Better Buy may have some competition...or a great friend. It depends on how you look at it.

OpenGov Tracker has done something that the feds haven't been able to do so far -- create a pretty, user-friendly dashboard for tracking and voting for ideas across the federal government.

Analysis: OpenGov Tracker and Better Buy share the same goal -- an improved federal government. However, OpenGov Tracker is broader in scope (covers whole fed gov) while Better Buy focuses on acquisition.

Here's my question: How can OpenGov Tracker and Better Buy work together to get a better outcome for an improved federal government?

Let me first apologize to Andy Krzmarzick, as I have been promising a post on performance-based contracting and how it relates to the Better Buy Project and the Acquisition 2.0 initiative. I actually started that post, but put in on hold a bit as I found something of interest that I have also been meaning to discuss.

At the Better Buy Project forum at the National Association of Public Administration (NAPA) last December, I was discussing with Mary Davie of the General Services Administration the need to reform not only acquisition, but the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) itself. We both commented that we often get curious looks when we mention this in conversation, but part of the rebuilding of the acquisition mission is to look at the FAR, as it seems ripe for an overhaul. In fact, the FAR can be fertile ground for change, and that change can certainly be done under the umbrella of Acquisition 2.0 tools and methodologies, much like performance-based contracting.

The FAR, in my opinion, has become a snake-pit of over-regulation; a maze of parochial interest. As lawmakers turned to help constituencies and thus narrow interests, or through well-meaning yet poorly planned and poorly though out policy, the current FAR is an example of simply how not to conduct world-class buying.

I was revisiting a wonderful piece of common sense approaches to reform by the Procurement Roundtable (PRT) that are very relevant to the current transformation discussion, not to mention illustrative of how difficult reform can be as the report is dated December, 1999.

The recommendation regarding policy guidance I believe to be spot on, and concur with the PRT that the way forward is much less regulation and far fewer detailed procurement laws. The reform process would work in an Acquisition 2.0 construct, where mission and broad policy statements commence the process of the final outcome; a digital, e-procurement guidance or FAR 2.0.

Under FAR 2.0, guidance should focus on outcomes and mission by concentrating on National or agency goals and objectives. This guidance would not be regulation, and would certainly not be details about how to perform the mission.

The next step is recreating FAR 2.0 would be a crowd sourcing initiative, much like the Better Buy Project. The acquisition community would be able to comment on eliminating the redundancy and over-regulation, focus on commercial best practices, and eliminate those existing statutes, agency regulations, and other directives that burden procurement and detail how to perform the mission. This approach is what the PRT referred to as a "zero-based" approach; which is to start with a blank sheet and add only what can be thoroughly justified.

Further input would of course be proposals for re-creating and streamlining the buying process, changing the new FAR to make it a "what, not how" model of world-class procurement. The rule for streamlining and creating FAR 2.0 would be to follow those commercial processes that allow for a fair and open acquisition process, and allow for real transparency and accountability to the taxpayer. This new process would be based on constant innovation; eliminating and revising any existing guidance or policy that does not allow for the leveraging of new information technology. The goal is to build an acquisition process for the 21st century, and executed by a right-sized and blended 21st century acquisition workforce with the right skills and capabilities to leverage this new process.

Not an easy task, no doubt. However, recognizing the institutional challenges that have hampered reform in the past are the first areas to attack by change agents and leaders who claim to want real, meaningful reform, and who are also demanding accountability and transparency. Some agencies will continue claiming uniqueness, and Congress may the biggest obstacle. However, the Acquisition 2.0 forum and the collaborative nature of this FAR 2.0 initiative can use the successes and lessons learned from Better Buy to involve all the concerned stakeholders, including the organizations that published the overly prescriptive guidance and have legitimacy to claims of uniqueness. Only by taking risks and exploring innovative ideas can we expect to see change that matters.

Gov 2.0 seems to be taking off this year. However, it will crash and burn if we (as government employees) do not get our agencies to participate. Fortunately, the White House and GSA are already behind the movement. Now it's our turn to act.

Here are some ideas to getting your agency to open up to Web 2.0 technologies in general and Gov 2.0 in particular.

Talk about it. This is the most important thing you can do; simply bring awareness of the idea to people in your office. But don't talk about it to the point that people will block it out. That doesn't do any good.

Build a Reputation. If you can develop a reputation in the office as a technology guru, you will be more credible. And credibility is the currency of trust for implementing Web/Gov 2.0.

Appeal to Co-workers' Self-Interest. Figure out some of the annoying problems in your office and try to find free web tools that can help solve these problems. Test out these ideas and talk about how they can improve co-workers lives. If you can make their lives easier, they're more likely to adopt these technologies.

Admit to an Agenda. Yes, that's right. Your agenda is to make their lives easier, and by extension, your life becomes easier. That is the entire purpose of technology, and it often is forgotten.

Test Things Yourself. Try out these technologies. Does your office have a communications problem? Maybe Yammer could help. Want to find resources that make your life easier? Diigo can help (plus it may not be blocked since few Feds know about it; just don't publish classified info). Find out what does and doesn't work before asking people to spend their time testing them out.

Build a Team. Chances are you're not the only person in your office geeky and/or excited enough to try out these technologies. This step may take some time, but it will be worth it. Your team can serve as a test bed for new ideas. You can gather actual results and data you can take to people for a final step.

Develop an Agency Web/Gov 2.0 Policy. From what I've seen, most agencies haven't taken this step yet. This allows your team and you to set the agenda. This is a significant advantage. Use IBM's social media policy as an example since it is widely accepted as a standard bearer. Also, make sure the policy allows the adoption of future, and not just present, technologies. This will open the door for Web 3.0 (i.e. Semantic Web) tech that is just starting to show up.

Keep at It. Perhaps your first attempt failed. That's okay. Just keep at it. Persistence will pay off.

In my earlier post, I commented on the "risk averse" nature of government acquisition. In our efforts to be fair to all, the manuals that we use grow longer and longer (e.g., the Federal Acquisition Regulations, supplemental Agency Regulations, Acquisition Policies, GAO decisions). This is an environment that has not embraced change and new technology, and for good reason.

When I asked around my office for volunteers to work on the pilot, not a lot of hands went up. A few brave souls eventually snuck over to my office to learn more, and finally we formed a team. We have a Contracting Officer, a Contract Specialist, a Project Manager, a few Technical Advisors, and an Acquisition Project Manager who will have to pull all of this together. Hopefully, I'll get to help steer all of this along without disrupting the rest of the organization's daily operations.

We spent the last two months evaluating the recommendations on BetterBuy, identifying the ideas that were feasible to implement, and working with our information technology support personnel to set up the infrastructure properly. We met with OMB, GAO, and other parts of GSA to discuss best practices for open collaboration, making decisions about things like user registration and authentication, roles and responsibilities for team members (e.g., who controls our twitter account, who can post). We are nearly ready with our wiki site for requirements definition. This process shines a bright light on established procedures and forces everyone to consider the value of the activity. Fun times!

My office (GSA FEDSIM) primarily works with other Federal Agencies on their procurements, but we also support a few internal GSA customers as well. We have been talking to these internal customers as the most likely candidates for the pilot project(s). We have two in our sights. Both are working with new technology and align well with the increased transparency through BetterBuy. We plan on launching the pilot in February, so stay tuned. . . . .

Over time, several trends have become apparent in regards to postings: 1) sometimes, there is not enough information or context to aid readers in getting a true understanding the suggestion, 2) lack of examples sometimes make it difficult to focus readers on how the suggestion might be implemented with Web 2.0 or social media technologies, and 3) many times original posters or other community members do not provide follow-on postings to add more context or answer questions.

When you post a suggestion or a follow-on comment, please try and provide some detail/context so that other readers, who may not be as knowledgeable as you in the subject matter, can grasp your ideas. Adding examples of how Web 2.0 and social media technology might be able to address your suggestion would be helpful as well.

We've received many postings to this site and value every one of them. There is a need, however, for follow-on community discussion on many of the postings. This type of exchange amongst community members will increase the overall knowledge of the community plus provide valuable context for the GSA, NAPA and IAC/ACT folks who will be determining which suggestions to address.

Thanks and keep your suggestions coming.

After attending the recent Better Buy Project panel this past week, I blogged about my observations and some issues that came up from that conversation.

That lively discussion continued on the GovLoop Acquisition 2.0 community. Although many commentators took different takes, I think we all agreed that one of the central tenets of successfully implementing Gov 2.0 can focus on one principal area: change management.

Like the Better Buy Project and all Gov 2.0 projects, these initiatives are typically undertaken to changing the overall business environment, and the federal procurement process for Acquisition 2.0. Whether trying to improve the requirements definition process, change roles, or define new ways of doing business, and effective Change Management Process is paramount to stress the benefits, demonstrate long-term value, and minimize the resulting impact on current projects.

Implement a Change Management Process in Gov 2.0

Unlike most projects with a typical project manager, I do believe in the need for the extra project leadership via change agents; committed leaders who are willing to take the risks associated with these initiatives and drive them to fruition. Due to the nature of the current environment in Government procurement (e.g. risk-aversion and status-quo mentality), change is a difficult pill to swallow. This mindset is further exacerbated by the perception of disrupting productivity, as the acquisition workforce has been forced to do more with less. Many past improvement initiatives have also not been driven by change agents, and thus go nowhere. In regards to Gov 2.0, many procurement officials feel they do not have the time to bother with yet another program from leadership that only makes one roll their eyes with the perception of no real value or benefit to helping one do their job better, faster, and cheaper; another passing fad. Thus the need for real commitment from the top and the change agents as demonstrated with Better Buy, as the project is showing real value and a commitment to execute.

Successful implementation will rest with Change Management, which is defined as the process of monitoring and controlling change within a project. By managing the implementation of Gov 2.0 initiatives in regards to acquisition, leaders can:

• Reduce the negative impact on current acquisition projects
• Identify new issues and risks, and implement lessons learned as a result of changes implemented during execution
• Ensure that implemented changes do not affect overall desired objectives and outcomes
• Control cost of implemented changes

Successful Change Process: A Four Step Model

Change Management in itself is a project within a project. It is already being executed at the General Services Administration (GSA), where projects are actively being sought to pilot the inputs from Better Buy users. Nonetheless, implementing and executing on Gov 2.0 initiatives can follow these Change Management steps:

Identify: The first step in the change process is to identify the need for change, which is apparent in federal acquisitions. This is the overall objective of the Better Buy Project, where any member can suggest a change to the process. Some of the discussion at the panel included capturing statistical data of the user community and their input. However, it is the relevancy of the input that is most important. Further, anonymity can be a powerful tool to providing desired input, free from possible managerial reprisals. The Better Buy Project will hopefully serve as a template for capturing input for change, and helping leaders identify needed focus on process improvements and areas to retool business operations. The Securing Americans Value and Efficiency (SAVE) program is another example of real benefit through collaborative processes, although these types of tools should be done with more frequency. Identifying the need to change is driven by value added; describing the change, and identifying drivers, benefits, costs and likely impact of the change on the project, process, or agency.

Review: This is what the Better Buy Project is currently doing in its Phase II, which is to investigate the recommended changes to identify feasibility and impact, both long and short-term. GSA experts are looking for the low-hanging fruit, and those suggestions that can be successful delivered to have the greatest impact with the least disruption. Normally changes which are not critical to project delivery should be avoided whenever possible to prevent "scope creep," but the Web 2.0 construct seemingly turns this project management dictum on its head. Implemented changes will have impact on project delivery, specifically by buying better, faster, cheaper. It is the disruption on current delivery that can not suffer, and why Butter Buy implementation will be so difficult. Finding ways to implement gradual change is preferred, as lessons learned can be studied, reviewed, and implemented with more meaningful impact.  

Approve: Experts have to review the recommended changes and input, as some recommendations are real and others use these forums as an outlet for venting frustration. Nonetheless, it is the naysayers that can also have value on the conversation, as they may point things out that are not always clear to those who are committed and engaged towards success. As discussed at the panel, the suggestions on Better Buy with the greatest number of votes does not necessarily mean ranking, so leaders do need to weigh the value of the input. More importantly, these decisions need to be communicated to the user community, as members should be able to see what input is being considered, and what is not. Ultimately, these decisions should be based on the level of risk, impact, benefits and cost to the overall project or process, and the decision may be to decline, delay or approve the change request. Either way, this level of communication and transparency can go a long way to refining input. More importantly, input will hopefully keep coming as users can see execution is the real end goal, and the initiative is a worthwhile investment of time to participate.

Implement: Here is another way to use collaboration tools with user input. Who knows best on the projects or processes that can be improved than users? Of course members will no doubt vent some more, but that is why input is vetted by experts and leaders to ensure the cream rises to the top. Leadership needs to ensure proper input gets implemented, and also ensure that proper communications strategies are put in place such that changes are scheduled and implemented accordingly. After implementation, leadership, helped with the users, can review the effects of the change on selected  project and processes to ensure that they have achieved the desired outcomes. This in effect creates a change agent community, which helps leadership further communicate outcomes and execute more efficiently. Further, these successful changes then need to be broadly communicated to the overall Gov 2.0 community, to further build bridges and roadmaps for successful implementations across Government.

Throughout a sound Change Management Process, Government leaders can monitor and control changes to selected projects and processes by communicating often, and in turn ensuring that communication is broadcast using the same collaboration tools and keeping track of changes that have been accepted, rejected, or in review. This in effect creates a transparent, up-to-date Change Register.

By completing these steps, Government leaders can carefully monitor and control project and process changes, which in turn increase the likelihood of success. I look forward to further actions by the Better Buy Project, and other initiatives that are leading the way in changing how the Government operates.

A couple of the key questions that agencies continue to ask about social media is "How do I make a business case for it?" and "How do I measure success?" Ultimately, those agencies that have answered these questions effectively - in advance of starting their project and all along the implementation path - will become best practice examples. The Better Buy Project and its incubation group on GovLoop (Acquisition 2.0) are quickly becoming one of those best practice examples.

Two weeks ago, Adam Schultz (BoldInteractive) and I attempted to respond to these questions through a presentation for the Advanced Learning Institute's Social Media for Government Conference. We developed a methodology that strives to move agencies from mission to measurement in a few steps. We know it's not that simple, but here's the general outline of the method:

1. Define Mission Achievement
2. Map Achievement Path
3. Locate Stakeholders
4. Design Engagement
5. Measure Outcomes
6. Inform Next Steps

We fleshed out these concepts for workshop participants over the course of three hours. You can view the full presentation below:

While an afternoon wasn't nearly enough time for participants to apply it to their day-to-day endeavors, we were able to apply it to the Acquisition 2.0 Group on GovLoop and its evolution to include the Better Buy Project. See slides 22-29 and 32-34 for a self-explanatory application to the first four steps for the Acquisition 2.0 group and the Better Buy Project, respectively. We thought you might appreciate some commentary on several of the slides:

Slide 30: This slide offers a Google Analytics look at the traffic for the Acquisition 2.0 group on GovLoop between its launch on March 23 and December 5. Where are the spikes? Well, the first one was right around July 1. What happened? That was our first event, a panel at GSA. There's another big jump right around mid-July. What was happening? The Open Government and Innovations conference. I could almost guarantee that the spikes in September and October were also due to events or news articles. In fact, we're seeing another flurry of activity in the Acquisition after last week's panel at NAPA.

TAKE-AWAY: When we come together physically, we accelerate our conversations virtually...and we need places like GovLoop and Better Buy to sustain and build upon those in-person conversations.

The other day, someone said to me: "Hey, Dan, how is the BetterBuy Project like legendary recording artist Bruce Springsteen?"

"Simple," I replied. "You haven't really experienced it until you've seen it live!"

Happily, your chance to really experience the BetterBuy Project has arrived! The next executive session of the Industry Advisory Committee, one of the project's key sponsors, will feature the founders of BetterBuy live and in person, discussing the project and answering your questions about it. Here's the event info:

We are pleased to announce the next IAC Executive Session featuring The BetterBuy Project on December 16th, 2009 from 9:00am - 11:00am at The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), 900 7th Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20001. The BetterBuy Project, a collaborative initiative with GSA, ACT-IAC and the National Academy for Public Administration (NAPA), has become front page news and has captured the imaginations of both government and industry acquisition professionals. Come and learn more about this dynamic project and how it could dramatically change - for the better - the way the government buys products and services. BetterBuy Panelists:

• Chris Dorobek, Managing Editor of FederalNewsRadio.com and Co- Anchor of the afternoon Federal News Radio program (Moderator)
• Mary Davie, Assistant Commissioner of GSA's Office of Assisted Acquisition Services
• Peter Tuttle, Senior Procurement Policy Analyst with Distributed Solutions, Inc.
• Chris Hamm, Operations Director of GSA's Federal Systems Integration and Management Center (FEDSIM)
• Esther Burgess, SVP and Deputy COO of Vistronix, Inc.
• Lena Trudeau, Director of Strategic Initiatives for the National Academy for Public Administration (NAPA)

IAC Executive Sessions are great opportunities for IAC members to meet with key government executives and gain a first-hand understanding of the organization's plans, issues, and challenges. This event is on the record.

We hope you can join us for this great event. Register now!

To date, the BetterBuy Project (BBP) has generated some superb input about ways to improve the federal acquisition process using Web 2.0 and social media technologies, as well as some other ideas on how to "fix" the process. I've summarized the main themes of BBP and categorized the ideas that have been generated thus far in keeping with the project themes: Openness, Collaboration and Transparency.

1) OPENNESS: Raise awareness of upcoming needs government is trying to fulfill, in order to assemble a pool of qualified providers who can compete on specific requirements.

Information Sharing. A number of respondents suggested methods for sharing information across organizations and agencies within the government. The formation of searchable information repositories containing results of market research, common contractual language, RFQ's and best practices appeared to be the common denominator amongst various participants. Often, it is difficult for acquisition professionals to search for and find information that would be useful in developing/executing their specific acquisition when looking across a single federal enterprise or government-wide.

2) COLLABORATION: Find ways for the government to engage in more 'open' conversations with the private sector on topics such as best practices, emerging technologies and innovations, and market conditions.

Collaborative requirements generation. Participants suggested that social media technology, such as wikis, be used to enhance the collaboration of process stakeholders, such as Integrated Project Teams, to develop the content of evaluation criteria, requirements documents, performance work statements, etc. There was recognition that collaboration between government-only participants behind federal firewalls would require different business rules and constraints than those collaboration efforts which also engaged industry and other non-federal players.

3) TRANSPARENCY: Give the public and interested parties timely data on upcoming and ongoing buying activities, with the goal of promoting fair and high-quality competitions.

Communications. A number of ideas were presented that would enhance the federal government's transparency and external communications with the vendor community during the solicitation process. Use of social media technology, including Twitter, live video streams, webinars, RSS feeds, and on-line chats could be used to supplement (perhaps in time replace) existing communications mechanisms to increase participation and reduce costs in the solicitation process. Several specific ideas included using Twitter to inform vendors of (proposal processing) status and using webinars for pre-proposal conferences or industry days.

Additionally, a number of suggestions indicated some level of frustration with the overall federal acquisition process, but did not directly address how Web 2.0 or social media technologies could be used to improve the process. This being said, these comments are valuable and add to the growing body of knowledge concerning the challenges being faced by today's acquisition professionals. These comments should be discussed and/or addressed by appropriate levels of leadership within the federal government.

I welcome other opinions on the above categorizations, especially if you have a different viewpoint. It's important as we move forward with this project that we understand the focus areas and the value statement of these areas contribute to improving the acquisition process for not only the practitioners, but the ultimate customer - the taxpayer.

There are lots of great ideas on BetterBuy. Applying them to a new acquisition will be a challenging task for federal acquisition professionals, given the risk adverse starting point. GSA's efforts to pilot these ideas will be the topic of my blog.

Step 1 - Form the Team

GSA is forming the acquisition team for this BetterBuy pilot project, identifying the right skill mix of personnel interested in new technology and innovation. First on the agenda is finding a Contracting Officer who is already familar with web 2.0 tools (e.g., someone who uses Facebook, knows what a "tweet" is. . . . ). Once we do that, we move on to the more difficult task:

Step 2 - Talk to Legal

My first reaction to any significant change in acquisition process is that it introduces risk. It may (and should!) yield long term benefits, but we'll never get off the ground without thoughtful support from our legal counsel. Fingers are crossed for that first meeting. I'll bring a copy of the article from Federal Computer Week for them!

Step 3 - Find the Project

In many ways, this will be the easy part. GSA is moving quickly into web 2.0 tools. There will be no shortage of opportunities to find the project. We already have one or two candidates under consideration.

We are looking for feedback and thoughts. Please comment away with tips on how to navigate the process.