Zibb

Ed SperlingOffering news and business analysis for the design engineer, Managing News Editor Suzanne Deffree filters the electronics industry's developments and trends to explain how what's happening in the board room today can impact the tech innovation of tomorrow.



   Advertisement

Profile

RSS Feed

  • Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives

By Category

News Center Articles

Blog

Monday, April 20, 2009

US national CTO not a technologist: Pro or con?

Apr 20 2009 10:46AM | Permalink |Comments (11) |


President Obama has named the United States' first national CTO and who it is came as somewhat of a surprise.

Aneesh Chopra wasn't even on the radar screen. Bets had been placed on big names including Microsoft's Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates, Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and Amazon.com CEO Jeffrey Bezos. Vint Cerf, Google's chief Internet evangelist and one of the designers behind the TCP/IP architecture that made the Internet possible; Ed Felten, a prominent professor of computer science and public affairs at Princeton University; and Larry Lessig, a public-minded scholar on law in the digital age and the founder of Stanford University's Center for the Internet and Society, has been among the lesser-known suspected prospects.

But Chopra, currently the Secretary of Technology for Governor Kaine of Virginia, hadn't been considered a strong possibility. Much of the speculation on who would take the post had been on hometown Silicon Valley folk or those, who like Gates and Felten, may not directly operate or live there, but partner extensively there and focus there career on the industries supported by the region's innovation. Unlike Chopra, the above list is full of people who have extensive experience designing and working in the tech heart of America.

Obama made the announcement in his weekly address on Saturday, with his office titling the April 18 address "Efficiency and Innovation." When I heard the name, my immediate response was "Who?" but a little research has shown that while I, someone focused on the design engineer community, may have never heard of Chopra, he shouldn't immediately be written off. His lack of tech experience could be a pro or a con, depending on how you look at it.

The con angle is pretty easy to see: Chopra has not spent no time "in the tech trenches," as it were. The 37-year old was not a career technologist when he took his seat as Virginia's new secretary of technology in 2005. According to his bio, prior to joining Governor Kaine’s cabinet, Chopra served as managing director with the Advisory Board Company, a publicly traded health-care think tank serving nearly 2,500 hospitals and health systems. He graduated with a masters in public policy from Harvard in 1997 after graduating with a BA from The Johns Hopkins University in 1994.

So the possible negative of Chopra as national CTO is that, unlike a Gates or Cerf, he has no first-hand, hard-core knowledge of what it takes to get a products from brainstorm mode into consumers hands, nor does he have experience in managing techies or an understanding of the what makes up a good tech education. The closest he comes is acting as a part of a group of second-generation Indian Americans that started Avatar Capital, a venture fund that invested $11 million into 18 start-ups, some of which were tech focused. He even conceded that he is that not an expert on the inner workings of technical systems in this 2005 Washington Post article.

The pro side of Chopra is that, unlike a Schmidt or Bezos, he has direct experience in working the way through the mazes and tunnels of government. And while he's no technologist, he's not a bureaucrat, either. He seems to charismatically move well in tech circles and, although his career is short, he has spent much of it cutting through red tape to improve the state's government supported systems (education, for one) and career environment through technology. (See this video of his presentation to Congressional Internet Caucus conference last September where he talks about use of technology to better Virginia).

His health-care background could also prove very valuable as future technology use increases in our medical system, allowing more medical advances and hopefully bettering the failing system by bringing a less complex, data-driven direction through a correlated and open approach.

Despite the gap between Chopra and Silicon Valley, Washington, DC-based TechAmerica praised Obama's choice this morning. Calling the move a “breakthrough for technology policy,” TechAmerica President Phil Bond said: “Aneesh is singularly gifted in communicating the power and potential of technology to improve government, national security, and our economy. His energy is boundless. It is a superb choice.”

Bond noted that his role in Virginia placed him in leadership in the state with the highest concentration of tech workers and a state that added tech jobs for four consecutive years as of 2007.

Obama made specific note of job creation in his statements on the new national CTO Saturday. "In this role, Aneesh will promote technological innovation to help achieve our most urgent priorities – from creating jobs and reducing health-care costs to keeping our nation secure." 

Obama said Chopra will work closely with US CIO Vivek Kundra, who is responsible for setting technology policy across the government, and using technology to improve security, ensure transparency, and lower costs. 

What are your thoughts on Chopra? Will his experience prove advantageous or detrimental in the new national CTO role? Will he be able to help foster innovation and technology to improve America and its ability to compete? Is he a pro or a con for tech? Share your thoughts below.


Reader Comments



at 4/20/2009 11:27:54 AM, Meredith Poor said:
The names you mentioned from Silicon Valley (Gates, Bezos, etc.) gave me the creeps. There is a reason why Native Americans are not appointed to senior positions the Department of the Interior, and those are the same reasons you don't take a Big Name and make them the Federal CTO. Can you imagine what Larry Ellison would be thinking/scheming/plotting/doing if Gates were CTO? Aside from the MIG-29?

If we don't like revolving doors at DOD or the SEC, just imagine what would be going on here.

Obviously then, a tech person who isn't successful (and therefore has no legacy to defend or promote) wouldn't raise alarms on that axis, there would merely be the question of whether there was competence in any area, rather than just that one.

The National CTO needs to bubble up from the states. State CTOs might get their start in major law firms, school districts, public or private hospital organizations, or from within the military. The Venture Capital dimension is not so encouraging. This, again, creates the possibility of conflict of interest.

It might be good if the CTO has some tech hobby, such as ham radio, robotic art, or electric airplanes, but it should be strictly a hobby. This is just so the individual can burn his or her fingers on a soldering iron once in awhile, and try getting some particularly nasty spaghetti code to run. But that's enough.



at 4/20/2009 2:15:05 PM, Moe Jurray said:
I think it''s a wise choice. I agree with many of Meredith''s points as well. Any of the silicon valley insiders would be easily accepted. But this administration is sticking to their mantra of change and applying it everyday to the choices they make.



at 4/20/2009 2:46:23 PM, Dana Durham said:
definatley a "con". But perhaps he's the only guy they could find who didn't pay taxes.



at 4/20/2009 2:51:57 PM, Brad Boyer said:
This selection is a slap in the face of every creative engineer and all US technology workers. The question is not if Chopra is a big name or not, there is only one question that counts. The same one all of us are asked before we are hired for any job. What has Chopra accomplished in any technology development? Of course,if some real engineer or technology developer had been chosen for this post, it would have been one less engineer doing any valuable work in the US economy. So maybe it is not that bad of a choice?



at 4/20/2009 3:05:48 PM, Ed said:
It bothers me that he is not a engineer/scientist. I don''''t mean to sound derogatory, but he sounds more like a polished PowerPoint presenter than a true technologist. He couldn''''t be CTO of any tech company I know with a BA and Masters in public policy. He seems like a bureaucrat...he may be a fine one, but don''''t call him a CTO.



at 4/20/2009 3:55:43 PM, J.O. said:
You make a good point M.D.; however, this gent isn’t a graduate of the "Kennedy School of Free Men and Markets" at Harvard. While I would agree that we don't wish to see a fox guarding a national henhouse, I also get "the creeps" when I see people who think the best way to make a difference in this world is to seek power and influence in government.

The idea, that a successful background in technology automatically disqualifies an appointee is a bit over-the-top in my book. If you sincerely believe that the best source of a CTO might be a "major law firm,” would you also agree that the best appointee for Attorney General or Surgeon General might be a computer engineer or programmer?

Like you, I believe that the revolving door phenomenon is certainly a serious issue in the U.S. government and industry; however, if your (apparent) suggestion is that people from outside the technology industry have no “agendas,” I would find that point a bit wide of the mark.

While it is certainly true that industry sympathizers at the SEC did not serve the citizenry well, it is also true that government officials with "social engineering” agendas – that is, misguided “Robin Hood” types who apparently didn’t understand (or care to recognize) the economic foundations of banking played a HUGE role in screwing things up on a grand scale.

Perhaps the scariest part of the overarching “drive to centralize” information technology (under the guise of “efficiency”) is that the potential for Big Brother abuses may well be amplified far beyond what we have today, or that the Fed’s will make a massive investment in something that turns out to be just plain loopy—or both (do a Wiki on “Clipper Chip”). Now THAT should give you the willies. There are already agencies that handle government purchasing of all kinds of stuff. This new office looks suspiciously like it was created to drive industry toward political goals, rather than simply making our daily government operations more efficient.

He seems like a fine gent and I'm all for giving him a chance, but if he starts mandating solar-powered submarines or directs government purchases of IT hardware/software based upon a company’s “commitment to diversity” or contributions to a presidential library, you might wish a techie were calling the shots. Do we really need another Czar? We'll see, eh?



at 4/20/2009 6:12:30 PM, panabiker said:
This is like appointing a oil man without any medical background to the Surgeon General, or an engineer to the Attorney General.

Will the sky be falling? Probably not. Is it the best decision? No.



at 4/20/2009 10:50:20 PM, Meredith Poor said:
Two points in response to some of the comments: The CTO would have been a technology officer at the other company, not a lawyer, doctor, etc. I apologize for leaving the impression that someone in this role should start out on a widely variant career path.
~~~ I'm not sure the CTO will be all that involved in the mechanics of requisition. If someone were to study the IRS or VA, for instance, they would have seen decades of tech bungles. I've been involved in one of these personally, although (honest) it was already screwed up when I got there. The CTO needs to unravel this kind of mess.



at 5/1/2009 2:06:44 PM, Scott said:
Whether this is a good or bad choice depends highly upon the vision Obama has for this office. And perhaps the choice itself points toward that vision. If Chopra is to be focused on applying technolgoy to fix the governments many ills, perhaps it isn''''t a bad choice. However, if the vision were broader, say setting national technology strategies that keep the US in the forefront of the battle for global leadership in technology, as I think it should be, then I say nay.



at 6/12/2009 11:00:43 AM, Kirt B. said:
It doesn't matter what you know... it's who you know. After all, the new Fed-appointed chairman of GM admits to not knowing anything about cars.

www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aQ._YJhEj_Jo

So much for hope and change.



at 6/13/2009 7:22:36 AM, Disappointed said:
I am terribly disappointed that OBAMA did not
appoint a Harvard trained lawyer. There are thousands of Harvard trained lawyers out "there" who would
like this job.

Post a comment



Display Name

Change Image
Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above.
Note the letters are NOT case sensitive.


ADVERTISEMENT

©1997-2009 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other Reed Business sites