I posted this on the bluesky and people found it useful there:
You should know that a big part of 18F's work was to make sure multi-million to multi-*hundreds*-of-millions dollar contracts at fed *and* state level didn't go to shitty enterprise IT consultancies that *repeatedly* delivered tech that didn't work, was late, or didn't even do what it needed to
I brought 18F in on its first engagement with a state. They helped us turn around a giant half-billion-dollar procurement in a waterfall RFP into something that was broken up into smaller chunks in < 4 weeks.
They stood up user research. They helped assess vendors on what they could *actually* do.
18F helps states check whether consultancies and bidders can do what they say they do -- because many governments lack the experience + capability to check those claims anymore.
When people say they were the tip of the spear, they really were.
You can't imagine how difficult it is to persuade a government to fundamentally change how it develops/acquires/manages technology at any scale without the reassurance that the federal government will support it.
States needed 18F to even have the thought that feds would have their back.
You should realize that federal government can't *practically* make states etc. produce better tech experiences for people. The fed can't practically just turn off funding for a critical program unless states develop tech better.
If you want government to do better, it needs help it can trust.
... and one of the reasons why you haven't heard of 18F is because 18F's successes are really down to the agencies, departments, and programs. Because they're responsible for the tech.
And you want them to be responsible, not a small authoritarian unaccountable cadre that works in secret.
One of 18F's jobs was helping gov everywhere actually make sure its info + services are readable and understandable by a normal person, instead of confusing, unclear, bureaucratic bullshit.
You can (& should) argue that gov should be doing that anyway. 18F was getting us there.
... if you're wondering "if 18F is so good then clearly we need more, why so small" then part of the answer is:
* it wasn't given the funding it was needed
* so it had to be cost recovery / paid for by customers
* guess which bit of congress didn't think it should exist
an infuriating things about DOGE etc is they're not entirely wrong. Accepting that is a sign of maturity imho. 18F could've done more but:
* not allowed to pick clients or directly offer help
* just getting agreements to work would take 6+mo
* programs didn't have money to afford 18F anyway
@danhon i feel like "it wasn't given the funding it needed" and "guess which bit of congress didn't think it should exist" are the same thing and are the root cause for a lot of DOGE not being entirely wrong.
the revolution isn't going to come from unlimited clean power or faster than light travel. it will be when someone figures out how to convince the electorate that these "unsexy" fixing the government for the better things are important and helpful.
Dan Hon
Ian Dees