The Foreign Service Journal, May 2010

14 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / M A Y 2 0 1 0 O n my initial overseas assign- ment in the late 1980s, I was surprised to see that my boss used a manual typewriter. When I asked him why, he insisted that com- puters were unreliable and likely just a passing fad. And I’ve never heard a more self-satisfied “I told you so” than when there was any kind of problem with that early Wang system. To him, technology was something real Foreign Service officers could do without. While I’d like to think that he was an anomaly, I saw many instances of this sort of aversion to technology — from the assistant secretary whose office management specialist printed out his e-mails for handwritten responses be- cause he’d never learned to use his computer, to a colleague at an overseas mission who refused to let her staff compile media reviews from online sources because “they might be differ- ent” than the hard-copy print versions. (At the other end of the spectrum, there are those who view the use of technology as a sort of badge of rank, turning the distribution of Blackberry devices into the equivalent of the key to the executive washroom, rather than seeing it as an essential tool for getting people out of their offices and engaged with counterparts and con- tacts.) Certainly many State Department and USAID officers recognize that new, or at least updated, technologies are critical. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell deserves special recogni- tion for getting everyone at State mod- ern computers and desktop access to the Internet. The department has also made a sustained effort to increase the availability of both secure and non-se- cure video teleconferencing equip- ment, expand employee remote access to Opennet, and increase the number of government-provided laptops and mobile devices. Secretary of State Hillary RodhamClinton’s appointment of a senior adviser for innovation, Alec Ross, was another welcome step. Regrettably, however, State has for many years been the most reluctant of “late adopters.” Some of that reluc- tance is due to the historic shortchang- ing of foreign affairs activities in the federal budget — something that is going to be a factor again as the impact of the current recession and the grow- ing national debt start to crowd out dis- cretionary spending of all kinds. But making technology the first item to be dropped or deferred when budgets get tight and people look at ways to save money contributes to a vi- cious cycle of perennial obsolescence at an agency whose missions are among the most complex and communica- tions-intensive of any in government. While State will never have the re- sources of the Pentagon or the intelli- gence community, it should at least have some of the technology they use to become more effective players on the world stage. And the good news is that much of it is available at a fraction of the cost it took to develop. The problem is not only budgetary, however. To take full advantage of technology, State needs to adopt a new attitude toward innovation and a real willingness to experiment that it has lacked to date. A Priority Issue Perhaps you think I’m overstating the potential gains? If so, take a look at the many studies that have been done over the last few years, both by in- house groups and concerned outsiders, all of which underscore the importance of adapting new technologies to make the Foreign Service stronger and more capable. The Center for Strategic and Inter- national Studies’ landmark 2000 “Em- bassy of the Future” report identifies technology as the second priority for Time for State to Get Up to Speed B Y T OM C ASEY S PEAKING O UT To take full advantage of technology, State needs to adopt a new attitude toward innovation.