3 ms·

The sad reality is that there just isn't enough awareness or understanding of technology within Government to make it onto the agenda. The exceptions of this ar

by Zhyl 6y ago

The sad reality is that there just isn't enough awareness or understanding of technology within Government to make it onto the agenda. The exceptions of this are little pockets of like-minded individuals such as GDS [1] who have done some exemplary work on open sourcing tech. The downside is that much of the 'trunk' of IT (workstations, Business Software, internal systems) are still contracted out to monolithic, old-school contractors who have no incentive to innovate by non-technical procurement teams. This leads to a culture of proprietary software where the established/expensive solutions are seen as the most trustworthy and there isn't any cost to vendor lock-in or non-interoperability of systems until the next tranche of officials have taken over and all of those issues can be written off as 'legacy' and as a sunk cost. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Digital_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Digital_Service

vharuck 6y ago
As a state government worker, this jives with my experience. The ultimate beneficiaries of any budget savings or improved processes are citizens who have no idea, let alone input, about what we're doing behind the scenes. It's very hard to convince public employees to work with those people in mind. You're right, the people buying the software are even harder to convince. With no good measures of effect, they rely on what's easiest for them. So Microsoft and PDFs everywhere. Our software licenses are paid through a grant from the federal government. If we replace them with open source software, we don't get to keep the difference. So now I have licensed software like SAS and ArcGIS gathering dust on my machine while I use R and Python. And sharing software we develop is even harder. I've pushed to release code for my statistical reports. When I said researchers and other states could benefit by reusing parts, my supervisors only saw it as a liability with no benefit to us. I might try to slip it in as part of the technical notes.

by Zhyl 6y ago

vharuck 6y ago

As a state government worker, this jives with my experience. The ultimate beneficiaries of any budget savings or improved processes are citizens who have no idea, let alone input, about what we're doing behind the scenes. It's very hard to convince public employees to work with those people in mind. You're right, the people buying the software are even harder to convince. With no good measures of effect, they rely on what's easiest for them. So Microsoft and PDFs everywhere. Our software licenses are paid through a grant from the federal government. If we replace them with open source software, we don't get to keep the difference. So now I have licensed software like SAS and ArcGIS gathering dust on my machine while I use R and Python. And sharing software we develop is even harder. I've pushed to release code for my statistical reports. When I said researchers and other states could benefit by reusing parts, my supervisors only saw it as a liability with no benefit to us. I might try to slip it in as part of the technical notes.