Tech & Innovation Recommendations for Congress

Recommendations presented at The Brookings Institution

On January 9, I shared findings from the Technology & Innovation Subcommittee of the American Political Science Association’s Task Force on Congressional Reform at an event held at the Brookings Institution. Among the subcommittee’s recommendations: the creation of a House Technology Working Group. (Read the complete list of recommendations.)

Proposal to Establish a House Technology Working Group

Submitted by: Claire Abernathy, Ph.D., Kevin Esterling, Ph.D., and Marci Harris, J.D., LL.M.

Technology is essential to the functioning of a modern legislature. The House employs a variety of technologies across 441 legislative offices, 20 committees, and numerous support and operations offices. Each of these units has developed technology to serve its own needs, often in separate silos with limited opportunities for coordinating, evaluating and optimizing technology for the institution as a whole.

THE PROBLEM:

This distributed and disconnected architecture for House technology is no longer tenable. A modernized Congress requires the ability for its component parts to operate in a coordinated way, leveraging technology to realize greater efficiencies, free up staff time for higher value tasks, and contribute to greater satisfaction for lawmakers and staff, and for the constituents and stakeholders who interact with Congress.

THE OPPORTUNITY:

The decentralized nature of Congress offers the potential to leverage individual offices and committees as laboratories for technology, identifying what works best in different circumstances and allowing offices to learn from each other. Some degree of central coordination would enable information sharing and collaboration to resolve shared technology problems. However, the current decentralized decision-making about congressional technology does not offer opportunities for this collaborative effort. Better coordination will require an approach that respects the autonomy of the different offices within Congress and taps into their expertise to support effective technology modernization efforts.

RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize the creation of a House Technology Working Group (HTWG) as an umbrella entity for all who work with technology within the House to collaborate on technology modernization efforts for the chamber. The HTWG will provide a clearinghouse for information and expertise about technology in Congress while respecting the decentralized structure of the House. As a central hub, the HTWG will facilitate information sharing about technology in Congress that is not possible today. To best manage the wide-ranging work of modernizing congressional technology, language authorizing HTWG should:

• Identify priority areas for House technology and establish task forces to focus on each. Task forces would operate in effect as subcommittees of the working group, with each task force consisting of at least one lawmaker from the majority and minority parties as well as representatives from support agencies or other relevant offices (for example, the task force on committee technology would include at least one representative from each committee). Recommended initial task forces include: (1) Digital and Cyber Security task force; (2) Legislative Office Technology task force; (3) District Office Technology task force; (4) Committee Technology task force; and (5) Congressional Support and Operations task force.
• Establish an internal House Technology Leadership Council to oversee and coordinate the task forces, consisting of representatives from each of the task force teams, one representative from each legislative support office or agency (i.e. CAO, Clerk, Parliamentarian, etc.), and the chair and ranking member of the Committee on House Administration. The House Technology Leadership Council would set priorities, coordinate the work of the task forces, and make recommendations to relevant committees and leadership.
• Authorize an external advisory group, similar to the Defense Innovation Board (https://innovation.defense.gov/), to connect outside experts with the HTWG’s efforts, bringing in new ideas and perspectives and supporting the working group’s progress.
• Authorize support staff for the HTWG, including a dedicated HTWG coordinator and project managers for each task force.

The chart below gives an overview of the proposed organization for the HTWG.

The HTWG and its task forces should approach their modernization efforts by consulting widely to identify needs, evaluating different technologies, and making clear and actionable recommendations that would improve congressional technology. Operationally, the HTWG should gather input from relevant stakeholders, individuals, data and experts to guide their decisions and follow this modernization process:

• Step 1: Identify areas that would benefit from new technology or process upgrades.
• Step 2. Evaluate potential solutions to identified problems.
• Step 3. Support pilots of new technology in individual offices and committees.
• Step 4. Develop best practice recommendations for use of technology in Congress.
• Step 5. Refine technology through a continuous iterative process.

This proposed modernization process for the HTWG emphasizes information from a diverse set of sources, supports evidence-based decision-making about organizational changes, and embraces experimentation to evaluate solutions to specific institutional needs of Congress. Importantly, this process institutionalizes an ongoing approach to modernization and improvement through an inclusive working group.

The HTWG addresses many of the technology modernization challenges that are unique to Congress:

• Lack of central hub of expertise and technical advice. HTWG would provide systematic evaluation of new technologies, a centralized resource hub for information about best practices, and a forum for House-wide communication and coordination.
• Lower-level and short-term staffers most familiar with technology and its challenges lack decision-making power. The HTWG process emphasizes direct engagement with front-line staff, tapping into their expertise to identify pain points in congressional technology and to evaluate potential solutions and inform areas of focus for the working group.
• Congressional functions not amenable to outsourcing. Pilot projects can test the viability of new technologies within the context where they will be used in Congress. Through pilot projects, new technologies are essentially vetted to ensure that they support the specific work of the institution.
• Difficult to reach consensus on problems to be solved. HTWG should solicit input from a range of sources to identify technology priorities for the institution. While consensus may not emerge, the careful effort to engage interested parties in problem definition can build confidence that the working group will focus on widely-shared challenges.
• Difficult to change culture. Uncertainty about new technology often reinforces the status quo. The advice and expertise of the HTWG would enable institutional actors to feel confident in adopting new tools and technologies, and in supporting ongoing efforts to improve the institution based on evidence.

The HTWG overcomes these key challenges, serving as a new central resource hub for information about technology best practices and ensuring that technology adoption in Congress is based on evidence about what tools work best in the unique congressional setting.