What Silicon Valley Can Do For Homeland Security

An anonymous reader writes "Small, agile development firms are just what security in the United States needs, argues an article on Ars Technica. The piece compares the processes used in small Silicon Valley firms to those used in security contractors retained by the U.S. Government. Mr. Stokes' conclusion? The U.S. has a lot to learn from small companies." From the article: "Whether it's nuke detection technology at ports, computer automated wiretapping and data traffic snooping, or massive government data mining operations, our present approach to homeland security is embodied for me in those 14-foot pillars: ponderous, expensive technologies designed by government-funded teams of scientists who're working in vain to outmaneuver not just the terrorists, but the surging global market for technological innovation in which those terrorists thrive. By way of contrast, the Sandia group's DIY nuke detector represents an attempt to fight fire with fire by harnessing the same market forces and entrepreneurial spirit that terrorists have learned to use so effectively."

Comments

Here's a dose of reality

[AnyLoveIsGoodLove]

Although I agree with the basic premise that government can learn a lot from start ups small businesses, here's what life's like around the beltway.

Note: I work for a consulting firm based out of the DC area. We have a combination of commercial and Federal / Public sector clients

From the small business side:

You can't imagine the procurement requirements and overhead costs to do business in the Federal sector. Here are some examples:

1) FSO - Security officer to manage the clearances of your employees and company. Can't live with out it
2) Contract Vehicles - GSA Schedules are expensive to maintain or outsource.
3) Contracting Officers - Specialist who deal with government Contracting Officers.
4) Low Rates - Combined with the large overhead requirements above, is a problem. Trying finding competent technical help in DC.
5) Accounts Receivable that can stretch to 180 days without blinking.
6) Can't leverage commerical sales, must hire a dedicated sales force that understands the market.

Again for the big beltway bandits, these are small overhead items, but for a 150 person company, these are significant line items.

From the Government Side:

1) Risk adverse. If you screw up a small project or procurement, you could wind up on the cover of the Washington post. Not a good place to be if you're a GS12 bureaucrat waiting for your GS13.
2) Insane Budget Cycles: If you don't use it you lose it. There's a reason why so much gets done in late August / September around DC.
3) Preference for the "usual suspects" like Lockheed, Booz Allen, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Unisys, Titan etc. With items one and two, why try a new small untested company. Many companies around the beltway have gone out of business and screwed the gov. At least you know they are not going any where.
4) Compliance requirements that make SarbOX look like child's play.

That's just a small hint at the problems with doing business with the federal governement. I sure the UK or other Western Countries have the same issues. ...... but......why might you ask do companies invest at the end of the day....?

There are not too many super enterprises that release contracts on a multi-year basis. Once you get over the moat, you are in.