Software and software vendors are among the biggest barriers to instituting new public policies or processes. The last twenty years have seen staggering advances in technology, user interfaces, and user-centric design, but governments have been left behind, saddled with outdated, bespoke, and inefficient software solutions. Worse, change of any kind can be impractical with existing technology systems or when choosing from existing vendors. This fact prevents public servants from implementing new evidence-based practices, becoming more data-driven, or experimenting with new service models.
Recent improvements in civic technology are often at the fringes of government activity, while investments in best practices or “what works” are often impossible for any government to implement because of technology. So while over the last five years, there has been an explosion of investments and activity around “civic innovation,” the results are often mediocre. On the one hand, governments end up with little more than tech toys or apps that have no relationship to the outcomes that matter (e.g. poverty alleviation, service delivery). While on the other hand, tens of millions of dollars are invested in academic research, thought leadership, and pilot programs on improving outcomes that matter, but no government can ever practically implement them because of their software.
Done correctly software can be the wedge to radically improve governments. The process to build that technology can be inclusive: engaging users inside government, citizens that interface with programs, community stakeholders, and outside experts and academics.
We are interested in funding tools that vastly and fundamentally improve the provisioning of services by civic organizations.
The bottleneck is not building software, it is more like “governments are old gray organizations that don’t want to change anything”.
If you find any place where the actual software development is the bottleneck, I’d be very happy to hear and maybe take part in it. I also expect many other EA developers to want to take part, it sounds like a good project
(For context, I was the Chief Data Officer of the California State Government and CTO of Newark, NJ when Cory Booker was Mayor).
I actually think the way to do this is to partner with one city and build everything they need to run the city. The problem is that people can’t use piecemeal systems very well. It would just take a huge initial set of capital—like exactly the type of capital that could be provided here.
Sounds like a really interesting suggestion. Especially if it would be for a city that “matters” (that will help people do important things?), I think this project could interest me and others
Civic sector software
Economic Growth, Values and Reflective Processes
Software and software vendors are among the biggest barriers to instituting new public policies or processes. The last twenty years have seen staggering advances in technology, user interfaces, and user-centric design, but governments have been left behind, saddled with outdated, bespoke, and inefficient software solutions. Worse, change of any kind can be impractical with existing technology systems or when choosing from existing vendors. This fact prevents public servants from implementing new evidence-based practices, becoming more data-driven, or experimenting with new service models.
Recent improvements in civic technology are often at the fringes of government activity, while investments in best practices or “what works” are often impossible for any government to implement because of technology. So while over the last five years, there has been an explosion of investments and activity around “civic innovation,” the results are often mediocre. On the one hand, governments end up with little more than tech toys or apps that have no relationship to the outcomes that matter (e.g. poverty alleviation, service delivery). While on the other hand, tens of millions of dollars are invested in academic research, thought leadership, and pilot programs on improving outcomes that matter, but no government can ever practically implement them because of their software.
Done correctly software can be the wedge to radically improve governments. The process to build that technology can be inclusive: engaging users inside government, citizens that interface with programs, community stakeholders, and outside experts and academics.
We are interested in funding tools that vastly and fundamentally improve the provisioning of services by civic organizations.
Hey, this is somewhat my domain.
The bottleneck is not building software, it is more like “governments are old gray organizations that don’t want to change anything”.
If you find any place where the actual software development is the bottleneck, I’d be very happy to hear and maybe take part in it. I also expect many other EA developers to want to take part, it sounds like a good project
(For context, I was the Chief Data Officer of the California State Government and CTO of Newark, NJ when Cory Booker was Mayor).
I actually think the way to do this is to partner with one city and build everything they need to run the city. The problem is that people can’t use piecemeal systems very well. It would just take a huge initial set of capital—like exactly the type of capital that could be provided here.
Ah ok forget about it being somewhat my domain :P
Sounds like a really interesting suggestion. Especially if it would be for a city that “matters” (that will help people do important things?), I think this project could interest me and others
(I’m interested if you have opinions about https://zencity.io/, as a domain expert)
Somewhat related, I submitted “Comprehensive, personalized, open source simulation engine for public policy reforms”. Governments could also use the simulation engine to explore policy reforms and to improve operations, e.g. to establish individual households’ eligibility for means-tested benefit programs.