GAO issues AI accountability framework for agencies

The Government Accountability Office has released its much-anticipated artificial intelligence accountability framework in an effort to oversee how agencies are implementing the emerging technology.

GAO‘s framework describes key practices across four parts of the development life cycle — governance, data, performance and monitoring — to help agencies, industry, academia and nonprofits responsibly deploy AI.

Agencies’ inspectors general (IGs), legal counsels, auditors and other compliance professionals needed a framework to conduct their own credible assessments of AI notwithstanding congressional audit requests.

“The only way for you to verify that your AI, in fact, is not biased is through independent verification, and that piece of the conversation has been largely missing,” Taka Ariga, chief data scientist at GAO, told FedScoop. “So GAO, given our oversight role, decided to take a proactive step in filling that gap and not necessarily wait for some technology maturity plateau before we addressed it.”

GAO would always be playing catch-up, given the speed AI is advancing, otherwise, Ariga added.

AI systems are made up of components like machine-learning models that must operate according to the same mission values. For instance, self-driving cars with their cameras and computer vision are systems of systems all working to ensure passenger safety, and it falls not only to auditors but ethicists and civil liberties groups to discuss both their performance and societal impacts.

“We want to make sure that oversight is not being treated as a compliance function,” Ariga said. “There are complicated risks around privacy, complicated risks around technology, around procurement and around disparate impacts.”

GAO’s framework, released Wednesday, is a “forward-looking” way to address those risks absent a standard risk-management framework specific to AI, he added. The agency wants to ensure risk management, oversight and implementation co-evolve as the technology advances to what the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency calls Wave 3: contextual adaptation, where AI models explain their decisions to drive further decisions.

Another goal of the framework is to include a human-centered element in AI deployment.

With agencies already procuring AI solutions, GAO’s framework makes requirements, documentation and evaluation inherently governmental functions. That’s why every practice outlined includes a set of questions for oversight bodies, auditors and third-party assessors to ask, in addition to procedures for the latter two groups.

The rights to audit AI, inspect models and access data are critical to their efforts.

“It will be detrimental long term if vendors are able to shield the intellectual property aspects of the conversation,” Ariga said.

Attempts to audit AI have already occurred, most notably the Department of Defense‘s effort when the Joint AI Center was created in 2018. But DOD ran into issues because there was no standard definition of AI, and it lacked AI inventories to assess. Fast forward to the present day, and many companies now offer AI and algorithmic assessments.

GAO is already using its new framework to investigate various AI use cases, and other agencies’ IGs have expressed interest in using it, too.

“The timing is great because we actually have a number of ongoing engagements in national security, in homeland security, in the justice domain that involve AI,” Ariga said.

The framework will evolve over time, possibly into an AI scorecard for agencies — an idea proposed by former Rep. Will Hurd, R-Texas, in September.

Google and the JAIC are considering AI model or data cards, while nonprofits have proposed something more akin to a nutrition label, but GAO’s framework doesn’t prescribe a particular accountability method— rather it evaluates the rationale behind whatever mechanism is chosen.

Future iterations of the framework will also ask what transparency and explainability mean for different AI use cases. From facial recognition to self-driving cars to application-screening algorithms to drug development, each carries with it varying degrees of privacy and technology risk.

People won’t need a justification for every turn a self-driving car makes, but they’ll eventually want to know why, to the nth degree, and algorithm is flagging an MRI as anomalous in a cancer diagnosis.

“We knew having to do individual use case nuances would’ve taken us decades before we could ever issue something like this,” Ariga said. “So we decided to focus on common elements of all AI development.”

At the same time departments like Transportation and Veterans Affairs have started collaborating to develop their AI strategies, even though the former’s focus is safety and the latter’s customer service — given their shared workforce, infrastructure, development and procurement issues.

In developing the framework, Ariga said he was “surprised” to find not everyone in government is on board with the notion of accountable AI.

Undergraduate data scientists don’t always receive ethics training and are instead taught to prioritize accuracy, performance and confidence. They carry that perspective with them into government jobs developing AI code, only to have people tell them to eliminate bias for the first time, Ariga said.

At the same time a competing camp argues data scientists shouldn’t shape the world that should be but reflect the one they live in, and AI bias and disparate impacts are someone else’s problem.

Ariga’s team kept that disagreement in mind, while engaging with government and industry AI experts and oversight officials, to avoid placing an undue onus on any one group while developing GAO’s framework.

Government will eventually need to provide additional AI ethics training to data scientists as part of workforce and implementation risk management, training that academic institutions will likely adopt — much the same way medical ethicists came about, Ariga said.

“Maybe not tomorrow but certainly in the near future because, at least in the public sector domain, our responsibility to get it right is so high,” he said. “A lot of these AI implementations actually do have life or death consequences.”

Oak Ridge National Lab appoints Dilling as director of strategic planning

Oak Ridge National Laboratory has appointed Jens Dilling as director of strategic planning.

He joins on August 9 from Canada’s particle accelerator center, TRIUMF, where he currently works as associate laboratory director. Previously, he served as deputy head of TRIMF’s science division, and led the department of nuclear physics and isotope separator and accelerator science.

In the new role, Dilling will guide the development of laboratory strategies, strategic investments and annual planning, as well as manage the facility’s discretionary investment portfolio. He will also manage ORNL’s research library, which equips staff with the tools needed for research and development.

He has been an adjunct professor at the University of British Columbia since 2004. He received his doctorate and undergraduate degrees in physics from the University of Heidelberg, Germany.

Dilling’s research focuses on characterizing the strong force using precise mass measurements, in particular investigating atomic physics techniques applied to nuclear physics using particle accelerators.

Oak Ridge is a multiprogram science and technology laboratory that is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy. It is at the center of a push to develop a new exascale computing system called frontier, which will be eight times faster than the nation’s current most powerful supercomputer, Summit, which is also housed at the laboratory.

It is one of 17 laboratories run by the Department of Energy, including the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois, and Ames Laboratory in Iowa. They work on a combination of enterprise research and the work that must be carried out for the safe management of the country’s nuclear weapons stockpile.

DHS awards $395.5M data center support contract to General Dynamics

The Department of Homeland Security has awarded a data center support services contract to General Dynamics Information Technology.

In a notice on Sam.gov the agency announced the details of the contract, which has an 18-month ordering period, and a maximum ceiling value of $395.5M.

Through the contract, General Dynamics will continue to provide existing DC1 services, which consist of a government-owned contractor-operated enterprise data center, infrastructure-as-a-service environments, and co-location facilities.

The services will be provided on an interim basis until a Data Center and Cloud Optimization contract is awarded in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2021 and a contractor is in place.

It is the latest contract win by General Dynamics, which late last year was re-awarded the Defense Enterprise Office Solution (DEOS) contract for cloud-based email and collaboration tools across the DOD, following a drawn-out procurement battle.

DARPA commissions research into neural network camera technology

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has selected three companies to work on a research program that could dramatically lower the amount of bandwidth used by networks of cameras.

The program, which is called Fast Event-based Neuromorphic Camera and Electronics (FENCE), aims to develop cameras that sense motion, but which are able also to determine what motion is important and represents a threat. According to the agency, the new technology could reduce latency and the usage of network capacity by transmitting only necessary information.

Raytheon, BAE Systems and Northrup Grumman are the three defense contractors that have been chosen to work on the research project.

Neuromorphic computer systems refers to silicon circuits that mimic brains. Other research arms of the military have been on the hunt for neuromorphic computing systems that multiply the power that conventional AI systems have to churn through data.

Cameras that are able to operate with less bandwidth and lower latency are especially important to the U.S. military, because they must operate in theaters of war, where networks are often unreliable.

“The goal is to develop a ‘smart’ sensor that can intelligently reduce the amount of information that is transmitted from the camera, narrowing down the data for consideration to only the most relevant pixels,” Whitney Mason, the program manager leading the FENCE program said in a news release.

“Event-based cameras operate under these same principles when dealing with sparse scenes, but currently lack advanced ‘intelligence’ to perform more difficult perception and control tasks,” she added.

Cameras can already do some of this type of work in scenes that have few changes in the camera’s field of vision, but their capabilities become less reliable in complex or cluttered scenes.

DIU approves cloud management tools from Google, Zscaler and McAfee

The Defense Innovation Unit on Thursday said it has cleared new secure cloud management tools from three non-traditional defense companies that will facilitate video teleconferencing and cloud file sharing.

DIU is running its pilot with Google Cloud, Zscaler and McAfee Public Sector, all of which received “success memos” following a year of initial testing. The memos allow any DOD organization to use the SCM prototypes. Eventually, one company will be selected for a larger, long-term contract, likely by September, DIU said.

“These solutions simplify engagement with non-traditional technology vendors by allowing DIU users to collaborate in real time. The solutions provide equivalent security and control to the DoD’s Cloud Access Point (CAP) while delivering real-time performance, which is critical for such things as videoconferencing and file sharing,” John Chen, interim CIO for DIU, said in a release.

The Department of Defense currently has an acute need for cloud management tools for use in projects including its Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) program.

According to the DIU, technology from the three companies embraces zero trust principles, in line with the May 2021 Executive Order that is focused on improving the nation’s cybersecurity and DOD’s recent Zero Trust Reference Architecture. DIU hopes the way it prototyped the new tech can serve as a guide for other organizations throughout the department looking to implement zero trust principle.

“We have seen widespread interest in our SCM effort from Services and DOD agencies that are looking for solutions to similar challenges,” said Rick Simon, contractor and DIU project lead. “These successful prototypes will give services and agencies several independently-assessed choices, especially as they implement zero trust architectures.”

Lawmakers push back on VA’s plan to use ‘opaque’ fund for IT modernization

Lawmakers aren’t very bullish about the Department of Veterans Affairs’ new plan to repurpose funds from other accounts to fund its IT modernization projects, they said in a hearing Thursday.

Some members of the House Veterans’ Affairs Technology Modernization Subcommittee equated the VA’s recent request to take $670 million from its Transformational Fund (TF) account to supplement its $4.8 billion proposed budget for IT in fiscal 2022 to taking from an “opaque, uncertain slush fund.” Doing so puts VA’s overall proposed IT budget for next year at roughly $5.5 billion, compared to the $4.9 billion VA received in fiscal 2021.

“I need a lot more information about the Transformational Fund to be convinced it will be a reliable productive funding source,” subcommittee Ranking Member Rep. Matt Rosendale, R-Mont., said during the hearing.

The Transformational Fund consists of past discretionary funds that went unused in prior appropriations cycles. Fiscal 2022 will be the first year that the VA can use money deposited in the fund, as the leftover appropriations need to sit untouched for five years before tapping into them. But there are limitations on what the VA can use them for, namely the improvement of health care facility infrastructure and “IT systems improvements and sustainment,” per the law.

Though Congress granted the VA the authority to start the fund five years ago under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, lawmakers now worry it is creating a harmful incentive for the agency to underspend what it’s been budgeted so it can later use those funds freely for IT or infrastructure — thought it’s completely within the law to do so.

“What is very concerning to me is that these funds that were dedicated or earmarked to be utilized for the delivery of health care purposes and now are being diverted out … and they go into a fund that gives you dramatic latitude on where it could be spent,” Rosendale said.

VA acting CIO Dominic Cussatt tried to assuage members by saying department leaders “manage the demand very carefully.” Department CFO Jon Rychalski said the funding often comes from contracts that finish under budget or services the VA budgeted for but did not end up needing.

“A lot of it has to do with [contracts] that just didn’t cost as much as we thought it was going to,” Rychalski said.

He defended the concept of the fund by saying “it was, in my estimation, a smart move [and] very much appreciated.”

Ultimately, though, to establish checks and balances, Congress has the power of the purse and oversight over executive branch spending. And Rosendale and subcommittee Chair Rep. Frank Mrvan, D-Ind., shared concern for the lack of oversight Congress could have on how the VA spends money in the Transformational Fund.

“I am concerned that modernization of IT assets and the critical upgrade of VA’s financial system are not included in the base budget request,” but instead in the Transformational Fund, Mrvan said.

Mrvan also voiced concerns about the management of the VA’s new electronic health record modernization funding. Part of the program is funded through the Veterans Health Administration’s budget and another by the department’s Office of Information Technology budget — a split that the subcommittee chair said could lead to a lack of oversight.

“In our accounting system, we are keeping track of all of them,” Rychalski said of the accounts associated with the EHR program, which has a projected cost of $16 billion over its scheduled 10-year lifespan.

Tech contractors urge NIH to answer their questions about $50B CIO-SP4 contract

The Professional Services Council has urged the National Institutes of Health to explain its treatment of tech industry questions about the request for proposals (RFP) issued for a long-awaited, $50 billion health IT contract.

In a letter of complaint sent Monday, PSC queried the agency’s decision to modify and consolidate industry questions before responding to them in RFP amendments. The advocacy group described NIH’s response as inequitable and confusing.

The recently-launched Chief Information Officer-Solutions and Partners 4 (CIO-SP4) contract, which has a higher funding ceiling than the prior CIO-SP3 contract vehicle, is managed by NIH.

NITAAC already had to re-compete the best-in-class, governmentwide acquisition contract, introduced back in March 2020 so NIH institutes and centers, the Department of Health and Human Services, and other agencies could purchase IT for biomedical research, software development, cloud services and cybersecurity. Now its new RFP and subsequent amendments are creating “more anxiety and concern” for contractors as they attempt to form teams to make bids on CIO-SP4, according to PSC.

“Unfortunately, there were many surprises in the final RFP released on May 25,” PSC said in the letter. “In the month since that release, amendments containing imprecise and at times inconsistent language have only contributed to further confusion among interested offerers, forcing them either to consider alternative strategies within the severely compressed timeframe for response or to abandon their pursuit of the CIO-SP4 opportunity altogether.”

PSC requested NITAAC list all of industry’s original questions concerning bid evaluation and submission requirements with its answers.

The advocacy group further asked that NITAAC extend the RFP response deadline to July 30, 2021, at the earliest and set its window for contractor past performance information and project descriptions to 36 months prior to the RFP’s release, rather than yet another due date — a moving target creating more work for contractors.

NITAAC’s third amendment issued June 22 only extended the response deadline 10 days to July 8, and the fourth amendment issued June 24 didn’t come with any extension. The July 8 deadline is “inadequate” for many potential offerers because NITAAC updated its past performance questionnaire, and it could take contractors up to 30 days to get approval from other agencies to share the required information, according to PSC.

NITAAC also removed a ban on using first-tier contractor past performance, which could affect teaming and joint venture arrangements that take time to negotiate and finalize.

PSC expressed additional concerns about the ISO 20000 “Go/No-Go” requirement and the lack of an attachment or certification document supporting it, as well as requiring development of up to 39 separate project descriptions — which other agencies will likely need to approve. Contractors also worried about the lack of guidance on required documentation for corporate experience.

NIH didn’t respond to a request for comment on PSC’s letter and a new extension by publication time, but the advocacy group is prepared for a drawn-out process.

“[A]ny additional explanations, clarifications, or corrections that NITAAC sees fit to provide in response to this letter and any other similar letters would seem to require future amendments,” PSC said. “That process, too, will take time, if it is to lead to a successful acquisition outcome.”

NSA not sharing information on controversial surveillance system, whistleblower alleges

The National Security Agency never provided its historical legal analyses of its XKeyscore surveillance system, according to a member of the independent oversight board that has been investigating it for the last five years.

Though the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board asked the NSA for all its prior legal analyses showing XKeyscore system’s data analytics comply with federal law, all it’s received is a 13-page memo from general counsel in 2016.

At more than a decade old, XKeyscore — first flagged by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013 — is used to search massive internet traffic databases to find and analyze a target’s communications. But the unavoidable, incidental collection of citizens’ personal information raises legal concerns the NSA never proved to PCLOB it considered before launching the system, Travis LeBlanc, a Democratic member of the board appointed by former President Trump, said in an unclassified statement released Tuesday.

“At a general level and on the basis of the documents that have been provided to the board, it is concerning that any surveillance tool would have been conceptualized, coded, implemented, and then executed and routinely used without such a prior written legal analysis,” LeBlanc wrote.

Of PCLOB’s five members, only LeBlanc voted against the release of what he called a “rushed” report on XKeyscore to Congress, the White House and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in March.

The NSA told PCLOB its 2016 memo was based on legal analyses of XKeyscore conducted prior to the system’s launch — analyses general counsel did not or could not provide. The agency didn’t respond to a request for comment on the number of legal analyses completed or their withholding them from the board, by publication time.

LeBlanc further criticized NSA general counsel for basing its memo on dated case law and failing to update its legal analysis since 2016, despite the agency’s surveillance capabilities continuing to outpace electronic surveillance law.

Commenting on the matter, an NSA spokesperson told FedScoop: “The representation that NSA had not conducted a full legal analysis prior to the Board asking for legal materials in 2014 is not accurate. NSA conducted appropriate legal reviews of NSA’s use of XKEYSCORE. NSA’s Office of General Counsel regularly reviews NSA intelligence programs and capabilities to ensure compliance with the Constitution, laws, and other applicable regulations and policies.”

The NSA did address LeBlanc’s complaint that its analysts weren’t trained to use XKeyscore, or required to, by adopting that recommendation.

NSA’s alleged failure to prove it conducted prior legal analysis wasn’t the only reason LeBlanc took issue with PCLOB releasing a report, which he said “reads more like a book report summary of the XKeyscore program.”

PCLOB didn’t conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the system that accounted for how many people have been impacted, how much data has been collected and analyzed, how that data is shared, how many lives have been saved, or how many terrorist attacks have been stopped, LeBlanc said.

The board also didn’t follow up on reported compliance incidents, a redacted number of which were deemed “questionable intelligence activities” — intelligence community-speak for illegal surveillance or review of a citizen’s communications.

PCLOB didn’t include in its report a recommendation of LeBlanc’s that incidentally intercepted communications be tagged “personal information” in the system.

The board “failed the public” by not seeking to declassify its findings, he said.

LeBlanc also wanted PCLOB to weigh in on the technological and modern electronic surveillance issues XKeyscore raises, given its use of machine learning, autonomous collection of massive datasets and algorithmic analysis of them.

“Whether the public wants it or not, these systems are almost certainly here to stay,” LeBlanc said.

Oracle petitions Supreme Court over $10B JEDI protest

Oracle has filed a new brief with the Supreme Court, calling on it to hear the latest argument in its years-long legal battle against the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) cloud contract.

The tech company hopes to overturn the initial ruling of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which identified issues with the $10 billion cloud contract’s award structure but said that potential conflicts of interest had not affected Oracle’s chances or cost it the deal. Oracle then brought its case to a federal appeals court, which also quashed its appeal.

The new brief comes after Amazon earlier this month filed its own arguments in this case as a co-defendant, calling on the Supreme Court to avoid making a decision over the contract because it contained disputes over matters of fact rather than disputes over points of law.

According to Oracle’s lawyers, the appeals court in its prior judgment failed to consider the fact that a criminal conflict of interest “alone” renders a federal contract unenforceable.

“Both of those two errors are mistakes of law, not fact,” Oracle said in its submission to the court.

The cloud computing company argues that the U.S. Court of Appeals made a serious error when it rebuffed an early appeal and kept the contract award intact.

JEDI is a key component of the Department of Defense’s larger enterprise cloud strategy. The contract was first put up for bid in 2018 before DOD awarded it to Microsoft in late 2019, but since then, it’s been largely dormant due to a separate legal protest led by Amazon.

But even before that award, Oracle has been waging an ongoing legal battle. It started in August 2018 with a pre-award bid protest filed to the Government Accountability Office, claiming that the sole-source structure of the award is not justified and arguing in court documents that links between DOD employees and Amazon Web Services had hurt its chances at competing for the contract. After GAO denied the protest, Oracle took its case to the Court of Federal Claims, then the U.S. Court of Appeals, and now its reached the nation’s highest court.

Meanwhile, the DOD has been reassessing what it might do if JEDI is held up much longer in the courts. Earlier this month, Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks said DOD could take a new direction on the contract by next month, and that it was “actively looking at [its] options.”

Previously, a Court of Federal Claims judge granted AWS’s requested timeline for hearings in its separate litigation. The web hosting giant continues to seek the disclosure of additional internal communications from the Department of Defense, including emails and Slack messages.

This followed a decision in April by the same court to stop the government from dismissing AWS’s allegations of political interference, elongating the timeline for a decision in that case. AWS has protested the DOD’s decision to award the deal to Microsoft, alleging that the procurement was influenced by former President Donald Trump, who has publicly criticized Amazon founder and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos.

AWS and Oracle did not respond to a request for comment.

Better government CX requires leadership plus IT modernization

Juliana Vida, a retired U.S. Naval commander and former deputy CIO at the Pentagon, is Group Vice President and Chief Strategy Advisor for public sector at Splunk.

The nation’s sudden accelerated dependence on government services over the past year cast a huge spotlight on agency IT systems performance. As we all know, some systems held up remarkably well under the strain and others did not.

From the public’s point of view, and over a longer-term perspective, the federal government’s customer experience “remains weak and uneven compared with the private sector,” according to  Forrester’s 2020 U.S. Federal Customer Experience Index. The report found that the federal average CX score of 15 key agencies and programs trailed nearly 11 points behind the private sector average and was “lower than any other industry or sector” we studied.

More starkly, “Only 38% of federal customers who used digital-only channels considered the experience emotionally positive,” the report states. While some agencies — notably the National Park Services — scored better than others among some 98,000 adults who interacted with 250 brands measured in the index, overall, federal agencies in aggregate are getting lapped by more user-friendly private sector services.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

True, federal agencies must contend with more rigorous regulatory constraints than their commercial counterparts. Living within unpredictable, single-year budget cycles and abiding by strict consumer data-gathering rules, among other factors, make it hard for most agencies to step on the gas when it comes to improving citizen CX.

Clearly one of the barriers that can, and must, be overcome is the notion that the user experience is “good enough” for government. While officials in the last administration made strides to improve the customer experience and service delivery for federal customers, more needs to be done so those efforts do not continue to languish until agencies and the administration as a whole more fully commit to addressing the concurrent need to modernize federal IT systems.

It’s not that the federal government isn’t investing mightily in its IT systems. Investment remains robust though woefully misplaced. As much as 80% of those IT and cybersecurity funds are funneled into sustaining legacy technology instead of investing in modernized, cloud-based technologies that can deliver continuously updated IT infrastructure and applications – technologies that are both less expensive and more secure.

There are many opportunities for agencies to fast track their CX efforts, by leveraging their data, even as they ramp up their modernization efforts.

It’s relatively easy now, for example, to use a data platform to mine the types of words that customers use when they’re engaging online or contacting an agency by phone or email and determine what they’re looking for, or whether they had a good or bad experience. That intelligence can easily fold into customer service platforms, to deliver more data-driven, real-time insights and improve service delivery over time.

There are also a variety of IT automation and system orchestration tools to speed up backend processes, reduce repetitive administrative tasks and ultimately help employees focus on more valuable ways to support the customer experience. Those same tools can also help agencies identify what internal applications and systems people are really using or not using. If people are using what you’re putting in their hands, that’s a measure of success; and if they’re not, that can tell you where to reallocate your investments.

In the end, though, good customer experience requires a champion with top leadership’s support.

One example that has really impressed me is the work unfolding at the U.S. Air Force under its new Chief Experience Officer, Colt Whittall. He is the first appointee from any military service in this role across the Department of Defense, arguably the world’s largest and most complex organization.

Speaking at a recent federal CX panel discussion, Whittall described, for instance, his approach to measuring IT user satisfaction, beginning with an Air Force IT Pulse survey. The survey asks IT users across the Air Force a few simple questions and uses national language processing to help analyze the results.

He’s also rolling out a monitoring platform that captures system response time and availability data for all of the Air Force’s key applications — in real time and which tracks performance over time. That analysis will help gauge the impact of system upgrades and IT support services as they are deployed across the entire Air Force.

The decision to support remote users during the pandemic — by rolling out hundreds of thousands of VPN connections and cloud-based applications — had a dramatic effect on user satisfaction, with telecommuters registering twice the level of user satisfaction compared to those working primarily on base, he said.

Whittall’s approach to enhance customer experience is pragmatic: “Partnering with commercial technology is the only way to go, because it’s the only kind of capability that’s going to deliver the agility and the speed, and the scalability that’s required to keep us moving forward,” he said in the panel discussion. “Nobody wants to go backwards,” now that they used to a better experience.

The U.S. Air Force’s example illustrates the art of the possible in government. It also highlights how modernization and user experience go hand in hand — and how that in turn, can translate into greater productivity, faster decision making and most importantly, more effective delivery of mission-related services.

Learn more on how Splunk is helping federal agencies modernize for the future.