Thank you very much for the question.
First, let's talk about legacy systems. People think the word “legacy” means old or bad. It doesn't. It means existing. The legacy systems or the existing systems are what support federal government program delivery today, including mission critical systems. If you don't maintain and you don't nurture those, then those systems will not function and they will start having problems.
While you have a transformation agenda, you also have to position it to support what you're doing today as you build to something that you need to go to tomorrow. Investment is required, and planning is required, and you need to understand the details. CIOs are responsible, under immense pressure, for ensuring that service delivery can be met to meet program requirements. I dare say that in a lot of departments at the senior levels the delineation between SSC, what they deliver, and what IT shops and departments do is not understood. At the end of the day, they're integrated. Without SSC service delivery, program functions cannot be done. It's the infrastructure that everything rides on.
The first thing, as I mentioned, is that I think we need to fix what's wrong today. Legacy is not bad. Obviously, we want to transform where it makes sense, not only from a functionality perspective but where it physically makes sense. To use an analogy, if you're driving a 2010 Ford Taurus and it works great, and it does everything you need it to do, then you don't need to go and buy a 2016 Ford Taurus if you don't need what it has.
I think that is what's been missed here. I think when some decisions were made and some directions were set, people didn't understand the details around what they were. The concepts are exactly right—we want to drive costs down—but you have to invest in it and you have to understand where you are today to position where you need to go tomorrow.