To make government more efficient, we must first make it more effective

In 2013, when a scrappy group of Silicon Valley technologists was brought in to help fix HealthCare.gov, they were taking part in a paradigm shift. 

The service’s public failure helped expose the government’s need for modern development methods supported by vendors who use them. Eventually, the successful effort to stabilize and rebuild HealthCare.gov empowered innovators within government to advance much-needed changes.

Nava, a public benefit corporation aiming to make government services simple and effective, emerged from the effort to rebuild HealthCare.gov. Our founders, who were among those Silicon Valley technologists, officially formed Nava in 2015 after working with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for nearly two years. They recognized that a modern, human-centered approach to technology could help public institutions operate more effectively and efficiently, which in turn could restore people’s trust in government. 

We’re celebrating 10 years as a company this year, and we’re still helping governments at all levels build simple and effective services. This experience demonstrated that often, the government has the technology and capabilities to provide excellent services, but complex procedures hinder modernization. 

Government efficiency is ultimately a byproduct of effective systems, structures and processes. So, to get efficient, we first have to get effective. This means prioritizing outcomes over procedures, holding vendors accountable, and reforming government funding. 

Prioritizing outcomes over procedures

Whether it’s getting money in the hands of unemployed workers or ensuring veterans can file claims for disability benefits, outcomes are unequivocally the foundation of restoring public trust. Yet more often than not, government procedures prevent civil servants from delivering effective services. 

When starting up a new project, it’s not uncommon for government agencies to mandate complex, years-long requirements-gathering exercises with immovable deadlines. This can make it impossible to rapidly adapt to new challenges or opportunities. 

Jen Pahlka, founder of Code for America and the United States’ former deputy CTO, writes about this in her book, “Recoding America.” 

“Requirements are the foundation of software development processes in government, and the source of many of its failures.” 

The results of such procedures are Kafkaesque services that check all the boxes except the most important — working well for the public.

To operate more efficiently, we must prioritize outcomes over procedures. This means forming tighter feedback loops between policymakers and those implementing the policy, as well as simplifying bureaucratic requirements. It means allowing implementors to be flexible and accountable in achieving the “what” without upfront prescriptions from higher-ups on the “how.” It means acknowledging the layered complexities of government modernization rather than designing processes that ignore them. 

Unnecessary complexity is the biggest driver of government costs in the long term. Meeting the public’s needs from the start, mainly by crafting outcome-driven policy and practicing rapid human-centered implementation, is the most effective way of keeping costs low and sustainable. 

Holding vendors accountable through true competition

Frequently, this accountability comes down to how agencies procure services from vendors. If they solicit services solely based on whether the provider has done similar work in the past, then winning bids will always come from the same vendors. Knowing they virtually can’t lose, these vendors have little incentive to bring innovation and new perspectives to delivery. 

Time and time again, we’ve seen the harm of vendors who dominate contracts or markets by locking government into their products or services. 

Reforming government procurement can help set a level competitive playing field. Crisp procurements that ask vendors to demonstrate their capabilities are much more effective than complex procurements that require several-hundred-page bids. Not only does this ensure that the winner can actually perform the work, it also gives opportunities to others who have the delivery chops but maybe lack the same on-paper experience as a massive firm. 

If a vendor is under-performing, the government must be empowered to fire them. Government contracts have option years — essentially, elective contract extensions — for this very reason. 

Reforming government funding

We cannot seriously discuss reform and efficiency without talking about the money. As of now, Congress allocates funds to federal agencies per fiscal year. Funds don’t roll over year-to-year, encouraging agencies to construct budgets around these individual timeframes — not value or multi-year outcomes. 

The annual funding cycle also inhibits effective modernization. Frequently, government frontloads project spending and then rapidly shrinks the budget as the project enters maintenance. The problem is that the system will eventually need to be modernized, demanding even more resources than it took to build in the first place. 

By contrast, most modern software projects ramp up slowly as teams conduct discovery research, engage with users, and prototype and test solutions. Working this way promotes continuous improvement and greater adaptability to people’s changing needs while avoiding costly modernization spikes. It also ensures that the software evolves daily and maintains stability.

Annual funding cycles favor the former way of working. To enable the latter way, Congress must increase funding slowly and incrementally. Changing how our government allocates funds is a massive structural undertaking, but it’s also essential if we are serious about using software to operate more efficiently. 

Looking inward

In 2024, over three-quarters of Americans said they did not trust government to do what’s right. Despite modest improvements over the past few years, the vast majority still do not feel supported by our institutions. 

As civic technologists, we must continuously evaluate our successes and, more importantly, our failures, and leverage those insights to work more effectively. The stakes have never been higher.