Shows & Panels
- The 2014 Big Picture on Cyber Security
- AFCEA Answers
- Ask the CIO
- Building the Hybrid Cloud
- Connected Government: How to Build and Procure Network Services for the Future
- Continuing Diagnostics and Mitigation: Discussion of Progress and Next Steps
- Federal Executive Forum
- Federal Tech Talk
- The Future of Government Data Centers
- The Future of IT: How CIOs Can Enable the Service-Oriented Enterprise
- The Intersection: Where Technology Meets Transformation
- Maximizing ROI Through Data Center Consolidation
- Mitigating Insider Threats in Virtual & Cloud Environments
- Modern Mission Critical Series
- Moving to the Cloud. What's the best approach for me
- Navigating Tough Choices in Government Cloud Computing
- The New Generation of Database
- Satellite Communications: Acquiring SATCOM in Tight Times
- Targeting Advanced Threats: Proven Methods from Detection through Remediation
- Transformative Technology: Desktop Virtualization in Government
- The Truth About IT Opex and Software Defined Networking
- Value of Health IT
- Air Traffic Management Transformation Report
- Cloud First Report
- General Dynamics IT Enterprise Center
- Gov Cloud Minute
- Government in Technology Series
- Homeland Security Cybersecurity Market Report
- National Cybersecurity Awareness Month
- Technology Insights
- The Cyber Security Report
- The Next Generation Cyber Security Experts
Shows & Panels
Can government reorg produce real efficiency?
Tuesday - 2/15/2011, 4:40pm EST
The proposal is not a new strategy. Most presidents in the last century have used structural reorganization in one way or another, said Beryl Radin, scholar in residence at American University's School of Public Policy. Radin co-authored the book Federal Government Reorganization: A Policy and Management Perspective.
As lawmakers struggle to fix the budget, President Obama said in his address that government must be more "competent and efficient."
Radin argues, however, that efficiency is not a guaranteed outcome of a government reorganization.
"There is almost no evidence that reorganizations lead to cost-savings. And, in fact, there are some people who argue that the disruptions that occur at the beginning of a reorganization can be costly in money as well as time," Radin said.
She added that the assertion that a reorganization leads to more effective programs is also a problematic argument.
"It's extremely difficult to determine what criteria you will use as the basis for identifying elements that should go into a new organizational structure," Radin said.
President Obama used salmon as an example of the complexities of government oversight. Radin said the salmon example models how policies across government can conflict - some programs want to preserve the fish, while others promote selling and yet others develop scientific research.
"What you see is that programs often have their feet in multiple policy areas," she said.
If a reorganization is so challenging - and does not necessarily produce the intended outcomes - then why do administrations continue to push for it?
Radin said a reorganization is sometimes an alternative way to change policy.
"It seems often that reorganization issues are less volatile than clear-cut policy change," she said. "that doesn't always happen, but it's a way of circumventing when you don't think you have either the authority or the support for over policy change."
A reorganization is also a way for presidents to respond to public calls for change, Radin said.
In the private sector, reorganization is driven by a clear goal - profit. In the public sector, the goals are not so clear. Radin said reorganization, therefore, must be driven from policy goals - not general principles of good management or what she calls a "one size fits all approach."