Think about the technology entity that impacts the most people in the United States.
- Apple?
- Google?
- Amazon?
Nope.
It's the government.
Federal, state, city, and even town government.
The government touches every aspect of our lives, from healthcare and education to transportation and social services. And let's be honest, we've all experienced the frustrations of clunky government websites and outdated systems. They're in sharp contrast to the easy-to-use interfaces and information systems from the likes of Apple, Microsoft, and Google.
Now, this isn't about politics (we're not that dumb 😆), but it is a political issue. Because, shockingly, the U.S. hasn't had a full-time Chief Technology Officer (CTO) since January 2021. That's the longest gap since the position was created in 2009! The implications are real, and they're showing up in the way government technology operates-or, more accurately, doesn't operate.
At The Gnar, we get a close-up look when we work with government agencies to build better technology - and almost every time we're hampered by limitations that a CTO could solve.
As an example, there's an assumption that the government needs to cater to the tiny percentage of people who don't use mobile devices. What that means is that The Gnar (and other technologists) are forced to build systems that are unnecessarily complex to accommodate unlikely edge cases. This often results in slow, clunky systems that are frustrating for everyone involved.
But here's the thing - over 90% of adults in the U.S. have smartphones! By refusing to invest in technology for the majority, we're not serving the needs of the people. And even worse, we're hindering innovation. We're spending too much time on the 10% who aren't on mobile, and that means almost no advancements for the 90% who are.
We understand the importance of serving all populations, but we also know that sacrificing progress for the sake of a one-solution approach is a recipe for disaster. The one-solution approach is dead. We've seen it in entertainment - cable no longer serves everyone, there are different options for people based on their needs and preferences.
A federal CTO can help set technology policies and direction at the highest level, prioritizing innovation and creating a vision for how technology can serve people better. This is a role that can't be limited to interim titles or focused on technology maintenance. The benefits of a CTO are truly in creating long-term strategic direction for technology, and developing a plan to implement it.
This is true - and perhaps even more important - at the state-level. Most state agencies don't share technology goals or systems. There's a lack of communication between different divisions, which leads to recurring issues and the need to solve the same problems over and over again.
It may not be entirely realistic for a federal CTO to facilitate communication and knowledge sharing across all agencies, but a state-level CTO should have enough visibility to make meaningful strategic and tactical change.
State level CTOs would also be close enough to the problem to overcome a second roadblock - an anti-innovation mindset. The government has plenty of employees who are not seeking to improve the way things are done - especially when it comes to technology and automation.
A CTO with clear visibility into digital transformation opportunities can help create programs to foster better training, hiring, and retention practices so the government can move at a faster pace with better results. We have seen that people can be retrained to better serve the public by facilitating new technology.
These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. We're wary of too much strategic technology leadership when it isn't appropriate, but the size and scale of the government makes a CTO a requirement.
We think there's enormous opportunity in our public-sector digital experiences and, with a stronger commitment to innovation, we can create a more efficient, effective, and user-friendly government for everyone.
