6 ms·

I think the biggest problem any US government agency has (federal or state) in producing services that leverage modern technology is that they cannot afford to

by jolux 6y ago

I think the biggest problem any US government agency has (federal or state) in producing services that leverage modern technology is that they cannot afford to pay people market rates. We have a mentality in the US that government cannot do anything right, but it seems of late (last 40 years or so) that we are kneecapping government's ability to execute and then complaining about it when it can't and making pronouncements about how only the private sector can understand tech. Government technology workforces are thus composed largely of either people who are below average in competence or above average and willing to take a pay cut because they care about the cause, but we shouldn't expect people to do that, and there aren't very many of them. We should give government a fighting chance.

zippy5 6y ago
It’s one thing to pay a highly competent person 6 figures. It’s an entirely different thing if you can’t fire them. I’m not saying that the government doesn’t need more competent people but it’s not going to work if there’s a bigger carrot and no stick.
- wslack 6y ago
  Part of a solution for that are term-limited civil service jobs - that keeps a rotation of talent and low performers can't stay forever. That said, you raise an important problem - how do you manage poor performers without allowing a bad-faith political official to fire people unfairly?
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    Provide clear mandates and then structurally separate organizations that should exist indefinitely from most interference by elected officials. Some of the most effective institutions of the US Government are the ones that were deliberately structured to be self-organizing, the military, the federal reserve system, and (until recently) the postal service.
ryanianian 6y ago
Another conclusion based on the same facts is that the government has no business doing its own technology and should do what they do for weapons and roads: contract it out.
- paulmd 6y ago
  There are a bunch of problems that result from contracting work out though. The contracting process itself is an incredibly onerous burden with a huge number of factors other than mere technical ability (are you a disabled veteran minority-owned business?). And the companies with the fortitude and resources to actually make it through the contracting process tend to be the exact companies you don't want doing the work - it's not your scrappy 30 person startup that gets the bid. Furthermore, those companies are the only ones that can, frankly, put up with the government's shit. The problem isn't just that the government doesn't have the technical ability or the culture to get the job done, they don't even have the ability to oversee a technical contract, and it inevitably results in weird and obtuse requirements, stumbling blocks injected from the contract coordinators, etc. You can sometimes have a setup where one contractor executes and one contractor oversees, but anyone who's worked on a project overseen by one of those contracting management companies (DeLoitte, Accenture, etc) knows that doesn't fix anything either, and the contract coordinator isn't going to stop their bullshit either, now you just have twice as many layers of management shitting things up. There's no magic bullet here, but management and IT services within the USG drastically need a shakeup, and increasing pay scales to match the private sector has to be there too. On top of that you basically need a top to bottom review of the regulations and SOPs. It's simply too hard to actually get work done, at every level. There is too much security theater, too little real security, too many fiefs, too many bosses, too many approval processes, too many dumb requirements that were coded into law 20 years ago when they maybe made a little sense but have long-since ceased to be best practices. Also, contracts are for a specific and limited period of time. Often development and maintenance are under different contracts - which will be bid out separately. So the first contractor doesn't really care about anything except getting it out the door, then the USG will be super surprised that they're pulling the plug once they've met the bare minimum of the requirements, and then there's no money to actually maintain it on an ongoing basis. If there is, that money will be bid out again and probably goes to a different contractor. Keeping it internal at least means that somebody has ownership of the project. Contracting turns everything into a game of hot potato with everyone racing to throw the potato as soon as they've done the bare minimum to accomplish their contractual obligations and get paid.
Spooky23 6y ago
I think your assessment is flat out wrong... good people are everywhere and most companies don’t fire folks for cause. There are different problems in civil service government entities, but the number of “below average” employees is usually based in size of org, not type of org. A big bank isn’t much smarter internally than a big government agency. A small company lacks the controls and depth of skill just like a town or small city. I worked for a non-Federal US government, and my team was an amazing group of talented and passionate people. Despite all of the nonsense of living in a bureaucracy where 500 people can say “no”, the mission and the impact on our neighbors was worth it. Compensation meh, total compensation was good. But as time went on, the terms of the deal changed for new employees — generous pensions and benefits were tweaked in a way that marginally reduced cost, but dramatically reduced value to the employee. End result was average turnover of new hires was ~70% vs ~20%, and after I’m dead, the state pension fund will be sitting pretty as the new folks pay more to collect dramatically less benefits.
- jolux 6y ago
  I don't see anything in your post that I disagree with so I find it interesting that you said I was flat out wrong in my assessment. I will say that below average competence is probably the wrong phrase, mostly what I meant is that it attracts some people who are not driven to execute and are fine with putting up with bureaucratic roadblocks to getting things done, when the kind of people you really want are those that are driven to removing certain roadblocks. Those are hard to find.
dimmke 6y ago
>they cannot afford to pay people market rates This is not true! On average, the federal government is paying quite a bit of money for tech people. I'd seriously estimate they're paying almost FAANG rates in a lot of cases all told. The problem is that a lot of it gets siphoned off in the contracting process. The contracting process needs to be fixed. There's a ton of huge established players doing really bad work. IT specifically gets treated differently in government contracting, and is almost always procured through something called a GWAC which is basically a moat that it's hard for new companies to get into (the goal is to streamline procurement by having "vetted" companies in this pool already but it usually means it's very difficult for new players to get involved.) That is changing, just very slowly. The agency that created this playbook, GSA, is helping facilitate that with things like introducing good vendors to other agencies and smaller more limited engagements.
- jolux 6y ago
  I'm aware of the problems with the contracting process. My experience with salary is at the state level where things are much more stark, but I also don't think that federal salaries are comparable with FAANG, particularly Google. Most at 18F are at GS-15, right?
  - dimmke 6y ago
    Fair point about state/local. My statement about FAANG was based on some napkin math I did with regard to published rates for certain labor categories by some big contracting companies on some vehicles they were a part of. But even doing a quick comparison, levels.fyi estimates about $160 - 180k cash compensation for new hires for FAANG. GS-15 Step 3 in DC is 150k. Plus excellent government benefits. It's spitting distance at least.
    - jolux 6y ago
      Point taken, but I think that's probably a best case scenario for government IT in general. I am lucky enough to work for a state-level 18F-alike that has the latitude to pay people market rates, but looking at what my coworkers outside of my direct org get paid I often feel incredibly guilty.
paulmd 6y ago
Yes, and the "total compensation" is no longer good either. "The pay sucks but you get great benefits" meme is no longer true of most state/federal government jobs, those benefits have been drastically shaved down over the last 30 years. The other major recruiting problem is marijuana prohibition. Government has a lot of problems retaining high-skill IT people because a huge number of computer-touchers smoke. iirc FBI has commented on their inability to hire good technical staff because they can't find anyone who doesn't smoke. And it's not just a question of willingness to smoke or not going forward, for most public-trust positions you're going to have to abstain for at least a year before even applying. What are you willing to give up for a job offer that you might not even get? For computer-touchers with lots of other options, that answer is "not much". And federal jobs are basically low-paying, highly-competitive, and high-bureaucracy, when you could be making bank and having a reasonably satisfying work experience in the private sector. And thus you filter out a huge number of the exact people you're trying to hire - young techies who are familiar with modern IT and development practices.
- jolux 6y ago
  In particular you can't get any kind of security clearance if you have any history of cannabis usage, as far as I know. I wanted to enlist in the military a few years ago but unfortunately my history with weed means I'm more or less excluded, I think.
  - PopeDotNinja 6y ago
    Did you actually try applying? I think they are looking for candidness and some distance between you & the chronic. If you say you used to smoke, but quit two years ago and don’t miss it at all, that’s different than wearing a 420BlazeIt t-shirt to the interview and saying you haven’t smoked in almost an hour.
    - jolux 6y ago
      I haven't tried applying, no. I did some research into it and it seemed dicey. I also have friends with clearance who say it's a complete tossup depending on who you talk to.
syshum 6y ago
>>We have a mentality in the US that government cannot do anything right Well many many of us have the mentality that the US Government and various local governments SHOULD NOT be doing some of the things they are attempting to do, even if they could See we believe in LIMITED government, VERY LIMITED government as such we do not believe in giving the government more resources to take over things it has no ethical authority to be meddling with in the first place
eddietejeda 6y ago
While mostly true, let’s put this into perspective: A GS-15 in a metro area like New York, DC, and San Francisco, with experience, can get over $170. Throw in performance bonus and matching contributions, and total compensation is $180k+. That does not compare with the high end of the private sector, but that’s reasonable for a lot of people, even at tech companies. You can estimate here: https://www.federalpay.org/gs/calculator https://www.federalpay.org/gs/calculator Also, the sense of duty and serving the public is real. And this is not expressed in a tongue and cheek way... it’s an earnest desire to do meaningful work. Many people who join USDS, 18F, and PIF from the tech industry are there because they genuinely want to do good work.
- jolux 6y ago
  Sure, but this is not the case with state governments. My point may have been diluted by including the federal government.
  - matheweis 6y ago
    I worked for a state university for several years, and while there were certainly those there to collect their paycheck, there were also many who - as the parent suggests - had a very earnest desire to do meaningful work.
  - wslack 6y ago
    True, and not something that can be changed through technology, but there are good digital services operating in quite a few states!
    - jolux 6y ago
      I'm part of one :)
      - wslack 6y ago
        <3
- 6y ago

by jolux 6y ago

zippy5 6y ago

It’s one thing to pay a highly competent person 6 figures. It’s an entirely different thing if you can’t fire them. I’m not saying that the government doesn’t need more competent people but it’s not going to work if there’s a bigger carrot and no stick.

wslack 6y ago
Part of a solution for that are term-limited civil service jobs - that keeps a rotation of talent and low performers can't stay forever. That said, you raise an important problem - how do you manage poor performers without allowing a bad-faith political official to fire people unfairly?
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  Provide clear mandates and then structurally separate organizations that should exist indefinitely from most interference by elected officials. Some of the most effective institutions of the US Government are the ones that were deliberately structured to be self-organizing, the military, the federal reserve system, and (until recently) the postal service.

ryanianian 6y ago

Another conclusion based on the same facts is that the government has no business doing its own technology and should do what they do for weapons and roads: contract it out.

paulmd 6y ago
There are a bunch of problems that result from contracting work out though. The contracting process itself is an incredibly onerous burden with a huge number of factors other than mere technical ability (are you a disabled veteran minority-owned business?). And the companies with the fortitude and resources to actually make it through the contracting process tend to be the exact companies you don't want doing the work - it's not your scrappy 30 person startup that gets the bid. Furthermore, those companies are the only ones that can, frankly, put up with the government's shit. The problem isn't just that the government doesn't have the technical ability or the culture to get the job done, they don't even have the ability to oversee a technical contract, and it inevitably results in weird and obtuse requirements, stumbling blocks injected from the contract coordinators, etc. You can sometimes have a setup where one contractor executes and one contractor oversees, but anyone who's worked on a project overseen by one of those contracting management companies (DeLoitte, Accenture, etc) knows that doesn't fix anything either, and the contract coordinator isn't going to stop their bullshit either, now you just have twice as many layers of management shitting things up. There's no magic bullet here, but management and IT services within the USG drastically need a shakeup, and increasing pay scales to match the private sector has to be there too. On top of that you basically need a top to bottom review of the regulations and SOPs. It's simply too hard to actually get work done, at every level. There is too much security theater, too little real security, too many fiefs, too many bosses, too many approval processes, too many dumb requirements that were coded into law 20 years ago when they maybe made a little sense but have long-since ceased to be best practices. Also, contracts are for a specific and limited period of time. Often development and maintenance are under different contracts - which will be bid out separately. So the first contractor doesn't really care about anything except getting it out the door, then the USG will be super surprised that they're pulling the plug once they've met the bare minimum of the requirements, and then there's no money to actually maintain it on an ongoing basis. If there is, that money will be bid out again and probably goes to a different contractor. Keeping it internal at least means that somebody has ownership of the project. Contracting turns everything into a game of hot potato with everyone racing to throw the potato as soon as they've done the bare minimum to accomplish their contractual obligations and get paid.

Spooky23 6y ago

I think your assessment is flat out wrong... good people are everywhere and most companies don’t fire folks for cause. There are different problems in civil service government entities, but the number of “below average” employees is usually based in size of org, not type of org. A big bank isn’t much smarter internally than a big government agency. A small company lacks the controls and depth of skill just like a town or small city. I worked for a non-Federal US government, and my team was an amazing group of talented and passionate people. Despite all of the nonsense of living in a bureaucracy where 500 people can say “no”, the mission and the impact on our neighbors was worth it. Compensation meh, total compensation was good. But as time went on, the terms of the deal changed for new employees — generous pensions and benefits were tweaked in a way that marginally reduced cost, but dramatically reduced value to the employee. End result was average turnover of new hires was ~70% vs ~20%, and after I’m dead, the state pension fund will be sitting pretty as the new folks pay more to collect dramatically less benefits.

jolux 6y ago
I don't see anything in your post that I disagree with so I find it interesting that you said I was flat out wrong in my assessment. I will say that below average competence is probably the wrong phrase, mostly what I meant is that it attracts some people who are not driven to execute and are fine with putting up with bureaucratic roadblocks to getting things done, when the kind of people you really want are those that are driven to removing certain roadblocks. Those are hard to find.

dimmke 6y ago

>they cannot afford to pay people market rates This is not true! On average, the federal government is paying quite a bit of money for tech people. I'd seriously estimate they're paying almost FAANG rates in a lot of cases all told. The problem is that a lot of it gets siphoned off in the contracting process. The contracting process needs to be fixed. There's a ton of huge established players doing really bad work. IT specifically gets treated differently in government contracting, and is almost always procured through something called a GWAC which is basically a moat that it's hard for new companies to get into (the goal is to streamline procurement by having "vetted" companies in this pool already but it usually means it's very difficult for new players to get involved.) That is changing, just very slowly. The agency that created this playbook, GSA, is helping facilitate that with things like introducing good vendors to other agencies and smaller more limited engagements.

jolux 6y ago
I'm aware of the problems with the contracting process. My experience with salary is at the state level where things are much more stark, but I also don't think that federal salaries are comparable with FAANG, particularly Google. Most at 18F are at GS-15, right?
- dimmke 6y ago
  Fair point about state/local. My statement about FAANG was based on some napkin math I did with regard to published rates for certain labor categories by some big contracting companies on some vehicles they were a part of. But even doing a quick comparison, levels.fyi estimates about $160 - 180k cash compensation for new hires for FAANG. GS-15 Step 3 in DC is 150k. Plus excellent government benefits. It's spitting distance at least.
  - jolux 6y ago
    Point taken, but I think that's probably a best case scenario for government IT in general. I am lucky enough to work for a state-level 18F-alike that has the latitude to pay people market rates, but looking at what my coworkers outside of my direct org get paid I often feel incredibly guilty.

paulmd 6y ago

Yes, and the "total compensation" is no longer good either. "The pay sucks but you get great benefits" meme is no longer true of most state/federal government jobs, those benefits have been drastically shaved down over the last 30 years. The other major recruiting problem is marijuana prohibition. Government has a lot of problems retaining high-skill IT people because a huge number of computer-touchers smoke. iirc FBI has commented on their inability to hire good technical staff because they can't find anyone who doesn't smoke. And it's not just a question of willingness to smoke or not going forward, for most public-trust positions you're going to have to abstain for at least a year before even applying. What are you willing to give up for a job offer that you might not even get? For computer-touchers with lots of other options, that answer is "not much". And federal jobs are basically low-paying, highly-competitive, and high-bureaucracy, when you could be making bank and having a reasonably satisfying work experience in the private sector. And thus you filter out a huge number of the exact people you're trying to hire - young techies who are familiar with modern IT and development practices.

jolux 6y ago
In particular you can't get any kind of security clearance if you have any history of cannabis usage, as far as I know. I wanted to enlist in the military a few years ago but unfortunately my history with weed means I'm more or less excluded, I think.
- PopeDotNinja 6y ago
  Did you actually try applying? I think they are looking for candidness and some distance between you & the chronic. If you say you used to smoke, but quit two years ago and don’t miss it at all, that’s different than wearing a 420BlazeIt t-shirt to the interview and saying you haven’t smoked in almost an hour.
  - jolux 6y ago
    I haven't tried applying, no. I did some research into it and it seemed dicey. I also have friends with clearance who say it's a complete tossup depending on who you talk to.

syshum 6y ago

>>We have a mentality in the US that government cannot do anything right Well many many of us have the mentality that the US Government and various local governments SHOULD NOT be doing some of the things they are attempting to do, even if they could See we believe in LIMITED government, VERY LIMITED government as such we do not believe in giving the government more resources to take over things it has no ethical authority to be meddling with in the first place

eddietejeda 6y ago

While mostly true, let’s put this into perspective: A GS-15 in a metro area like New York, DC, and San Francisco, with experience, can get over $170. Throw in performance bonus and matching contributions, and total compensation is $180k+. That does not compare with the high end of the private sector, but that’s reasonable for a lot of people, even at tech companies. You can estimate here: https://www.federalpay.org/gs/calculator https://www.federalpay.org/gs/calculator Also, the sense of duty and serving the public is real. And this is not expressed in a tongue and cheek way... it’s an earnest desire to do meaningful work. Many people who join USDS, 18F, and PIF from the tech industry are there because they genuinely want to do good work.

jolux 6y ago
Sure, but this is not the case with state governments. My point may have been diluted by including the federal government.
- matheweis 6y ago
  I worked for a state university for several years, and while there were certainly those there to collect their paycheck, there were also many who - as the parent suggests - had a very earnest desire to do meaningful work.
- wslack 6y ago
  True, and not something that can be changed through technology, but there are good digital services operating in quite a few states!
  - jolux 6y ago
    I'm part of one :)
    - wslack 6y ago
      <3
6y ago