The Problem With Government Software
I wrote this for an old blog of mine a while back, and figured the timing was right given the latest Healthcare.gov debacle to raise this issue again.
Of all the advancements made in the past few decades, they always seem to leap directly over the largest single buyer of information technology in the country; that being the U.S. Government. While some generic form of risk aversion plays a big role in why the government is often a laggard in adapting to innovation, particularly in these modern times, the issue is actually much, much deeper.
Personally, I believe the issue to be a deeply ingrained organizational culture in many federal departments, though not necessarily all of them. There is also a known lack of interest coming from the “Millenial” generation, otherwise known as the “digital natives,” in civil service due to the heavily structured, stuffy perception of government work. And, well, it is exactly that. How can the government compete with the likes of Google or Facebook or Overnight Startup, Inc. for fresh talent? It can’t.
Furthermore, the promised “tsunami” of retirements from the “boomer” generation, now doggedly holding onto their positions atop the food chain, has not yet materialized while, simultaneously, historical cuts, freezes, and restrictions on hiring have been enacted in just about every part of government. Worsening things even more, the “great wall” that is government human resources has become one of the new wonders of the bureaucratic world. Of those trying desperately to attempt to climb it, most usually succumb to its vast nothingness of endless application requirements, meaningless jargon, canceled positions, empty responses, and, dare I say it, occasional instances of cronyism.
So, you may ask if you have stayed with me thus far, how does this relate to government software? Well, I’ll tell you. Too many of those who cling to their perches atop decades of civil service do just enough to protect their jobs, but little more. Risk is a four letter word, after all, and, with all this recent political instability, no one is willing to tolerate or even consider it. This attitude reverberates through all parts of government in the affected departments, embedding itself in the culture of the organization. This means a new wave of potential civil servants with fresh ideas and eager minds are stopped dead in their tracks. Even if they do get through to wall and into the belly of the machine, they are subjected to a mind-numbing bureaucratic indoctrination which is unparalleled in our modern world and would even make a North Korean dictator wince. Many have tried, and failed, to correct this (including me at one point), but the bureaucracy is seemingly insurmountable, even for a President. Many eager leaders have come and gone, with little to show for all their time, at least at the ground level. Sure, those national initiatives make a great sound bite, but those down where rubber meets road and the public beneficiaries of some of these technological “improvements” aren’t seeing anything vastly different or better for the most part.
Now, don’t get me wrong, the “boomer” generation has built the bedrock of the very society we live in today. It was their “fresh ideas” in the 60's and beyond that created the world’s first electronic health record, some of the first national scale software systems and electronic databases, computing advancements, networking technology, THE INTERNET, global positioning, space travel, etc. But, now approaching their retirement years, much of that enthusiasm has markedly waned even while they still hold their positions.
All I’m trying to say is this: poor government software has less to do with a lack of ability or technology, and more to do with a lack of willingness and fresh ideas. It won’t be until the next generations, of both people and private sector solutions, are welcomed at the doors of government that things could change for the better. But that will take political stability, new perceptions of productivity in a modern workplace, and an acceptance of some level of risk for the sake of innovation.
