results in a shift from a closed to an open measurement system, and from a top-down to top-down and bottom-up system.

Bouckaert and Halligan note that: “. . performance measurement systems should . . contribute to the legitimacy of the public sector itself.”  And that, for reasons of political legitimacy, performance measures should become more subject to independent controls (audits),  be more bottom up (from front line), and more external (citizens, stakeholders) in their design and implementation.

One strategy, they say, “is to take citizen as customers actively on board at all stages of the policy cycle, and in the service delivery cycle, up to even giving them a say in the budget process.  This results in co-design, co-decision, co-production, and co-evaluation.”  Interestingly, this seems to be the direction of President Obama’s Open Government Initiative.

Model 2: Siloed Performance Systems

(a continuation from the December 23, 2009  blog on “Managing Performance”)

Some organizations or countries operate a series of parallel performance systems, disconnected from each other.  Oftentimes this happens when different leaders, at different levels of an organization, and at different points of time, launch measurement initiatives that are disconnected from each other. The two country case studies described by Bouckaert and Halligan that typify this model are Sweden and the Netherlands (note: these links are to an OECD study on performance budgeting, not to the Bouckaert-Halligan case studies, which are not available on-line.  You have to get their book to read those!).

These separate performance systems are often overseen by specialists and are used for more than just compliance with legal requirements.  For example, the chief financial officer may have one system, the quality officer may have another, and the strategic planning office may have yet another.  Each uses performance information for his or her own purposes, but not necessarily for the overall enterprise.

The siloed approach focuses on managing structure and functions, and there is an internally interactive measurement process within each management function.  Bouckaert and Halligan note that this approach:  “focuses on several structural and functional mechanisms mostly within the market-based private sector, resulting in organising management functions.”   Also, each operation decides which types of measures and controls work best for different kinds of jobs.

The authors observe that a developed measurement system can push individuals, teams, and organizations in a particular direction.  In this case, “measurement then becomes a motivational and intentional process for the purpose of change.”   They continue, noting:  “Measures are not intended purely and simply to observe, but to cause reaction, sometimes to reward or to punish.” . . this moves the system “from a naïve belief in a thermometer type of neutrality to an awareness of the need for functional measurement.”  Their analogy is that a disconnected traffic camera can still result in slower traffic simply because drivers think they are being watched.