18F's Legacy: Lessons in Digital Government and Service Delivery

The Genesis of 18F

• 💡 18F was established within the US federal government as a digital consultancy aimed at building better digital services.
• 🚀 Its creation was influenced by the failures of major government tech projects like healthcare.gov and a broader realization that governments needed in-house capacity to manage technology.
• 🔑 Key figures like Jennifer Pahlka, then Deputy CTO, played a crucial role in laying the groundwork for 18F, focusing on building internal capacity.

18F's Operational Model

• 🤝 Unlike crisis-response teams, 18F operated as a "Peace Corps" of digital services, only engaging with agencies that actively invited their assistance.
• 🛠️ The team emphasized open source practices, making their work publicly accessible through GitHub repositories and a blog to foster transparency and collaboration.
• 💰 Funded through GSA's Acquisition Services Fund, 18F operated on a fee-for-service model, ensuring accountability to partner agencies.

Impact and Evolution of 18F's Work

• 🎯 18F's projects, such as Cloud.gov, Login.gov, and Analytics.usa.gov, aimed to provide foundational infrastructure and services for government use.
• 📈 The unit evolved from offering advice and consulting to developing reusable products and eventually contributing to government infrastructure.
• 🗣️ A core aspect of 18F's approach was user research and discovery sprints, focusing on understanding problems and users before proposing solutions, distinguishing it from a "move fast and break things" mentality.

Resistance and Demise of 18F

• ⚠️ Resistance to 18F came from external entities like DC media and vendors who perceived the team as a threat to their business models and existing government contracts.
• 📉 Internal critiques also arose, with some viewing innovation teams as implicitly criticizing established work and potentially breeding resentment.
• 💔 The closure of 18F in March was attributed to a combination of political shifts, a desire to shrink government capacity, and a perceived ideological alignment of its staff with progressive politics, rather than a rational assessment of its effectiveness.