WEBVTT 00:00:05.872 --> 00:00:07.340 DAN DONEY: So, I want to summarize a couple of things and 00:00:07.340 --> 00:00:08.575 then make good on a promise. 00:00:08.575 --> 00:00:13.012 I promised you three principles that will make your organization 00:00:13.012 --> 00:00:14.147 innovative, guaranteed. 00:00:14.147 --> 00:00:16.783 So I'm going to hit you with those here in a moment. 00:00:16.783 --> 00:00:20.787 Let me start with some overarching concepts here. 00:00:20.787 --> 00:00:24.424 Look, one of the things that I have found in my tenure within 00:00:24.424 --> 00:00:29.529 our agency -- the key to innovation actually happens to 00:00:29.529 --> 00:00:32.966 be the key to the theme that we are talking about here is one of 00:00:32.966 --> 00:00:34.401 empowerment. 00:00:34.401 --> 00:00:37.937 So it's really empowering folks within your organization to act 00:00:37.937 --> 00:00:40.740 on their good ideas, to pursue the best possible ideas that are 00:00:40.740 --> 00:00:43.443 out there, creating the conditions where they can go 00:00:43.443 --> 00:00:47.547 after it safely without bringing down the whole enterprise; 00:00:47.547 --> 00:00:54.087 either through an expensive mistake that everyone made or a 00:00:54.087 --> 00:00:56.423 direction that compromised the integrity of the entire 00:00:56.423 --> 00:00:57.490 organization. 00:00:57.490 --> 00:00:59.626 How can you empower your folks to do this? 00:00:59.626 --> 00:01:02.929 Very often in the world that we live in, 00:01:02.929 --> 00:01:06.566 the notion centers around control. 00:01:06.566 --> 00:01:08.635 That is, we can't afford to make a mistake, 00:01:08.635 --> 00:01:11.171 we must decide for other people who are incapable of deciding 00:01:11.171 --> 00:01:15.608 for themselves and this in the end is the thing that devastates 00:01:15.608 --> 00:01:17.310 innovation. 00:01:17.310 --> 00:01:20.113 So it turns out as I approached my particular job, 00:01:20.113 --> 00:01:24.184 the very people who were the biggest advocates of innovation 00:01:24.184 --> 00:01:28.154 were the ones who engaged the most in these counter productive 00:01:28.154 --> 00:01:31.291 behaviors; those of controlling the workforce and so on. 00:01:31.291 --> 00:01:34.694 Really too many rogue projects, we need to consolidate our 00:01:34.694 --> 00:01:37.464 funding into one great big project that no one really asked 00:01:37.464 --> 00:01:41.267 for and go after that and do it. 00:01:41.267 --> 00:01:43.703 Before I get into my three principles, 00:01:43.703 --> 00:01:46.072 I want to read something that seems to be a common theme 00:01:46.072 --> 00:01:47.073 throughout the day. 00:01:47.073 --> 00:01:51.611 So if you have not read the Agile Manifesto, 00:01:51.611 --> 00:01:55.815 you can Google it, it's just a couple sentences, 00:01:55.815 --> 00:01:58.384 its worth going after, it's really the same theme that 00:01:58.384 --> 00:02:02.021 everyone has said over and over today. 00:02:02.021 --> 00:02:04.324 You can get a t-shirt and put this on your t-shirt or 00:02:04.324 --> 00:02:06.092 certainly hang it up over your desk. 00:02:06.092 --> 00:02:11.264 These are principles that will check wayward behavior and will 00:02:11.264 --> 00:02:13.500 help you get to an Agile end state. 00:02:13.500 --> 00:02:16.536 Again, by folks that don't practice it, 00:02:16.536 --> 00:02:20.540 Agile is seen as sort of -- it was said earlier today 00:02:20.540 --> 00:02:22.976 effectively, "a chaotic process". 00:02:22.976 --> 00:02:27.647 If you have actually engaged in it, it is anything but chaotic. 00:02:27.647 --> 00:02:33.419 In fact, it determines at every moment what people should be 00:02:33.419 --> 00:02:36.089 focused on at every moment as a developer. 00:02:36.089 --> 00:02:38.858 The kinds of things that you should do through a very 00:02:38.858 --> 00:02:44.564 rigorous but adaptive process; it's not willy-nilly. 00:02:44.564 --> 00:02:46.566 Again, here are the four principles, 00:02:46.566 --> 00:02:48.568 see if these themes resonate with what we have been saying 00:02:48.568 --> 00:02:50.770 all day today in the Manifesto. 00:02:50.770 --> 00:02:55.041 Individuals and interactions over processes and tools. 00:02:55.041 --> 00:02:57.010 Okay, so that is principle number one. 00:02:57.010 --> 00:03:01.114 We tend to say, we've got this well established process that we 00:03:01.114 --> 00:03:03.216 used over and over and over again, 00:03:03.216 --> 00:03:06.819 instead of actually engaging our end users in the process and not 00:03:06.819 --> 00:03:10.156 proxies for professional program managers or others, 00:03:10.156 --> 00:03:13.493 the actual end users in whatever it is that we are looking to do. 00:03:13.493 --> 00:03:15.995 If you get the end users involved, 00:03:15.995 --> 00:03:19.265 it does away with the need for a lot of process. 00:03:19.265 --> 00:03:22.468 And so it is with Agile, you don't have to plan two years 00:03:22.468 --> 00:03:25.438 down the road if the end users are involved in iterating with 00:03:25.438 --> 00:03:27.173 you along the way. 00:03:27.173 --> 00:03:30.743 Second is -- I'm going to throw out the word "software" here 00:03:30.743 --> 00:03:31.978 because it isn't just software. 00:03:31.978 --> 00:03:35.448 Working capabilities over comprehensive documentation -- 00:03:35.448 --> 00:03:37.750 so how much better is it to actually pilot, 00:03:37.750 --> 00:03:40.320 throw it out there, really understand what the parameters 00:03:40.320 --> 00:03:44.390 are and then actually engage informed decisions rather than 00:03:44.390 --> 00:03:47.961 writing the perfect document in order to represent people's 00:03:47.961 --> 00:03:49.729 needs. 00:03:49.729 --> 00:03:52.298 Customer collaboration over contract negotiation. 00:03:52.298 --> 00:03:54.267 Again, if you involve the end user, 00:03:54.267 --> 00:03:57.637 the world gets a lot easier in terms of your engagement. 00:03:57.637 --> 00:04:01.874 Then lastly, responding to change over following a plan. 00:04:01.874 --> 00:04:05.278 This is the thing that I fight on a daily basis against the 00:04:05.278 --> 00:04:06.112 bureaucracy. 00:04:06.112 --> 00:04:08.481 The Bureaucracy loves a plan. 00:04:08.481 --> 00:04:12.251 We made a plan and we've got to stick to that plan after all. 00:04:12.251 --> 00:04:15.655 The reason that we don't achieve what we intended to achieve is 00:04:15.655 --> 00:04:17.824 because all of you people are deviating from the plan. 00:04:17.824 --> 00:04:20.259 The world has changed, the plan no longer applies, 00:04:20.259 --> 00:04:22.629 but we've got to stick to it. 00:04:22.629 --> 00:04:26.866 Being systematically able to adapt is where you become 00:04:26.866 --> 00:04:30.937 innovative and its where we become efficient as an Agile 00:04:30.937 --> 00:04:31.938 organization. 00:04:31.938 --> 00:04:35.575 So what I have just done for you is frame a set of principles 00:04:35.575 --> 00:04:36.643 that drives behavior. 00:04:36.643 --> 00:04:38.678 This is what has shaped the whole software development 00:04:38.678 --> 00:04:41.214 community, this Agile Manifesto. 00:04:41.214 --> 00:04:45.385 I sought to use that same approach in attacking innovation 00:04:45.385 --> 00:04:46.953 in our organization. 00:04:46.953 --> 00:04:51.824 It was the very people who were doing the most damage to 00:04:51.824 --> 00:04:54.694 innovation, were the ones who said they supported it the most. 00:04:54.694 --> 00:04:57.997 So the only way to effectively communicate in that kind of 00:04:57.997 --> 00:05:02.235 environment is to establish some principles that everyone agrees 00:05:02.235 --> 00:05:05.304 to and then enact change according to those particular 00:05:05.304 --> 00:05:06.305 principles. 00:05:06.305 --> 00:05:08.307 It's called principled leadership. 00:05:08.307 --> 00:05:11.177 So here are mine: The first one is, 00:05:11.177 --> 00:05:13.012 the biggest engine for innovation within our 00:05:13.012 --> 00:05:18.117 organization is the workforce and specifically we use the 00:05:18.117 --> 00:05:20.887 term, "the ones closest to the mission edge". 00:05:20.887 --> 00:05:24.891 So if at any point in our conversations with -- if you ask 00:05:24.891 --> 00:05:28.094 someone, whose responsibility is it to innovate in the 00:05:28.094 --> 00:05:29.095 organization? 00:05:29.095 --> 00:05:31.364 If they say someone other than themselves, 00:05:31.364 --> 00:05:33.366 you've got a problem in your organization. 00:05:33.366 --> 00:05:35.435 It's everybody's responsibility to innovate. 00:05:35.435 --> 00:05:36.669 In fact, we all do. 00:05:36.669 --> 00:05:41.140 So people in our organization and many organizations say, 00:05:41.140 --> 00:05:44.977 "We've got our R&D arm, they innovate, 00:05:44.977 --> 00:05:47.847 we don't have an innovation problem." 00:05:47.847 --> 00:05:51.417 The problem is that you are not unlocking the creativity of the 00:05:51.417 --> 00:05:52.585 entire workforce. 00:05:52.585 --> 00:05:54.487 So what do we do in order to do this? 00:05:54.487 --> 00:06:00.960 The principle for you all to lock into that is universal here 00:06:00.960 --> 00:06:04.230 or the action, is to give yourself in execution year, 00:06:04.230 --> 00:06:08.334 fiscal agility, okay? 00:06:08.334 --> 00:06:11.571 So I showed up, we made some early changes, 00:06:11.571 --> 00:06:13.940 had some quick victories straight away and folks said, 00:06:13.940 --> 00:06:17.310 "Doney, we love your ideas. 00:06:17.310 --> 00:06:19.946 Lets add the to the FY16 budget." 00:06:19.946 --> 00:06:21.881 Now this was FY13. 00:06:21.881 --> 00:06:24.250 I had just showed up and of course the budget planning 00:06:24.250 --> 00:06:27.253 process for submission to Congress had just closed for our 00:06:27.253 --> 00:06:31.257 FY15 budget and so, all right, let's wait till 16. 00:06:31.257 --> 00:06:34.627 Well, mine is a tenured position and I don't intend to be there 00:06:34.627 --> 00:06:36.629 in FY16, we'll see. 00:06:36.629 --> 00:06:41.567 So getting money to enact my ideas three years hence was not 00:06:41.567 --> 00:06:44.403 going to fix the problem, but that is what many people see and 00:06:44.403 --> 00:06:45.905 many people accept. 00:06:45.905 --> 00:06:50.376 You've got to give yourself in execution your budget agility, 00:06:50.376 --> 00:06:55.581 in some that can be mistaken for a slush fund. 00:06:55.581 --> 00:06:58.050 All too often is mistaken for a slush fund, 00:06:58.050 --> 00:07:00.987 so folks will set up -- all right, 00:07:00.987 --> 00:07:03.489 we've got to set aside some funds that we can act on very 00:07:03.489 --> 00:07:06.659 quickly and it becomes the Director's playhouse or you 00:07:06.659 --> 00:07:10.463 bring in a Chief Innovation Officer and he goes and spends 00:07:10.463 --> 00:07:14.667 it on behalf of everybody else as a fun exercise. 00:07:14.667 --> 00:07:17.336 That always ends badly. 00:07:17.336 --> 00:07:19.806 So you actually need -- we call it being systematically 00:07:19.806 --> 00:07:26.579 opportunistic, a fairly robust open-ended process to allow 00:07:26.579 --> 00:07:29.649 yourself to act quickly on good ideas. 00:07:29.649 --> 00:07:32.819 So who is the voice, who is the arbiter for how we spend these 00:07:32.819 --> 00:07:33.519 funds? 00:07:33.519 --> 00:07:34.620 The mission. 00:07:34.620 --> 00:07:37.256 No one else but the mission, that is the people closest to 00:07:37.256 --> 00:07:40.526 the edge of the organization is authorized to enact those 00:07:40.526 --> 00:07:41.527 dollars. 00:07:41.527 --> 00:07:44.363 This has a big deal in empowering, 00:07:44.363 --> 00:07:48.501 engaging the entire workforce in new ideas. 00:07:48.501 --> 00:07:51.604 Bring you forward and surfacing their new ideas in order to act. 00:07:51.604 --> 00:07:54.140 So there is a lot of emphasis on crowdsourcing. 00:07:54.140 --> 00:07:57.710 I'm a keen fan of crowdsourcing, but it's not going to solve your 00:07:57.710 --> 00:07:59.278 problem alone. 00:07:59.278 --> 00:08:04.283 We use crowdsourcing to be sure, but we also do what I call 00:08:04.283 --> 00:08:05.585 "crowd refinement". 00:08:05.585 --> 00:08:08.621 That is really engaging the entire workforce and bringing, 00:08:08.621 --> 00:08:10.623 surfacing and refining good ideas. 00:08:10.623 --> 00:08:15.528 We have a process for this, I won't go into all of the pieces 00:08:15.528 --> 00:08:22.401 of this, but that crowd refinement offers anyone in our 00:08:22.401 --> 00:08:25.605 workforce the ability to come forward with an idea and act on 00:08:25.605 --> 00:08:26.606 it. 00:08:26.606 --> 00:08:30.543 Now, there is a big difference between an idea and an 00:08:30.543 --> 00:08:31.544 initiative. 00:08:31.544 --> 00:08:35.181 So again, remember our theme here is ideas to action. 00:08:35.181 --> 00:08:37.183 How do you get from an idea to action? 00:08:37.183 --> 00:08:39.452 Well, you want to create an initiative. 00:08:39.452 --> 00:08:42.388 An initiative is something that someone can say yes or no to. 00:08:42.388 --> 00:08:45.124 The difference between an idea and an initiative is a business 00:08:45.124 --> 00:08:48.261 case and many folks in government are not familiar with 00:08:48.261 --> 00:08:49.795 making a business case. 00:08:49.795 --> 00:08:51.764 In the entrepreneurial world, if you are not good at making a 00:08:51.764 --> 00:08:54.700 business case, you don't feed your kids and you go and find 00:08:54.700 --> 00:08:55.701 something else to do. 00:08:55.701 --> 00:08:59.372 This is something that many folks that we interacted with in 00:08:59.372 --> 00:09:01.374 the workforce who are coming forward with good ideas, 00:09:01.374 --> 00:09:03.376 they didn't know how to get to "yes". 00:09:03.376 --> 00:09:07.313 So this effectively was, we had a mentorship process by which we 00:09:07.313 --> 00:09:10.516 teach people how to make a case very quickly and robustly. 00:09:10.516 --> 00:09:12.485 Some people walk away because they don't want to have to go 00:09:12.485 --> 00:09:15.254 through that, other folks, the ones who are really eager for 00:09:15.254 --> 00:09:17.356 change, go through this and do it. 00:09:17.356 --> 00:09:19.225 We have had marked successes. 00:09:19.225 --> 00:09:21.827 Some obviously I can't talk about in this setting, 00:09:21.827 --> 00:09:25.965 which has had significant impact on national security; 00:09:25.965 --> 00:09:30.603 an idea that had lain dormant in our workforce that when 00:09:30.603 --> 00:09:36.008 surfaced, saved billions of dollars and addressed the major 00:09:36.008 --> 00:09:38.010 national security gap. 00:09:38.010 --> 00:09:43.950 Now, something that came from this -- this is initiative 00:09:43.950 --> 00:09:46.285 number two under principle number one, 00:09:46.285 --> 00:09:48.788 is something called the Nerd Brigade. 00:09:48.788 --> 00:09:52.858 Now, actually it was mentioned earlier here that GSA's 00:09:52.858 --> 00:09:55.661 initiative is very much like the Nerd Brigade, 00:09:55.661 --> 00:09:57.563 it has the same characteristics. 00:09:57.563 --> 00:09:59.432 What it was, it was one of the initiatives that came out of our 00:09:59.432 --> 00:10:02.068 innovation development process. 00:10:02.068 --> 00:10:06.072 We have a group of technologists and it takes a special breed of 00:10:06.072 --> 00:10:08.541 technologists in order to do this, 00:10:08.541 --> 00:10:12.678 who goes and sits with disenfranchised end users, 00:10:12.678 --> 00:10:14.714 observes what they -- we don't give them a requirement. 00:10:14.714 --> 00:10:16.882 It's not, go out there and do this for them. 00:10:16.882 --> 00:10:20.519 Go and sit with them and watch what it is that they do and then 00:10:20.519 --> 00:10:24.490 help them through technology or otherwise to change the way they 00:10:24.490 --> 00:10:26.058 do business. 00:10:26.058 --> 00:10:30.262 So this rather simple model, the reason we used the Nerd Brigade 00:10:30.262 --> 00:10:32.164 is originally we called it the Geek Squad, 00:10:32.164 --> 00:10:34.100 but that wouldn't have stood up over time, 00:10:34.100 --> 00:10:35.267 so we went out and did it. 00:10:35.267 --> 00:10:39.638 We have had tremendous successes from this model. 00:10:39.638 --> 00:10:42.475 It has probably been the most marked success in terms of what 00:10:42.475 --> 00:10:43.175 we do. 00:10:43.175 --> 00:10:45.444 So again, it gets to empowering the end users. 00:10:45.444 --> 00:10:46.445 Go sit with them. 00:10:46.445 --> 00:10:49.281 Don't ask for requirements from them, sit with them. 00:10:49.281 --> 00:10:52.418 We sent out folks to our -- we work in foundational 00:10:52.418 --> 00:10:55.654 intelligence, which is sort of knowing what all the important 00:10:55.654 --> 00:10:58.624 things are in the world so that in the event that a crisis 00:10:58.624 --> 00:11:02.661 breaks out, you know what things you need to be aware of and go 00:11:02.661 --> 00:11:04.497 after and what things you do and don't put a bomb on, 00:11:04.497 --> 00:11:06.565 among other things. 00:11:06.565 --> 00:11:10.202 It's a pretty mundane process, we have been doing it since the 00:11:10.202 --> 00:11:12.805 early '60s and not much had changed about it. 00:11:12.805 --> 00:11:15.908 When you went and sat with the analysts who were engaged in 00:11:15.908 --> 00:11:18.644 this, it turns out to be quite important if you get it wrong; 00:11:18.644 --> 00:11:22.982 bad things happen, but not much had changed. 00:11:22.982 --> 00:11:27.253 We sit nerds down with them, within two weeks of us observing 00:11:27.253 --> 00:11:31.190 their activity, they were able to take a very manual task as 00:11:31.190 --> 00:11:35.528 they went off to filling out a form that consisted of about 200 00:11:35.528 --> 00:11:40.966 fields, they watched what they did, 00:11:40.966 --> 00:11:43.669 saw the sites that they were going to and we counted 16 00:11:43.669 --> 00:11:47.640 clicks on this side and so on -- basically put in a -- we call it 00:11:47.640 --> 00:11:48.808 the Easy Button. 00:11:48.808 --> 00:11:51.644 The analyst fills in one field, presses the button, it goes out, 00:11:51.644 --> 00:11:53.813 collects all that information, fills out the form, 00:11:53.813 --> 00:11:57.616 it increased the accuracy of the assessments by 20% and 00:11:57.616 --> 00:11:58.918 significantly saved times. 00:11:58.918 --> 00:12:01.387 We gave back to hundreds of our analysts, 00:12:01.387 --> 00:12:04.457 65% of their day and we measured this pretty rigorously. 00:12:04.457 --> 00:12:08.661 That initiative for two weeks worth of development; 00:12:08.661 --> 00:12:10.996 technologists sitting with analysts for two weeks. 00:12:10.996 --> 00:12:15.167 That initiative paid for itself within the first few hours, 00:12:15.167 --> 00:12:19.705 but our IT department said, wait a minute, you can't do that. 00:12:19.705 --> 00:12:21.740 What happens when the Easy Button breaks? 00:12:21.740 --> 00:12:23.676 Who is going to sustain that? 00:12:23.676 --> 00:12:25.711 It introduced a very different -- by the way, 00:12:25.711 --> 00:12:27.780 even if it broke after six months, 00:12:27.780 --> 00:12:29.782 the amount of value delivered to the organization, 00:12:29.782 --> 00:12:32.418 the amount of analyst's time saved and handed back to them, 00:12:32.418 --> 00:12:34.520 would have easily been worth the cost. 00:12:34.520 --> 00:12:36.522 It turns out it's pretty easy to fix now. 00:12:36.522 --> 00:12:38.891 We understand what the real requirements are what kinds of 00:12:38.891 --> 00:12:41.494 things can save our organization a lot of money. 00:12:41.494 --> 00:12:44.864 It introduces the concept of disposal IT, 00:12:44.864 --> 00:12:47.066 something that is radically different than the way that most 00:12:47.066 --> 00:12:50.336 CIOs deliver IT services to folks. 00:12:50.336 --> 00:12:53.772 Look, if you are delivering a system designed to have a ten 00:12:53.772 --> 00:12:57.710 year life, in a world where IT -- the whole paradigm is 00:12:57.710 --> 00:13:00.980 changing every two years, you are probably going to be dated 00:13:00.980 --> 00:13:04.083 sometime early on in that ten year process. 00:13:04.083 --> 00:13:05.618 And you are going to need to change. 00:13:05.618 --> 00:13:08.454 I'm not saying, don't do those kinds of things, 00:13:08.454 --> 00:13:11.824 but also consider the notion of these IT projects that are 00:13:11.824 --> 00:13:14.160 designed to be thrown away almost immediately. 00:13:14.160 --> 00:13:16.595 It can break and you walk away from it, that's okay. 00:13:16.595 --> 00:13:20.466 There is a lot to that piece, I won't go into all of how you 00:13:20.466 --> 00:13:23.569 engage into disposable IT, but it brings me to principle number 00:13:23.569 --> 00:13:24.837 two. 00:13:24.837 --> 00:13:28.974 Principle number two is, innovation requires creative 00:13:28.974 --> 00:13:30.509 destruction. 00:13:30.509 --> 00:13:33.078 Creative destruction is the free flow of resources from ideas 00:13:33.078 --> 00:13:36.782 that are falling behind to new and better ideas. 00:13:36.782 --> 00:13:39.718 Almost everything in a bureaucracy resists this free 00:13:39.718 --> 00:13:40.719 flow of resources. 00:13:40.719 --> 00:13:46.926 So that is, we engaged in this $100 million dollar program and 00:13:46.926 --> 00:13:48.160 there is a whole lot of people's career's who are on the line and 00:13:48.160 --> 00:13:51.096 the Director is going to have to go and answer to Congress if we 00:13:51.096 --> 00:13:54.300 don't get this right, so we can't let it go. 00:13:54.300 --> 00:13:56.402 We throw then, good money after bad. 00:13:56.402 --> 00:14:00.406 Now, you heard the Standish Chaos Report -- Bryan mentioned 00:14:00.406 --> 00:14:06.712 this in his speech this morning, he mentioned a 94% failure rate. 00:14:06.712 --> 00:14:09.114 Switching that around here, a little higher math, 00:14:09.114 --> 00:14:13.619 that is a 6% success rate for initiatives over $10 million 00:14:13.619 --> 00:14:15.454 dollars. 00:14:15.454 --> 00:14:20.259 Now, that same study shows initiatives under a million 00:14:20.259 --> 00:14:23.929 dollars have a 75% success rate. 00:14:23.929 --> 00:14:26.732 Look at the striking difference between $10 million dollar 00:14:26.732 --> 00:14:31.203 projects, only 6% succeed, regardless of how smart the 00:14:31.203 --> 00:14:33.439 program managers were who ran the thing. 00:14:33.439 --> 00:14:37.042 A 75% success rate for initiatives below a million 00:14:37.042 --> 00:14:39.645 dollars and yet, we force, based on our whole decision 00:14:39.645 --> 00:14:43.082 structures, ourselves into these $10 million or beyond 00:14:43.082 --> 00:14:45.017 acquisition decisions. 00:14:45.017 --> 00:14:46.352 Why do we do that? 00:14:46.352 --> 00:14:49.521 Because it's so darn hard to buy things. 00:14:49.521 --> 00:14:53.092 And oftentimes, so many things are interconnected that we have 00:14:53.092 --> 00:14:55.661 to get into this very complex management system. 00:14:55.661 --> 00:14:56.962 Can we change that? 00:14:56.962 --> 00:14:58.797 Can we change our decision structures, 00:14:58.797 --> 00:15:02.401 driving down to a start small, scale fast, 00:15:02.401 --> 00:15:04.436 fail cheap model for delivery? 00:15:04.436 --> 00:15:07.439 It turns out you can but you have to lead in order to get 00:15:07.439 --> 00:15:08.274 there. 00:15:08.274 --> 00:15:11.010 So this is the Needipedia Initiative that I mentioned, 00:15:11.010 --> 00:15:12.211 really comes from this. 00:15:12.211 --> 00:15:17.783 Can we really empower -- can we engage in acquisition models at 00:15:17.783 --> 00:15:21.353 dollar amounts that are much smaller than a million dollars? 00:15:21.353 --> 00:15:23.322 A million dollars is fine, or much less than this. 00:15:23.322 --> 00:15:25.391 In order to be able to do that, we have to drive down the cost 00:15:25.391 --> 00:15:29.895 of acquisition, drive down the cost of decision making and 00:15:29.895 --> 00:15:32.965 ensure that we've got interoperability and that we've 00:15:32.965 --> 00:15:35.834 got an enterprise sensibility in the kinds of things that we do. 00:15:35.834 --> 00:15:37.836 I will hit on that here in a second. 00:15:37.836 --> 00:15:41.640 Needipedia was really designed to drive down acquisition costs 00:15:41.640 --> 00:15:44.643 and so we were able to address two of -- what turns out to be 00:15:44.643 --> 00:15:46.779 three major acquisition considerations. 00:15:46.779 --> 00:15:50.082 The first, again, because it's a very open ended model, 00:15:50.082 --> 00:15:54.286 we are able to now field ideas that we didn't know to ask for. 00:15:54.286 --> 00:15:58.724 We simply say, Needipedia includes our ten core mission 00:15:58.724 --> 00:15:59.725 areas. 00:15:59.725 --> 00:16:00.726 Ten things that we do. 00:16:00.726 --> 00:16:04.229 If you've got ideas to help us improve our ten things, 00:16:04.229 --> 00:16:05.230 submit them. 00:16:05.230 --> 00:16:08.600 We've got a process that handles them very effectively. 00:16:08.600 --> 00:16:12.971 So it is designed to handle what most acquisition professionals 00:16:12.971 --> 00:16:16.809 hate, which is the unsolicited idea in a very rigorous way. 00:16:16.809 --> 00:16:19.378 I'm not going to get into all the details, 00:16:19.378 --> 00:16:22.014 but that is where the hard part is, associated with this model, 00:16:22.014 --> 00:16:25.851 how you effectively marshal those ideas to the right people. 00:16:25.851 --> 00:16:29.154 Part of that process is empowering those people to ask 00:16:29.154 --> 00:16:31.523 for things very easily and getting them to surface the 00:16:31.523 --> 00:16:33.659 kinds that they are looking for and the kinds of things that 00:16:33.659 --> 00:16:36.562 they do, that is where Needipedia really comes in and 00:16:36.562 --> 00:16:40.199 is very effective, but it points to a third need that we haven't 00:16:40.199 --> 00:16:42.901 solved yet. 00:16:42.901 --> 00:16:46.705 That is that it requires -- now we are doing lots -- we have 00:16:46.705 --> 00:16:50.542 received 70% of the submissions via the site are from 00:16:50.542 --> 00:16:52.544 non-traditional performers, those who have never done 00:16:52.544 --> 00:16:53.545 business with the government. 00:16:53.545 --> 00:16:56.315 It is driving us to lots of smaller acquisitions, 00:16:56.315 --> 00:16:59.818 that is great, except that puts a whole lot of burden on our 00:16:59.818 --> 00:17:02.554 procurement shop in order to engage in these small 00:17:02.554 --> 00:17:04.323 procurements. 00:17:04.323 --> 00:17:06.558 So we look to other elements of this. 00:17:06.558 --> 00:17:09.728 Mark mentioned from DARPA the cyber fast track model. 00:17:09.728 --> 00:17:14.433 Using that model, they were able to do guaranteed ten day 00:17:14.433 --> 00:17:15.968 procurements. 00:17:15.968 --> 00:17:18.303 So that is from the time that a need or an opportunity was 00:17:18.303 --> 00:17:21.273 identified to the contract was led was ten days or less. 00:17:21.273 --> 00:17:23.909 In fact, they averaged seven days in order to get there. 00:17:23.909 --> 00:17:27.446 Now, it turns out that model can be repeated much more broadly, 00:17:27.446 --> 00:17:32.851 but it runs -- there are places where it can be abused for sure 00:17:32.851 --> 00:17:37.623 and it is not common to many procurement officers' set of 00:17:37.623 --> 00:17:38.624 practices. 00:17:38.624 --> 00:17:40.392 Now, that shouldn't stop us. 00:17:40.392 --> 00:17:45.297 We are not asking anyone to compromise on audit ability, 00:17:45.297 --> 00:17:48.867 transparency, oversight in any way shape or form and we don't 00:17:48.867 --> 00:17:50.269 have to. 00:17:50.269 --> 00:17:53.005 But implementing a variation on the very them that they did 00:17:53.005 --> 00:17:55.207 there; we are calling it Streamline Acquisition for 00:17:55.207 --> 00:17:56.909 Innovation and Learning. 00:17:56.909 --> 00:18:01.213 Where for contracts $700,000 and below we are looking to engage 00:18:01.213 --> 00:18:02.815 in ten day procurement. 00:18:02.815 --> 00:18:05.484 Now, I don't have the horsepower to push this through alone, 00:18:05.484 --> 00:18:09.054 so I'm actually looking for help from folks in the audience so 00:18:09.054 --> 00:18:11.490 that we can drive this change model again, 00:18:11.490 --> 00:18:13.826 that is not just applicable in our model. 00:18:13.826 --> 00:18:17.396 The template is there, we just need to drive for it and make 00:18:17.396 --> 00:18:18.997 sure that all the safeguards are in place. 00:18:18.997 --> 00:18:20.766 Okay? 00:18:20.766 --> 00:18:23.802 I would like to ask a quiz right now of who remembers the first 00:18:23.802 --> 00:18:25.170 two principles? 00:18:25.170 --> 00:18:28.540 Let's just review real quick because -- unless someone wants 00:18:28.540 --> 00:18:29.641 to raise their hand. 00:18:29.641 --> 00:18:32.644 First is innovation: depends on the workforce. 00:18:32.644 --> 00:18:35.547 That means engaging people much lower down in your organization 00:18:35.547 --> 00:18:38.684 in decision making than most folks are used to and removing 00:18:38.684 --> 00:18:41.119 the professional program manager, 00:18:41.119 --> 00:18:45.491 the acquisition professional, the senior manager from the 00:18:45.491 --> 00:18:47.893 decision in terms of what things we should try. 00:18:47.893 --> 00:18:52.064 Those people were all there for very good reasons so that we 00:18:52.064 --> 00:18:54.466 don't break the rules, while we are trying, 00:18:54.466 --> 00:18:57.202 but don't make them the decision makers, 00:18:57.202 --> 00:18:59.638 allow that to happen in a lower part in the organization. 00:18:59.638 --> 00:19:02.908 Second one is, innovation requires creative destruction. 00:19:02.908 --> 00:19:05.978 So change your decision structures to drive to much 00:19:05.978 --> 00:19:06.979 smaller projects. 00:19:06.979 --> 00:19:08.213 Force that change. 00:19:08.213 --> 00:19:11.717 That is a hard, hard reform to make. 00:19:11.717 --> 00:19:14.653 It's the thing that Google and Amazon were built on; actually, 00:19:14.653 --> 00:19:17.523 Amazon much more so than any other organization. 00:19:17.523 --> 00:19:20.526 They built that agility into the core of their business models 00:19:20.526 --> 00:19:24.096 and it didn't matter what they were, what they are at the end, 00:19:24.096 --> 00:19:26.465 what they are today is much different than what they set out 00:19:26.465 --> 00:19:27.466 to be. 00:19:27.466 --> 00:19:30.135 Actually, it's a great extension of what their initial core 00:19:30.135 --> 00:19:32.304 values, but because they were able to adapt, 00:19:32.304 --> 00:19:34.306 they are something tremendous now. 00:19:34.306 --> 00:19:36.308 That is what we need at the core of our all of our government. 00:19:36.308 --> 00:19:38.310 All right, so on to number three. 00:19:38.310 --> 00:19:39.411 Principle number three. 00:19:39.411 --> 00:19:43.549 This was mentioned earlier; it's really in deference to Joy's Law 00:19:43.549 --> 00:19:46.018 -- no matter how many smart people inside your organization, 00:19:46.018 --> 00:19:48.120 there are always more smart people outside, right? 00:19:48.120 --> 00:19:51.223 So that principle means, if you want to be in innovative 00:19:51.223 --> 00:19:54.993 organization, you need to have world-class mechanisms to bring 00:19:54.993 --> 00:19:57.963 ideas from the outside of your organization into your mission 00:19:57.963 --> 00:19:59.898 settings. 00:19:59.898 --> 00:20:04.069 No fair bringing it from the outside into a lab. 00:20:04.069 --> 00:20:08.440 I come from a lab setting, a government lab -- there is what 00:20:08.440 --> 00:20:10.943 is known as the Valley of Death -- the distance between the lab 00:20:10.943 --> 00:20:12.945 and the actual mission environments. 00:20:12.945 --> 00:20:14.947 Bringing it to a lab is not hard, 00:20:14.947 --> 00:20:18.317 it doesn't get you any closer to the enterprise than it was when 00:20:18.317 --> 00:20:19.318 it was on the outside. 00:20:19.318 --> 00:20:21.853 So we are talking about actually bringing these things to the 00:20:21.853 --> 00:20:27.359 core of what we do without compromising the integrity and 00:20:27.359 --> 00:20:31.296 without adding to the complexity of what we do in unnecessary 00:20:31.296 --> 00:20:32.297 ways, anyway. 00:20:32.297 --> 00:20:35.133 So anyone can bring in a capability and stand it up in a 00:20:35.133 --> 00:20:36.535 stand-alone fashion. 00:20:36.535 --> 00:20:37.669 What happens when you do that? 00:20:37.669 --> 00:20:39.304 You create a mini stove pipe. 00:20:39.304 --> 00:20:41.306 You add to the complexity of your organization. 00:20:41.306 --> 00:20:44.910 So how to you bring these ideas from non-traditional performers 00:20:44.910 --> 00:20:48.013 all the way in to the core of how you do business? 00:20:48.013 --> 00:20:52.150 Well, it turns out the way that we do this is exactly the wrong 00:20:52.150 --> 00:20:53.151 way. 00:20:53.151 --> 00:20:56.221 We engage in -- there is six friction points that stand 00:20:56.221 --> 00:20:59.124 between that great idea on the outside and our enterprise. 00:20:59.124 --> 00:21:03.261 Those are discovery, evaluation, integration, accreditation, 00:21:03.261 --> 00:21:05.530 acquisition and adoption. 00:21:05.530 --> 00:21:08.300 So we have to address all of those by switching the model. 00:21:08.300 --> 00:21:11.336 We do it by, instead of bringing innovation to our enterprise; 00:21:11.336 --> 00:21:14.873 we bring our enterprise to the innovator. 00:21:14.873 --> 00:21:19.011 For an intelligence community agency, 00:21:19.011 --> 00:21:22.848 this is maybe a little bit shocking to you. 00:21:22.848 --> 00:21:25.250 Now, obviously there is a lot about what we do that we can't 00:21:25.250 --> 00:21:26.485 talk about publicly. 00:21:26.485 --> 00:21:31.056 But it turns out one of the things that is public knowledge 00:21:31.056 --> 00:21:33.425 is our security standards. 00:21:33.425 --> 00:21:35.427 So if I'm going to take a capability, 00:21:35.427 --> 00:21:40.332 an information technology -- a nice tool that some Silicon 00:21:40.332 --> 00:21:44.236 Valley developer developed and put it in my environment, 00:21:44.236 --> 00:21:47.139 if it doesn't meet my security standards, guess what? 00:21:47.139 --> 00:21:49.574 I'm going to hand it off to a third party who is going to have 00:21:49.574 --> 00:21:52.511 to rework that thing to make it work with my security standards. 00:21:52.511 --> 00:21:55.414 The minute you hand it off to a dispassionate third party, 00:21:55.414 --> 00:22:01.119 you have incurred a cost and oftentimes a time sink that is 00:22:01.119 --> 00:22:04.089 going to prevent that good idea from making it into your mission 00:22:04.089 --> 00:22:07.959 environment and in fact, because you incur that cost, 00:22:07.959 --> 00:22:11.296 now you are going to have to do a pretty rigorous evaluation 00:22:11.296 --> 00:22:14.332 before you get to that point and so on and so. 00:22:14.332 --> 00:22:16.835 So this builds a whole lot of risk into the way that we buy. 00:22:16.835 --> 00:22:20.105 If I can guarantee that you meet my security standards and the 00:22:20.105 --> 00:22:24.042 thing that I don't compromise on, upfront, 00:22:24.042 --> 00:22:25.744 I can try that capability. 00:22:25.744 --> 00:22:30.248 If I like it, I can field it and our goal is to field it in 00:22:30.248 --> 00:22:31.416 mission settings in 30 days. 00:22:31.416 --> 00:22:34.486 We are not there, in fact we have a long way to go in order 00:22:34.486 --> 00:22:36.455 to get there, but that is the goal. 00:22:36.455 --> 00:22:37.522 So what am I doing? 00:22:37.522 --> 00:22:40.192 It's called the Open Innovation Gateway and effectively what we 00:22:40.192 --> 00:22:44.730 are doing is exposing to outside innovators an integration 00:22:44.730 --> 00:22:46.965 environment that they can access from the internet. 00:22:46.965 --> 00:22:48.934 So I'm not asking them to come to a lab. 00:22:48.934 --> 00:22:51.336 It's a very low barrier to entry environment. 00:22:51.336 --> 00:22:55.907 I'm saying, if you want to sell me your capability, show me it. 00:22:55.907 --> 00:22:57.976 Show me that it meets the security specs and in fact, 00:22:57.976 --> 00:23:00.245 I can write into my acquisition document, 00:23:00.245 --> 00:23:02.748 show me that you are Gateway compliant and then we do 00:23:02.748 --> 00:23:03.849 business. 00:23:03.849 --> 00:23:06.618 What it means to be Gateway compliant means that you meet, 00:23:06.618 --> 00:23:09.154 among other things, our core authentication, 00:23:09.154 --> 00:23:11.289 authorization and auditing requirements, 00:23:11.289 --> 00:23:13.792 many of them not that much different than what other 00:23:13.792 --> 00:23:16.228 government agencies have in terms of the requirements you 00:23:16.228 --> 00:23:18.463 have for technologies coming in. 00:23:18.463 --> 00:23:21.133 What this creates is self-service integration. 00:23:21.133 --> 00:23:24.936 You don't have to turn to third party providers to get you the 00:23:24.936 --> 00:23:27.672 kinds of ideas that you want in your mission settings with this. 00:23:27.672 --> 00:23:32.410 They will -- and it turns out -- people -- idea providers, 00:23:32.410 --> 00:23:35.380 I have been on this side, trying to find exactly the right person 00:23:35.380 --> 00:23:37.482 in government that you could sell your capability to. 00:23:37.482 --> 00:23:42.654 Who has the means to actually act on it and if they find the 00:23:42.654 --> 00:23:44.656 opportunity, they go after it. 00:23:44.656 --> 00:23:47.893 The smarts to understand how this is transformative. 00:23:47.893 --> 00:23:49.895 That is a very expensive endeavor. 00:23:49.895 --> 00:23:52.430 If you can go to a place where you can prove the enterprise 00:23:52.430 --> 00:23:55.167 worthiness of your capability, people will. 00:23:55.167 --> 00:23:58.236 In fact, they will do the development work for you so that 00:23:58.236 --> 00:24:01.473 you can rapidly then bring in the good things that you find. 00:24:01.473 --> 00:24:05.644 It truly enables you to get to a try before you buy model. 00:24:05.644 --> 00:24:08.980 So what is key to this is many disruptive technologies are 00:24:08.980 --> 00:24:10.982 sitting on the sidelines right now, 00:24:10.982 --> 00:24:15.053 because for me to engage -- one example of what came into the 00:24:15.053 --> 00:24:18.590 Gateway, there was a vendor who came to us with claims that they 00:24:18.590 --> 00:24:21.693 could do certain things several orders of magnitude faster than 00:24:21.693 --> 00:24:23.195 what we could. 00:24:23.195 --> 00:24:25.764 We have smart people working on this problem and actually when 00:24:25.764 --> 00:24:28.033 you heard their claims, all the smart people were like, 00:24:28.033 --> 00:24:31.536 "That's ridiculous, that is now how it works, 00:24:31.536 --> 00:24:32.804 you can't do that." 00:24:32.804 --> 00:24:35.740 Had they submitted a white paper proposal to us, 00:24:35.740 --> 00:24:40.579 it would have found its way into the circular as an impossible 00:24:40.579 --> 00:24:43.648 idea, not worth my time to even get any further with this. 00:24:43.648 --> 00:24:44.649 No. 00:24:44.649 --> 00:24:47.519 But because they were able to come into our environment and 00:24:47.519 --> 00:24:49.855 show us an environment -- not physically, 00:24:49.855 --> 00:24:52.991 virtually -- developing who knows in their underwear in 00:24:52.991 --> 00:24:56.928 their lab somewhere, against our service end points, 00:24:56.928 --> 00:25:01.800 showing us -- validating their claims against an environment 00:25:01.800 --> 00:25:02.934 that was much like ours. 00:25:02.934 --> 00:25:04.502 It turns out their claims are true. 00:25:04.502 --> 00:25:07.372 Only in certain circumstances, but in circumstances that are 00:25:07.372 --> 00:25:08.740 important to us. 00:25:08.740 --> 00:25:11.910 Now we can engage in a smart acquisition of -- now that we 00:25:11.910 --> 00:25:14.646 know what is possible, we can ask for it appropriately. 00:25:14.646 --> 00:25:17.983 So it's a different model in terms of how you do acquisition. 00:25:17.983 --> 00:25:20.085 I'm not saying that there are the only initiatives that you 00:25:20.085 --> 00:25:21.519 should do. 00:25:21.519 --> 00:25:24.422 Those principles, if you fully enact them, 00:25:24.422 --> 00:25:26.424 will change the way you do business. 00:25:26.424 --> 00:25:28.994 They are the central themes to how you act with Agility. 00:25:28.994 --> 00:25:32.764 There is lots of different ways to get to the outcomes that we 00:25:32.764 --> 00:25:35.166 desire, but they are really built around those core 00:25:35.166 --> 00:25:36.167 principles. 00:25:36.167 --> 00:25:39.104 So that's all I've got for you. 00:25:39.104 --> 00:25:47.245 Any questions? 00:25:47.245 --> 00:25:50.582 I want to take a few more seconds to then -- because I 00:25:50.582 --> 00:25:52.918 didn't fully answer a good question that a gentleman had 00:25:52.918 --> 00:25:56.888 earlier regarding how you avoid -- when you do a pilot, 00:25:56.888 --> 00:26:00.492 how do you avoid locking in to that solution in terms of a sole 00:26:00.492 --> 00:26:09.067 source in the end and endanger competitive transparency down 00:26:09.067 --> 00:26:10.068 the road? 00:26:10.068 --> 00:26:13.471 In fact, that is a legitimate -- that is the main objection that 00:26:13.471 --> 00:26:16.708 folks have to actually doing pilots. 00:26:16.708 --> 00:26:20.612 The key principle that you have to go on in this is -- again, 00:26:20.612 --> 00:26:23.148 remembering our purpose of a pilot is buying down risk. 00:26:23.148 --> 00:26:25.150 It's not making long run decisions. 00:26:25.150 --> 00:26:27.485 Don't make the long run decision before you understand the 00:26:27.485 --> 00:26:29.487 parameters associated with that decision. 00:26:29.487 --> 00:26:30.488 So that is one. 00:26:30.488 --> 00:26:33.825 Second is to ensure fungibility. 00:26:33.825 --> 00:26:35.827 So fungibility is an economic term, 00:26:35.827 --> 00:26:39.764 it basically means the replaceability of any thing. 00:26:39.764 --> 00:26:42.267 So if you do a thing, whatever it is, 00:26:42.267 --> 00:26:46.271 if you build a system and it is not replaceable from the start, 00:26:46.271 --> 00:26:49.607 you have just introduced vendor or solution lock. 00:26:49.607 --> 00:26:52.610 It's the thing that causes us to throw good money after bad, 00:26:52.610 --> 00:26:59.884 to go -- look, every one of our agencies has a major acquisition 00:26:59.884 --> 00:27:02.087 program where the thinking was, you know what, 00:27:02.087 --> 00:27:03.855 we need standardization. 00:27:03.855 --> 00:27:06.157 We've got too many moving parts, too many rogue elements and we 00:27:06.157 --> 00:27:08.326 are just not working together so we need standardization. 00:27:08.326 --> 00:27:10.895 We need to do a great big initiative to make sure 00:27:10.895 --> 00:27:13.698 everything works together. 00:27:13.698 --> 00:27:18.636 I could mention a few famous ones, I will spare you all. 00:27:18.636 --> 00:27:23.108 The big major fail program -- everyone sort of thinks, oh, 00:27:23.108 --> 00:27:25.210 it's just the people before us, they weren't smart enough to 00:27:25.210 --> 00:27:28.246 figure out what that one great big thing is that we all should 00:27:28.246 --> 00:27:29.214 be doing. 00:27:29.214 --> 00:27:30.215 Don't do that. 00:27:30.215 --> 00:27:31.216 That is the wrong model. 00:27:31.216 --> 00:27:34.019 Standardization is in economic terms, 00:27:34.019 --> 00:27:35.787 the same thing as monopoly. 00:27:35.787 --> 00:27:40.058 It is having one thing -- wouldn't it be better if we just 00:27:40.058 --> 00:27:43.728 have one provider of a thing that would save us costs down 00:27:43.728 --> 00:27:44.763 the road? 00:27:44.763 --> 00:27:48.533 Has that ever in economic theory or practice resulted in cost 00:27:48.533 --> 00:27:49.334 savings? 00:27:49.334 --> 00:27:50.402 It doesn't. 00:27:50.402 --> 00:27:55.206 Instead the thing that reduces cost in economic terms is a 00:27:55.206 --> 00:27:58.276 commodity model, which is basically the -- I don't mean to 00:27:58.276 --> 00:28:00.278 be giving an economics lesson here, 00:28:00.278 --> 00:28:02.280 but it's the replaceablity of everything. 00:28:02.280 --> 00:28:04.716 A commodity is, by definition, a thing that you can buy cold from 00:28:04.716 --> 00:28:05.717 here or there or anywhere. 00:28:05.717 --> 00:28:09.320 It is going to be the same thing. 00:28:09.320 --> 00:28:12.657 It's not so much that we need to have solutions that are the same 00:28:12.657 --> 00:28:16.094 thing, but that every solution has to be replaceable. 00:28:16.094 --> 00:28:18.296 If you can get to that, then you can have disposable IT. 00:28:18.296 --> 00:28:21.599 If you can get to that, then you can change -- as soon as 00:28:21.599 --> 00:28:23.768 something comes along that is better than the thing that you 00:28:23.768 --> 00:28:27.105 have, you can immediately replace that thing. 00:28:27.105 --> 00:28:30.208 That depends on you having standards in place. 00:28:30.208 --> 00:28:34.579 Now, standards are not the kinds of things you impose on people, 00:28:34.579 --> 00:28:37.615 they are the things that people adopt because they choose to. 00:28:37.615 --> 00:28:39.684 That means creating the conditions such that people have 00:28:39.684 --> 00:28:43.721 choice and oftentimes we don't go that route. 00:28:43.721 --> 00:28:47.392 So it's a very important second piece of this. 00:28:47.392 --> 00:28:51.362 If your pilot is not allowing you to replace, 00:28:51.362 --> 00:28:58.403 then its not a pilot and rethink the definition of the pilot 00:28:58.403 --> 00:28:59.537 before you go forward. 00:28:59.537 --> 00:29:04.042 I'm going to give you the Doney Challenge. 00:29:04.042 --> 00:29:09.380 It's a dollar for a question that makes me uncomfortable. 00:29:09.380 --> 00:29:14.119 And it can't involve my high school years. 00:29:14.119 --> 00:29:21.159 Yes, ma'am? 00:29:21.159 --> 00:29:22.994 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I don't know if this will make you uncomfortable 00:29:22.994 --> 00:29:27.866 or not, but my name is Rosella Marshal and I'm with USAID and I 00:29:27.866 --> 00:29:33.404 would be interested in hearing you discuss the processes that 00:29:33.404 --> 00:29:39.110 you went through when you first went to DIA as far as convincing 00:29:39.110 --> 00:29:45.250 the Senior Management to give you the leeway to implement this 00:29:45.250 --> 00:29:47.685 innovative program. 00:29:47.685 --> 00:29:51.356 DAN DONEY: I'm going to give you a dollar anyway because that's 00:29:51.356 --> 00:29:53.825 such a good question. 00:29:53.825 --> 00:29:58.796 There was no road map in this and the term "Chief Innovation 00:29:58.796 --> 00:30:01.366 Officer", I don't know that I was the first in government, 00:30:01.366 --> 00:30:03.401 but certainly one of the first. 00:30:03.401 --> 00:30:05.737 There was certainly a lot of misconceptions about what it 00:30:05.737 --> 00:30:08.439 was, including my own, in terms of what it would be. 00:30:08.439 --> 00:30:12.710 It was clear -- this notion of principle, leadership, 00:30:12.710 --> 00:30:16.314 was really a mentor who showed me this concept. 00:30:16.314 --> 00:30:19.551 It became that model, really boiling it down. 00:30:19.551 --> 00:30:22.187 Who could disagree with the three principles that I put out? 00:30:22.187 --> 00:30:24.455 Who would not like those? 00:30:24.455 --> 00:30:27.525 Well, if you like those, then why would you object to this 00:30:27.525 --> 00:30:30.328 initiate, which is really designed to go after that? 00:30:30.328 --> 00:30:32.931 We produced an innovation strategy; 00:30:32.931 --> 00:30:35.800 those two things are almost -- it's almost an oxymoron. 00:30:35.800 --> 00:30:39.404 It was really a layout of those principles and some things that 00:30:39.404 --> 00:30:42.340 we were going to do to go after it, initiatives. 00:30:42.340 --> 00:30:48.413 That strategy you can get to, it's at www.dia.mil/innovation. 00:30:48.413 --> 00:30:52.517 We are about to come out with a 2015 update and that is going to 00:30:52.517 --> 00:30:55.420 give us a scorecard for some of the things that I have mentioned 00:30:55.420 --> 00:30:56.955 here today and how we are doing. 00:30:56.955 --> 00:30:58.323 It's not all rosy. 00:30:58.323 --> 00:31:01.526 That was the approach that we really went after. 00:31:01.526 --> 00:31:04.629 I gave you those three principles; 00:31:04.629 --> 00:31:06.631 there is a principle higher than that, 00:31:06.631 --> 00:31:10.935 which is really emphasizing leadership over management. 00:31:10.935 --> 00:31:12.904 We have lots of managers in government. 00:31:12.904 --> 00:31:17.008 We struggle a little bit more in terms of leaders and the 00:31:17.008 --> 00:31:19.344 difference between those two comes down -- mostly they are 00:31:19.344 --> 00:31:21.479 the same, but there is one difference. 00:31:21.479 --> 00:31:26.184 Management is about taking control in order to achieve an 00:31:26.184 --> 00:31:27.185 outcome. 00:31:27.185 --> 00:31:30.321 Leadership is about giving control in order to achieve an 00:31:30.321 --> 00:31:34.592 outcome and setting a vision, but empowering folks to go after 00:31:34.592 --> 00:31:35.593 it. 00:31:35.593 --> 00:31:40.665 That piece put in place, driving towards quick outcomes. 00:31:40.665 --> 00:31:43.901 So if I didn't get outcomes in the first six months, 00:31:43.901 --> 00:31:45.069 no one would take me seriously. 00:31:45.069 --> 00:31:46.070 And we did. 00:31:46.070 --> 00:31:49.140 And it really started with empowering the workforce. 00:31:49.140 --> 00:31:51.609 Tapping into all the latent ideas that were out there in 00:31:51.609 --> 00:31:53.444 order to go after it; then partnering. 00:31:53.444 --> 00:31:58.816 So man, that's a long answer to your good question. 00:31:58.816 --> 00:32:01.119 Carol's ideas are magnificent. 00:32:01.119 --> 00:32:02.954 Her implementation is outstanding. 00:32:02.954 --> 00:32:06.858 We came across each other and it was a match made in heaven. 00:32:06.858 --> 00:32:11.763 We are doing different things, but complementary and so -- and 00:32:11.763 --> 00:32:14.232 Mark and the Buyers Club more generally, 00:32:14.232 --> 00:32:16.601 I encourage you all to get involved with the Buyers Club so 00:32:16.601 --> 00:32:20.838 that we can share good ideas that come about. 00:32:20.838 --> 00:32:25.510 So as much as anything, rely on other people to help you succeed 00:32:25.510 --> 00:32:28.379 early on. 00:32:28.379 --> 00:32:30.615 I hope that sufficiently answered -- you get the dollar 00:32:30.615 --> 00:32:31.616 anyway. 00:32:31.616 --> 00:32:32.850 Thanks. 00:32:32.850 --> 00:32:35.086 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Just to follow up, 00:32:35.086 --> 00:32:39.390 what were some of the road blocks that you encountered and 00:32:39.390 --> 00:32:43.194 how did you handle those road blocks as far as persuading? 00:32:43.194 --> 00:32:44.595 DAN DONEY: Okay, now this is difficult and 00:32:44.595 --> 00:32:47.165 it's challenging to talk about it in public settings. 00:32:47.165 --> 00:32:52.737 I actually went up to NSA, sat down with some folks up there in 00:32:52.737 --> 00:32:56.674 terms of their leadership; they showed me a document from 1954, 00:32:56.674 --> 00:32:59.410 the original Director, that emphasized the importance of 00:32:59.410 --> 00:33:00.144 innovation. 00:33:00.144 --> 00:33:04.015 So letter to the workforce, we've got to innovate to succeed 00:33:04.015 --> 00:33:07.785 and so there it was and here we are, 00:33:07.785 --> 00:33:10.655 60 years later and if you ask any of our agencies, 00:33:10.655 --> 00:33:13.458 are you innovative, how many do you think would say yes? 00:33:13.458 --> 00:33:14.926 Including mine. 00:33:14.926 --> 00:33:17.662 We are not there yet. 00:33:17.662 --> 00:33:21.399 So clearly there is conventional wisdom getting in the way of us 00:33:21.399 --> 00:33:22.767 getting to this goal. 00:33:22.767 --> 00:33:25.036 Again, a lot of it had to do with the very people who said, 00:33:25.036 --> 00:33:27.171 we need to innovate. 00:33:27.171 --> 00:33:29.340 We are the ones who are saying -- and I don't trust what any of 00:33:29.340 --> 00:33:31.442 you people are doing and so you've got to give me -- they 00:33:31.442 --> 00:33:35.246 would debate before I came on, in my position, 00:33:35.246 --> 00:33:36.547 they debated the meeting. 00:33:36.547 --> 00:33:38.549 So they set up -- oh, we have to take innovation seriously. 00:33:38.549 --> 00:33:41.185 They set up an Innovation Advisory Board made up of 00:33:41.185 --> 00:33:43.988 principles from across the agency and they debated the 00:33:43.988 --> 00:33:47.925 meaning of the word "innovation" for a year. 00:33:47.925 --> 00:33:50.661 That was their efforts to attack the innovation problem. 00:33:50.661 --> 00:33:53.364 The reason, actually, that they did it, kind of makes sense. 00:33:53.364 --> 00:33:55.366 Each person, each entity involved, 00:33:55.366 --> 00:33:58.002 wanted innovation to mean the thing that they were doing so 00:33:58.002 --> 00:34:00.438 that they could get the money associated with it. 00:34:00.438 --> 00:34:02.173 My office has no money. 00:34:02.173 --> 00:34:06.244 This makes me very powerful within the organization for two 00:34:06.244 --> 00:34:07.245 reasons. 00:34:07.245 --> 00:34:09.313 You can't stop me by taking away my money. 00:34:09.313 --> 00:34:14.152 Second, it forces me to engage in a partnership posture. 00:34:14.152 --> 00:34:17.288 I have to work with others in order to succeed as far as this 00:34:17.288 --> 00:34:18.289 is concerned. 00:34:18.289 --> 00:34:21.893 So it drives me outward in order to get to the end state, 00:34:21.893 --> 00:34:25.797 but the biggest obstacle was this mindset that the way to get 00:34:25.797 --> 00:34:30.101 to innovation is to run out and stop things. 00:34:30.101 --> 00:34:32.303 Kill those rogue initiatives that are out there. 00:34:32.303 --> 00:34:36.207 Now there is some value in that, but that's not the principle 00:34:36.207 --> 00:34:38.209 consideration and everyone sort of thinks it is. 00:34:38.209 --> 00:34:43.014 Got to free up money by killing bad stuff. 00:34:43.014 --> 00:34:46.017 What you find is, when you come forward with good platforms that 00:34:46.017 --> 00:34:49.320 empower people to solve their own problems, 00:34:49.320 --> 00:34:50.321 they will choose you. 00:34:50.321 --> 00:34:52.890 You don't have to go out and stop them from doing what it is 00:34:52.890 --> 00:34:54.258 that they are doing. 00:34:54.258 --> 00:34:57.929 So focus on those platforms, enabling components much more 00:34:57.929 --> 00:34:58.930 effectively. 00:34:58.930 --> 00:34:59.931 Yes, ma'am? 00:34:59.931 --> 00:35:01.766 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Denise Ross and I'm a 00:35:01.766 --> 00:35:05.369 Presidential Innovation Fellow assigned to energy and I thought 00:35:05.369 --> 00:35:11.209 I heard you describe a process that seems like grassroots IT 00:35:11.209 --> 00:35:15.012 governance, where the people closest to the mission edge are 00:35:15.012 --> 00:35:16.147 setting priorities. 00:35:16.147 --> 00:35:18.483 Can you describe more about how that works? 00:35:18.483 --> 00:35:19.750 DAN DONEY: Yes. 00:35:19.750 --> 00:35:23.588 In every one of the four initiatives that I mentioned, 00:35:23.588 --> 00:35:28.726 were somewhat of a decentralized model for governance across the 00:35:28.726 --> 00:35:30.027 board. 00:35:30.027 --> 00:35:34.165 One of the specific initiatives is the thing called Nerd 00:35:34.165 --> 00:35:35.166 Brigade. 00:35:35.166 --> 00:35:39.670 Nerd Brigade is sort of a hybrid between central control and 00:35:39.670 --> 00:35:41.672 decentralized control in this way. 00:35:41.672 --> 00:35:44.809 The central control authority points the Nerds in a particular 00:35:44.809 --> 00:35:48.012 direction and what we are actually considering doing is we 00:35:48.012 --> 00:35:51.082 have a small number of Nerds and they are in high demand given 00:35:51.082 --> 00:35:52.216 the success that they have had. 00:35:52.216 --> 00:35:55.386 So we can't send them everywhere within the organization. 00:35:55.386 --> 00:35:59.223 We are asking people to compete with their challenges for Nerd's 00:35:59.223 --> 00:36:00.391 time. 00:36:00.391 --> 00:36:03.294 In the absence of that, leadership says, 00:36:03.294 --> 00:36:06.330 go over there and work with those folks who seem to be 00:36:06.330 --> 00:36:07.398 struggling. 00:36:07.398 --> 00:36:09.400 We don't know what the requirement is; 00:36:09.400 --> 00:36:11.402 we don't know what it is that the outcome is going to be, 00:36:11.402 --> 00:36:12.403 sit with them. 00:36:12.403 --> 00:36:15.573 It turns out, every time we do that, every time we do that, 00:36:15.573 --> 00:36:19.310 great things happen. 00:36:19.310 --> 00:36:20.711 That's not a surprise. 00:36:20.711 --> 00:36:24.415 Everyone knows the power of co-creation and that if you 00:36:24.415 --> 00:36:27.585 engage an end user and a technologist together, 00:36:27.585 --> 00:36:28.953 great things happen. 00:36:28.953 --> 00:36:31.522 What I think is relatively new about our model is we are not 00:36:31.522 --> 00:36:34.759 interested in doing it in this pocket or that cell or this lab, 00:36:34.759 --> 00:36:35.893 but anywhere in our enterprise. 00:36:35.893 --> 00:36:40.498 So we need to set the conditions in order to do that. 00:36:40.498 --> 00:36:44.168 Everyone of these is empowering someone who doesn't 00:36:44.168 --> 00:36:48.806 traditionally get a voice in saying what we need, 00:36:48.806 --> 00:36:55.813 to speak and decide.