January 8, 2001

Printer ready

IT Execs Speak Out On Technology

More on politics in IT:

Undue Influence? (10/9/00) Presidential Focus (10/9/00) TechWeb: Ranks Of Privacy 'Pragmatists' Are Growing (12/7/00)

Send Us Your Feedback

ne day before the presidential election results were made official on Dec. 12, a group of CIOs met at Manhattan's venerable 21 Club at InformationWeek's invitation. Led by the maitre d'hotel through the kitchen and along a labyrinth of corridors and stairs, the group convened in a subterranean dining hall lined with wine bottles. Once a swank Gotham speakeasy, the wine cellar on this day was the setting for a luncheon discussion on the topic these executives are most passionate about: technology. In particular, InformationWeek was interested in finding out what these technology managers might want to say to the incoming chief executive. Participants included Peter Bavoso, VP of E-commerce for Darby Group Companies; John Carrow, VP and CIO for Unisys; Mark Goldberg, CIO for Goodwill Industries International; and Sharon Sibigtroth, managing director at AXA Client Solutions. Excerpts of their discussion follow.

InformationWeek: To start, what are the general issues in terms of technology the new president should attend to?

Sibigtroth: Security. Some of the issues related to encryption. Companies have to deal with these issues. We don't always agree with where the government is going; sometimes we're not sure where they're going.

Carrow: There have been some limitations in terms of exportability of U.S. technology products, and legislation has been enacted or is pending in terms of some open border regulations on shipping. The president needs to recognize this is key to the U.S. and global economy, and exports ought to be opened up on a broad basis.

Bavoso: We have a manufacturing plant in the United Kingdom, and we're upgrading the equipment there. We took things for granted because we were simply going to put in new workstations, file servers, and software. Getting the products into the U.K. was one thing. Getting the licensing and everything was something else.

Carrow: There are a lot of global businesses, and the situation just described is indicative of how companies that want to be global need to have flexibility to do things in a very global manner. And there are laws and regulations associated with that--export controls and taxation laws.

InformationWeek: Does the administration need to continue relaxing export controls, or is it more about countries working so we're all on common ground regarding encryption?

Carrow: It's the latter. The flexibility that has been extended by the current administration needs to be continued, and where there are pockets of resistance toward export controls, we ought to try and get those relaxed. Everything is done in balance. We recognize national security interests and this has to be considered, but from an economic perspective, we ought to want to have a fairly moderate policy toward export controls.

Bavoso: The general perception is that it's a whole lot easier to get stuff into this country than it is to get it out. That's the bottom line.

Carrow: There are also the workforce issues. We've got a lot of highly technical workforces outside the United States. We have limitations in terms of [obtaining] visas and coming in to the United States at a point when we have tremendous demand for technical labor.

InformationWeek: That's a hot-button issue. Not everyone agrees more visas should be issued.

Carrow: But look what's going to happen--if you don't do some of that, then the work goes offshore.

Sibigtroth: That hits on another issue as well. We don't seem to invest in our educational system so that we're developing the kind of skilled labor the country needs.

Bavoso: We've all experienced the problem of hiring. I would love to be able to hire native people here if they would come through the door; they don't even come through the door.

Carrow: In the long term, the emphasis has to be on getting the labor from here, whether it's through different educational structuring within universities or through programs within inner cities or workforces that we know exist but aren't trained properly.

Goldberg: It doesn't necessarily have to be funded only by the government. It should be done in conjunction with the private sector.

InformationWeek: What does the president need to know if the IT labor shortage and education aren't addressed?

Sibigtroth: We will fall behind and it will impede our growth.

Goldberg: And we'll continue to bring in offshore resources and workforces. It's about a commitment to look at the digital divide, which is what we're talking about, then turning it into a digital opportunity--and training people and funding programs in the United States. We've got a large group of people who can be retrained to perform high-tech jobs and fill these shortages.

Carrow: The government probably understands the digital divide. The question is whether it's a national priority and whether it's getting the leadership from the top. It's getting to the point that in order to have peace and a good economy, technology has to be a dominant agenda item. And we need skills to support technology.

Sibigtroth: I agree with you. It's similar to those who looked at IT as an expense for many, many years.

Bavoso: Representation in the administration should be more than just someone who thinks about technology; it should be a person who's in a position to do something.

Sibigtroth: Maybe it's a secretary position.

Bavoso: A Secretary of Technology. I don't know what they would call it.

Carrow: There's a bill floating through Congress to do that. Over time, we've seen the role of the CIO become increasingly important, but in my mind it has to go beyond that. It still takes leadership at the top of the organization for a CIO's effectiveness to take place. Just creating a position, whether it's a secretary or a federal CIO or whatever, isn't enough. There has to be the head--that's the president, in this case--of the organization, the administration, to say there's an emphasis on this.

Goldberg: So there has to be support at the top. It sounds like if this were to happen, it would have to be a Cabinet-level position reporting directly to the president.

Bavoso: Because if you're a CIO in an organization that doesn't have the emphasis, or won't put the emphasis on technology, then you're going to lose.

InformationWeek: We know it took years for businesses to understand the potential of IT. Are you saying that it's time for the government to have a better understanding, not just of business and commerce in this country, but also of the role that technology plays in it?

Bavoso: Both for the economy and for improving every American's life. Technology is, whether we like it or not, threaded through our personal lives and our business lives.

Sibigtroth: Today things are not dissimilar to the Industrial Age 100 years ago. It's the same kind of situation--wild and without controls.

InformationWeek: Doesn't it go against the grain of private industry and the private sector in this country for the government to "impose" itself?

Carrow: There's a balance that has to be achieved.

Goldberg: Done in partnership with private industry. Let's work together.

Carrow: Look at the automobile industry. Regulation has brought it from where it was at the start of this century to a fairly refined industry at this point in time.

Bavoso: I grew up in the telecommunications industry. Back in the early '80s my job was very easy, when AT&T did it all. Now we've come full circle, and things are a lot better. My job is a lot more difficult because of the diversity and all the services that are available. But from a consumer's perspective, we can take advantage of the fact that we have more than one provider in the world.

Goldberg: Competition is good.

InformationWeek: One thing the government is talking a lot about is privacy.

Carrow: With privacy, you almost have to talk about security, too. These need to be agenda items. Otherwise, we'll be driven by the rest of the world, and we'll be limited in terms of some of the rules and regulations. If we had better security associated with our systems and our data and how that data is handled across the world, then maybe privacy would be modulated some. I hate to talk about regulation, but maybe there needs to be something more in terms of security than what we have today.

Illustration by Ellen Weinstein
Photos by Bruce Katz

continue on to page 2

Back to This Week's Issue
Send Us Your Feedback
Top of the Page