Interesting article. The piece touches on the symptoms of the some of the systemic disease that is at the root of dysfunction and frustration. There is a growing tumor of law, regulation, policy, practices, and culture (exacerbated by organizational structure, lack or continuity, and ineffective and often counter-productive oversight) — especially related to core management support processes — that thwart the ability of so many good, talented and dedicated people the ability in government (and it’s support contractors) to not only innovate and and execute but to manage.

USDS and 18F were born out of frustration with the current system in a well meaning but desparate attempt to “get stuff done.” It does nothing to address the underlying root causes of dysfunction and frustration (e.g., Finance and Accounting (including the Appropriations Process) HR, Acquisition, Legal, IGs, Oversight). Allowing USDS and 18F to work around the rules that constrain everyone else is reasonably seen by many as unfair.

Look at it from the other side. What government employees and contractors have witnessed is a small cadre of people have been allowed to ignore or work around the maddening and frustrating constraints that have killed innovation and execution for decades. Most of these employees and contractors are exceptionally dedicated to the government mission and know it well — including the challenges and opportunities. In fact, many have organized and produced meaningful recommendations designed to fix the broken systems that USDS and 18F are allowed to work around. What many of these public servants and support contractors who have been advocating for wholesale reform for years now hear is “your opinion doesn’t matter and we don’t value your work. You are all idiots who can’t get anything done and we’re going to bring in young innovators to show you fools how it’s done.” That’s the message being received and the reason for the backlash. Many people I speak to in the government and contracting community forcefully argue that if they were equally unconstrained they could quickly and effectively produce positive and transformational outcomes. Treating USDS and 18F differently strikes most of the people I’ve spoken to as fundamentally unfair and ignores the root causes of dysfunction that many have fought to reform.

Don’t get me wrong, USDS and 18F provides value. They have shown that coding and hacking approaches, many of which are being practiced by the very organizations and contractors being criticized here, work. But let’s not confuse these small successes with transformation or what is needed to fix the root causes of the growing frustration with government management.

If we truly desire a more effective federal government we need to fundamentally transform the management, support and oversight processes that conspire to kill innovation and execution in the federal government. It will not be easy as the stewards of these processes have lost the plot and jealously defend their equities while emphasizing compliance, reporting, and fear over mission outcomes. Meanwhile, it is becoming increasingly difficult for federal managers to effectively plan, hire, fund, buy, modernize, measure, communicate, and manage.

The Healthcare.gov fiasco, TSA wait lines, the OPM data breach, and the myriad of issues related to the care of our Veteran are just some of the very clear and high profile retail symptoms of this untreated disease that further erodes public confidence in government insitutions. These are systemic issues that must be addressed. USDS and 18F, no matter how well meaning, don’t do much to fix the underlying management challenges in the federal government. Exempting them from rules and regulations and giving what has been often desribed as an “elite group of innovators” special treatment is further demoralizing to large numbers of dedicated and talented federal employees and contractors. We need new processes that work for everyone. I’m hopeful that a new adminstration will give us an opportunity to have that conversation.

Thanks again for the article.