With our new Executive administration settling in at the White House, I thought I might pass an idea by all you intelligent readers out there. Obama’s election platform was based on change and one these much touted changes was transforming the federal government from eight years of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth to a transparent distributor of information. In the spirit of that push for transparency, I would like to present my idea for transforming information technology (specifically application adoption and development) in government. I have decided to do this in three parts: (1) briefly argue that the mainstream methodology of software procurement and development is incompatible with the philosophy of a transparent and democratic government, (2) present my solution to solve this problem, and (3) counter some concerns and issues that might arise from implementing my idea.

There is no question that the use of information technology (IT) has become central to the efficient business practices in both public and private organizations. Everyday, billions of bytes of information are processed through computer hardware and software for everything from state motor vehicle registrations and credit card transactions to browsing the Internet. Computer and Internet technologies have become central to everyday American life.

While the adoption of information technology is generally more aggressive in the private sector, public agency adoption of IT has increased due to increased public demands for efficiency and service. However, an argument can be made that there seems to have been a failure in the fundamental philosophy of using and implementing IT in a democratic government.

Having championed the use of IT, the private sector’s adoption methodology is highly specific and is implemented in an environment which is very different from that of a government agency. Centered around the profit motive, private organizations adopt IT methodology with the focus of increasing profit, or at the very least, reducing its loss. This focus places certain requirements on the implementation of IT in the private sector which include factors such as profitability, scalability, sustainability, and vendor support.

Alternatively, the adoption of IT by democratic governments cannot focus IT methodology and ideology behind profit but rather through service, transparency, and trust. This does not mean that government IT is not concerned with the same factors as those in the private sector. Rather, it means that in addition to scalability, sustainability, and support, governments should also build into their IT methodology, ideological factors that address the specific demands of government which include efficient service, security, and trust through transparency.

The use of private sector IT methodologies in government has thus far been taken as a given. The applications and processes of private sector IT have simply been carried over for use in government applications with little attention paid to the ideologies of these disparate organization types (thanks for the idea Jeff).

It is important to determine whether such undisturbed ideological and methodological measures meet the needs of a democratic government. With particular attention paid to software, there are a number of approaches that lead to serious conflicts of ideology between IT in government and the private sector.

Because there are no public checks of software systems that government chooses to adopt, I feel there is a serious lack of transparency in the IT of government agencies. The IT model used in the private sector has been blindly carried over into government without proper analysis as to whether its ideology and methodology is compatible with the fundamental requirements of a democratic government; trust through transparency, public input, and efficiency and effectiveness. I venture to say that it is not; and here are some reasons why:

Knowledge Gap

In general, many government agencies do not understand the capabilities of mainstream technology and what it can mean to their organization in terms of efficiency, quality of service, and potential cost savings. This knowledge gap leaves government agencies vulnerable to exploitation. As an experienced web application developer, I have worked on a number of projects for both public and private organizations. The one undercurrent that I constantly am aware of when dealing with technology issues and government organizations is the sheer lack of knowledge in the capabilities and functionality that technology (programming in this case) can offer said organizations. For instance, at my last place of employment, we had a contract with a state education agency to convert a rather large paper-driven process into a completely digital, web based solution. During the scoping and planning phases, the clients (read government) were constantly surprised at what our solution could do for them in terms of process and management. In essence, they were almost entirely dependent on what we said could and could not be done.

External Exploitation

This is not to say that all government agencies are technologically incompetent; many are not. However, this principle-agent dilemma can (and often does) give rise to problems of exploitation or manipulation by contractors and even the organization’s own internal government IT departments. Because of this information asymmetry, third-party contractors are often in a position to exploit what some view as “easy money.” I have seen it before, incomplete and or improperly specified projects that technically meet the agreed upon requirements but do not meet the actual business requirements of the government organization. This often results from the contractor’s lack of ensuring that all business requirements are covered in the new application specs. Had my company been nefarious in the scoping phase of the state education agency project, they could have easily gotten away with building a lesser and incomplete product for the same high cost.

Internal Exploitation

Yet even more disconcerting are instances where the government’s own internal IT departments are counterproductive to the needs of the requesting agency. Many governments at the state and local levels have IT platforms centered around a consistent environment. For instance, the state of Arizona makes HEAVY use of Microsoft applications; mail, web, database, and file servers, and ASP/.Net for web and application development. This is of course good practice for maintenance and stability as it limits the need of technical support for multiple platforms.

However, it also limits the adoption of viable and cost saving alternatives like open-source applications. If an agency only manages and develops in, say, Microsoft products, then it would follow that their IT staff are primarily trained and experienced in Microsoft solutions (not to mention data lockin and private vendor control of the public’s data, but that’s another argument). Now, in the case of web applications, which are booming in government right now, there exist a number of highly capable alternatives to Microsoft offerings. Most of these alternatives are open source and can be developed and maintained at a cost much less than a Microsoft solution would be. (Note: This is a highly debated opinion and there are studies that go both ways [often funded by private companies]. But in my experience, correctly implemented open-source solutions are nearly always more efficient and cost effective than proprietary solutions)

What IT staff/manager in their right mind would recommend a solution that they did not know how to implement? Making such a recommendation would not only place their job in jeopardy (as they would not have the technical ability to implement it), but if successful, might cause a shift in platform demand for the cheaper and more effective alternative; leaving the current staff vulnerable for replacement or with the burden of having to learn new systems.

Secrecy

Finally, and perhaps most important, the nature of proprietary and closed-source software is such that secrecy reigns supreme. The profit motive drives proprietary software developers to keep secret the methods, techniques, and designs that enable their software to work as it does. In the normal economy of a free and competitive market, this is generally a good thing; generating profit from a certain level of innovation in the form of a technical good or service. But government does not (and should not) run entirely on free-market principles. The role of any government should be to ensure that the citizens it serves are provided with necessary services in an efficient, effective, legitimate, and trustworthy manner. Thus, I believe that IT ideologies and methodologies from the private sector are not congruent with the guiding principles of our government. Secrets of process, decision, and technique have no place in a democratic government; even in computer applications and technology (certain national security instances are obviously not encompassed in this idea so long as they are legitimate).

Be on the lookout for part 2 of this post which will outline my alternative for government software adoption and development.