Frankly, a national CIO/CTO would scare the hell out of me! The United States has become the world's technology leader because we were largely free from governmental constraint. Say what they will, I've never seen a U.S. Department of Anything stay true to its original objective and not attempt to become the mother of all good things.

Another layer of bureaucracy is not needed. An executive-level leader for advocacy of techincal infrastructure is very much needed. The new department would establish technology goals for infrastructure, education and advise on policy to the extent that technology can improve current and future policy, as it's being developed.

The country is in a comparatively backward position relative to the international competition. Information technology (not knowledge) is an enabling mechanism that has demonstrated to multiply productivity. The elements that lead to technological capability MUST be addressed at a governmental policy level -- things like education, physical infrastructure, etc.

Right now, decision making on technology is decentralized and perhaps some economies of scale opportunities may be missed out. But I do feel centralizing could also cause harm because of bureaucracy and not being agile enough.

In addition, several agencies like NSA, DoD, NASA, etc. have specific needs and centralized decision making would not make sense and bog things down.

So, on the whole, I think it may not make sense to have a national CIO/CTO.

Having a national tech leader is a huge undertaking and I don't think there is any ONE person out there that can do the job *satisfactorily*. There needs to be a national tech team of innovative, collaborative, creative, open minds made of not just techies but from different industries. There has to be solid representation looking out for everyone.

Anyone that can help President-Elect Obama understand that FTTP is the enabling technology for the disruptive innovation required to drive the paradigm shift that will allow 75 million Americans to video-commute and create millions of new jobs in the tech sector building out infrastructure, network security and SaaS apps as the NWO of cloud computing, teleprescence, telecollaboration and telework converge is exactly the job of a national CIO/CTO as embodied in Eric Schmidt.

Instead of throwing hundreds of billions at transportation infrastructure, the federal government needs throw tens of billions at telecommunications infrastructure in the buildout of FTTP to every home in America. If you are moving ideas at the speed of light, why would you need to sit in traffic for hours on end, just to make yourself a target by concentrating your human assets in World Trade centers, the Pentagon and other federal, state, county, and city buildings and city centers? The President needs to understand that it is a multifaceted homeland security issue involving energy policy, computer security, human asset protection and embracing the creative economy. There are very few sectors of the American economy that cannot improve their efficiency and productivity by videocommuting all tertiary and quaternary sector employees.

For President-Elect Obama a GIO/CIO/CTO, is the ticket. Bottom up, the CTO builds out the nationalized technology infrastructure, the CIO brings leadership in
resource, customer, budget and change management, security, compliance and political acumen, and the GIO brings a unified common operational
picture of the federalized assets all Americans are purchasing/bailing out today, hell a trillion here a trillion there, pretty soon you and I own/invested (nationalized/federalized) in every mismanaged company in the world, hence the need for a GIO. Godspeed, Mr. Schmidt.

Having presented to the DHS (specifically to the Coast Guard on two occassions back in 2004) I say YES there is a need, but only by "tech" you mean to include the role of INFORMATION solutions. After 9/11, funds released for port security to mitigate impending risks were spent on HAZMAT suits at individual locations and very siloed to studies rather than a holistic solution (your tax money at work).

Instead of tackling the problem of information sharing between juristictions and across all levels of public security organizations, we are now poised for reacting to crisis rather knowing, countrywide, where our vulnerabilities really are. I like the CKO reply since data sharing leads to digestable information which then in the hands of subject matter experts can "hopefully" lead to KNOWLEDGE! Of all places, isn't our government in need of this .... not "intelligence" but technological "knowledge".

I think that President-Elect Obama has been able to articulate as a whole the huge dissatifaction many of us have felt for the lack of any real leadership over the last 4 years.

Much of the problem with technology needs to be in synch with Obama's vision for the U.S., what is possible, and especially on creating a motivated work force.

Obviously things aren't going to get done if all that is said is we need some new technology, but no one is motivated to start it, do it, and then finish it.

Some would argue that we already have a highly motivated workforce, but we live in a time where people are not looking for the future anymore. Instead, they are looking for the next day's handout by the government, in a society that fears spending money. We need to get away from this, do a systems flush, and create a new way of doing things that work.

I think we need to revamp our foundations from home land security, monetary systems and technology to work in a society where people are no longer afraid of tomorrow and willing to embrace change and have great hope for the future.

Marc

I think that creating standards, for example, for the federal government could never be a good solution. Each federal agency has a CIO, and they should be able to define the best approach for their agency, There is a CIO Council that meets to get some standardization and synergy where possible, but these agencies run on different schedules and have different priorities. There was some promising work done by the OMB early in the Bush administration on creating a common reference model, and efforts like this should be encouraged.

Also, the federal adminstration is only part of the problem. State and local government amount to something like a trillion dollars a year in spending and would not be under the purview of this new position.

I think there is a need to get the various parts of government to be more effective with technology, but I don't think a technology czar is the way to go.

Neil Raden
twitter: nraden

I think that there should be such a person because when everything is said and done there has to be someone to make one decision and not to dither with twenty decisions. As there is nowhere in the world a peson with complete 360 degrees IT knowledge this person should have a team of advisors, pretty much like a president has to have, knowledgeable in various IT fields. Who could be a candidate/contender for such a post? The answer is easy. Almost anyone from the hall of fame of IT: Bill Gates, Steven Jobs, Clive Sinclair (I know that he is British, but a lot of your countrymen have been Brittish,.., Zdenko Sizgoric (I know I am not a American but a lot of your countrymen have been my countrymen) e.t.c. Advisor can be all these who haven't been elected as IT president and aren't so disgrunted to be second, third e.t.c. and want to work under anyone else from the above list even for a king's ransom.

Best
Zdenko

If we do not have any agreement about the problem to be solved, we shouldn't add a layer of bureaucracy to find one.

While several emerging world powers may appear to have better infrastructure due to "centralized planning," the fact is, most of them did so by seizing personal property via their version of eminent domain. While that is a successful way of building out an initial infrastructure, it isn't a sustainable model -- the people will ultimately become disaffected and unproductive if not in outright rebellion.

Our country remains the largest market and user of information technology solutions in the world by a LARGE margin. Does that mean that we are an efficient and leading-edge user? We could find countless examples. Does that mean that we can find tons of old technology and people that don't know how to cooperate to implement new ones in their place? Absolutely. After all, we are the most successful, large and diversified technology user in the world.

With size and history in mind, decentralization is the only option. It has met with much success so far. In fact, it is a hallmark of our democracy and has much to do with why we will adapt to new realities such as the ones that came to roost in 2008.