← The Lawfare Podcast
The Lawfare Podcast
Lawfare Daily: Hillary Hartley and David Eaves on 18F, Its Origin, Legacy, and Lesson
00:42:10
Loading summary
Transcript67 lines
- [00:01]
Kevin Frazier
The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad free version of the Lawfare Podcast.
- [00:08]
David Eaves
Become a material supporter of lawfare@patreon.com lawfare.
- [00:15]
Kevin Frazier
That'S patreon.com Lawfair also check out Lawfare's other podcast offerings, Rational Security, Chatter, Lawfare, no Bull and the Aftermath.
- [00:33]
David Eaves
Hey, you know what would make your customer service.
- [00:34]
Kevin Frazier
Help desk way better?
- [00:36]
David Eaves
Dumping it and then switching to intercom.
- [00:38]
Kevin Frazier
But you're not quite ready to make that change. We get it.
- [00:42]
David Eaves
That's why fin, the world's leading AI.
- [00:44]
Kevin Frazier
Customer service agent, is now available on every help desk.
- [00:48]
David Eaves
Fin can instantly resolve up to 80%.
- [00:50]
Kevin Frazier
Of your tickets, which makes your customers.
- [00:52]
David Eaves
Happier and gets you off the customer service rep hiring treadmill Finned by Intercon.
- [00:57]
Kevin Frazier
The leading customer service AI agent now.
- [00:59]
David Eaves
Available on every help desk It's a cold day here in Alaska, but there's one animal seemingly unaffected. Bright eyed and determined enters the husky. Observe as they go up the mountain, guided by pure instinct. They are truly amazing masters of this wilderness. But even these amazing pets can't sign up for Lemonade Pet Insurance. You can sign up now@lemonade.com Amazing.
- [01:36]
Hilary Hartley
The problem is that for decades, government outsourced its mission. And when you outsource your mission, that's when you're in trouble. Because not only do you not have inside capacity to understand if the vendors are telling you that you're on the right track or what your actual problem is, you need people inside to understand your actual problem, what users actually need, and what's going to fix it. Then you go ask for that.
- [02:01]
Kevin Frazier
It's the Lawfare podcast. I'm Kevin Frazier, the AI Innovation and Law Fellow at Texas Law and a contributing editor at lawfare, joined by Hilary Hartley, the former Chief Digital Officer of Ontario and former co founder and deputy executive director at 18F, and David Eaves, Associate professor of Digital Government and co deputy Director of the Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose at University College London.
- [02:28]
David Eaves
Not everybody wanted them to come. Not everybody asked. But the places that did ask knew that they needed to figure something out and do something differently. They went where there were coalitions of the willing that wanted to change.
- [02:41]
Kevin Frazier
Today we're talking about 18F, the now defunct digital services team that was tasked with updating 18 and enhancing government systems and services. In a time of rapid changes in the federal government, you might have missed one of the most consequential shakeups, the closure of 18F. Between Senate speeches, agency closures and mass layoffs, the dismantling of this small but mighty federal Digital team barely made a ripple, but its loss may deprive the people of a wave of government savings and service improvements. So if you care about how government works, or more importantly, how it should work, this is one upheaval you need to understand. Today we're going to Explore what made 18F special, why it faced resistance, and what lessons its story offers for the next iteration of digital government. Hillary, one time director co founder of 18F. Let's start with you. What the heck is 18F and what did it do and what was your role there?
- [03:44]
Hilary Hartley
Thanks, Kevin. 18F was essentially a consultancy inside the US federal government trying to build great digital services. I use the word consultancy pretty specifically. A lot of digital services teams have started since GDS, the government digital service in the UK, started since USDS. And 18F was always shaped a little differently and we always kind of had that consultancy bone in our body. You know, we really wanted to be the team that program owners could come to for, for advice, for help, for, you know, just encouragement on how to get started. And we would work with them to, you know, help them figure out their problems, figure out what they needed and then build stuff.
- [04:35]
Kevin Frazier
So, Hilary, you were obviously in the meat and bones of that effort of this consultancy. Dave, what was your relationship to 18F? How did you become familiar with this quirk of the federal government that people probably haven't heard of prior to its closure and perhaps haven't heard of since?
- [04:55]
David Eaves
So I had been advising Code for America and had been responsible for the kind of education of the fellows in Code for America and through that. When the Presidential Innovation Fellows program got started, which preceded all of this, but was a kind of first effort to bring technology talent into the government and kind of start to think about how we could be doing things differently? I was invited to come and speak to the Presidential Donation Fellows. In fact, the Fellows requested me. I was the first person they requested to have come in. So that was a real privilege. And I was like, oh, these are really great and interesting people. And then the following year, Jen Palka, who had founded CO for America, then moved to the White House and said, would I come and do kind of a two, you know, a one or two day training for the Presidential Innovation Fellows. And that's when I met many of the people who would go on to become kind of instrumental in the creation of 18F. So that was maybe not my first contact with 18F, but it was first contact with the people who would make it happen. And, you know, some of them I knew from before some of them I met there and I was just kind of following them in their journey, which continued that they. They founded it. I wanted no role in doing that, but was always very supportive. But then I was brought in every year subsequently to help, you know, do a training program for the Presidential Innovation Fellows and had a lot of friends there and then ultimately ended up at Harvard where I was convening digital teams from around the world. And naturally 18F was a core part of those people coming together.
- [06:15]
Kevin Frazier
So of, of the people who know about 18F, I'm going to put you all at the top 1% of 18F knowledge. So we are very lucky to have you help explain its importance and the significance of its closure. And with respect to that significance, I want to point out that if you pick up the Constitution, as I do, too frequently, or perhaps not enough, depending on who you ask, you won't find in Article 1, Section 8, some mention of Congress shall create a consultancy that will help it improve digital services. The founders apparently weren't ready for the digital era. So Hillary, can you help me Understand, when did 18F emerge? Did it just show up one day? People said, hey, I'm smart and I know tech. Can I help the government? What gave rise to the creation of 18F?
- [07:02]
Hilary Hartley
It was really a confluence of events and a lot of different factors. So I was a Presidential Innovation fellow in the second cohort. So the first cohort Dave talked about was 2012, and then I was a fellow in 2013. And 2013 was a bit momentous in a few ways. One, there was a website that failed fairly spectacularly.
- [07:29]
David Eaves
What? No way.
- [07:31]
Kevin Frazier
Not a federal government website? Surely not.
- [07:34]
Hilary Hartley
That happened to be pretty critical to President Obama's mandate. So of course I'm talking about healthcare pretty much at the same time, if I remember the timing correctly. But there was also a government shutdown, which I don't think had happened in a while. And so there were a lot of us furloughed for a little while. There were also folks that had been sent off to the rescue effort for healthcare.gov and there was just this itch. We can do this better. We know we can do this better. There was a lot of kind of behind the scenes momentum in that period. But what I'll say is that by no means was sort of like the seed of all of this, because Jennifer Palka, who was the founder of Code for America and had worked with David and brought him in to train the fellows, she had been essentially brought into the White House as a Deputy Chief Technology officer, that year 2013. So we were serving at the same time. And one of her mandates was really think about, she had gotten to know the people behind gds in the uk. She'd really been able to see the positives and the negatives of the fellowship model and knew that really to drive this long term, we had to think about capacity differently and we needed to be thinking about in house capacity. So that was really something she was focused on during 2013 when I was serving as a Fellow. So by the time all of us were furloughed and sitting around and agitated, training to figure out what we were going to do next, there was always a. There was already a lot of groundwork laid for this to happen. So a lot of fellows had been hired into the General Services Administration. My role was inside gsa and there were several of us inside GSA that year. And the administrator, Dan Tangarlini, became a champion, you know, kind of in conversations with Jen and others about how are we going to do this? For a while we were jokingly calling, you know, starting a team and calling them perma piffs. Like, you know, he was very interested in, okay, how do we get this capacity to stick around and do great work. So that was really kind of how it happened in October. And then through the end of the year, we started having serious conversations about what it would look like to get a group, you know, a cohort of folks to stick around beyond their, the end of their fellowship date and become permapefs. That was the seed of it.
- [09:59]
Kevin Frazier
I'm looking forward to one day finding on someone's resume perma PIF and being like, oh, I talked to Hillary Hartley. I know what that means. Congratulations. But what's really intriguing to me is you're pointing out obviously the severe need if we have healthcare.gov crash alarm bells going off across the country, we can't make a website. Right. And that's just obviously gave rise to a clear need for something like assistance from smart tech folks to come in. And what's crucial here is it wasn't a call to Booz Allen or it wasn't a call to Mackenzie. It was a call to folks already in the government. But Dave, can you, can you help us understand why the existence of talent, being there already, already having those PIFs, those Presidential Innovation Fellows in place, already having kind of tech savvy people be a part of the government was so essential to getting 18F off the ground to begin with and then to its kind of early successes.
- [10:59]
David Eaves
Yeah. So two things I want to talk about first is I do want to just say there is like an international context that matters here as well. Like it wasn't just the United States that was facing this problem. I want to remind everybody, like, we think of healthcare.gov as kind of recent history, but if you're a 25 year old in my class doing a Master's of Public administration, you were like 12 years old when healthcare.gov happened. You're like, it's as deep history as the 1970s is to people listening to this, to the podcast. But so I just want to remind some of the listeners on this call, like, this was a transformational moment where there was a real crisis and a core policy that was going to benefit tens of millions of people could not happen because the technology was not working. It really presented a crisis of confidence in the government's ability to execute. And the United States was not the only country to have this problem. There had been a similar crisis in the UK actually involving healthcare as well, that happened about 10 years earlier or so where they spent close to $10 billion on a healthcare record system that basically didn't work out. Like the money just was all wasted. And it also was a huge crisis of confidence the government. And there was this realization that we can't just outsource everything. We have to have some capacity, if only to understand how to define the problems and choose people to do the work. We have to have some internal capacity. And it may be that we need to have some capacity, actually can build. It might be cheaper and better and easier if we build some things in house, partly just to do with that, but partly just to keep the capacity so we can evaluate the people we are outsourcing more effectively. And so that realization was starting to dawn. But I think just to really, really kind of the big thing was going on is governments were finally wrestling with the fact that the Internet was a thing that people expected to get services on it. And they were very slowly realizing that the entire government actually runs on technology. And now citizens are interfacing directly with that technology to get services and we don't have a ton of models or ideas about how to operate in this way.
- [13:00]
Kevin Frazier
And Hilary, it's hard to have this conversation and not mention Doge. Right. I'm sure for a lot of listeners right now, the thing that's already come to mind is, oh, so you're telling me a bunch of tech oriented people showed up to the government one day and said, hi, we're here to fix things and we know more about the latest technology than you do. What is distinct about how 18F operated as opposed to how Doge is operating right now. And to the extent you want to explore Doge and comment on that, that's fine. If you'd prefer to focus explicitly on how 18F function, that's also fine. I'll leave it to you.
- [13:39]
Hilary Hartley
I will be clear that I don't know if I know how DOGE is operating, and I don't know if they know how they're operating in terms of this work, in terms of what they're going to do in terms of building. I've been paying attention to some of the news. I've been following along with what the folks inside GSA currently are talking about. And really, they're putting all of their eggs in the AI basket. And that's a whole other podcast. And so, you know, I don't know that I know enough to understand really what they're thinking or how they're operating, but I do know that 18F USDs public servants writ large. When you go into public service, you take an oath and you understand, you know, you're. You understand probably the. The pay cut maybe, that you took. You understand that you are there for a bigger mission. And that was. We felt that we. You know, it was one of the reasons that so many of us wanted to. To stick around after our fellowships. You know, I was on a leave of absence from a technology company and didn't want to leave. You know, I didn't want to leave. I guess I didn't want to go back. I wanted to stay and, you know, keep making a difference inside government. You know, it takes a lot to push those boulders uphill, but it's worth it. And I think one of the things that we all recognized was that David talked about outsourcing capacity. But the problem is that for decades, government outsourced its mission. And when you outsource your mission, that's when you're in trouble, because not only do you not have inside capacity to understand if the vendors are telling you that you're on the right track or what your actual problem is, you need people inside to understand your actual problem, what users actually need, and what's going to fix it, then you go ask for that. And government didn't have that for a long time. And, you know, if there's a kernel of what I think all of these groups are trying to do yet, we're building things, building some awesome things sometimes. But I think that's like the thing that if we can turn that Titanic around, That's the thing that really shifts the conversation. And that's what. I don't know if Doge really understands.
- [16:00]
Kevin Frazier
Yeah, Dave, you want to jump in here?
- [16:02]
David Eaves
Yeah. I love this thing about the mission. I think, again, I want to link it back to like, understanding how government works in a digital era, because you have to understand for like, we've had computers in government since 1950s, but it's mostly been running back office systems. What shifted kind of mid 2000s and then particularly took off after 2010, was this notion that people were going to interact directly with their government over a website or a mobile device. You understand, like in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s, if you interacted with a citizen, they came into your office and so you, you learned something about them. Like, you knew these people. Like, you, you knew what their needs were, you knew what their problems were, you knew what the edge cases looked like, and, and the people who were like the public servants sitting in those office, they knew how to navigate those edge cases, they knew how to deal with people. But when everything moves to a website, the people get abstracted away. Like, you don't actually know where they're struggling unless you are building monitoring into your website. You don't know where the edge cases are, you don't know who's dropping on. And it's this weird, like this implicit skill of understanding people which existed, distributed in these offices gets disappeared. And you now have to make this implicit skill an explicit skill of the government. And so part of what Hillary's talking about is like, you don't know your mission as part is you don't know your citizens anymore, you don't know your residents, you don't know your the public because you're not touching them. It's weird. Like in the, in the digital era, we have to build all these new skills, part of which are very technology focused, but part of them actually are very, very human focused. Because we have to make the human part even more explicit.
- [17:32]
Kevin Frazier
And I do want to, and I apologize, I promise this won't just become the Doge podcast, but something I want to highlight that Hilary, I'd love your comments on would be, I think everyone, all else equal, would say, do you want more tech savvy people in government? They'd say, yes. The second question now may be, do you want to make sure they are accountable and transparent in their actions? They would also say, hell yes, or some variant of that. So can you describe a little bit more about how 18F interacted with agencies? How there was a sort of Heightened accountability and transparency built into its work to give people an understanding of what it actually meant for the 18F to show up at an agency's door.
- [18:16]
Hilary Hartley
Yeah, I think it's a couple of factors. One is from the moment we really wrote our first or second blog post, we talked about being an open source team.
- [18:28]
Kevin Frazier
Well, I just want to pause there. Sorry. You had a blog. Let's just focus on that. Right, let's point that out.
- [18:35]
Hilary Hartley
Right.
- [18:35]
Kevin Frazier
Openly accessible. I'm guessing you wrote in plain language. Right. Available to anyone who wanted it. So even that fact, I think is worth calling out, but please continue.
- [18:45]
Hilary Hartley
Well, you're exactly right. So we had a blog and we had to go through GSA comms occasionally to get things published, but they were usually really happy to work with us on what we wanted to put out. And our thesis around the blog was building on what we had seen be successful in other jurisdictions was that it was a tool for us to document kind of how we were doing and what we were learning, but to share that, you know, so that. And to try to be open about successes, failures. Nobody ever blogs enough about their failures. But we sort of tried to talk about the meat, we tried to talk about the work, not just put press releases out. And so that really was at the heart of the 18F blog was, was the work, you know, here's how it's going, here's what we're doing here, the tools we're using. And it's powerful as a transparency tool. I'll be honest, it's powerful as a recruiting tool. You know, I mean, even simple things like, you know, maybe you see a photo in one of the blog posts and somebody's using a Mac and people think the government teams are using Macs. I didn't know. So, but it's little things like that. So one was we tried to be very public and we were an open source team. Everything that we did started as a GitHub repository. Whether it was a, you know, an idea that somebody had or whether we were starting a new project, there was a repository for it. The public could follow along and comment and code along with us if they wanted to. So open source was really at the heart of our value system. And then the second piece in terms of transparency to our partners and other agencies, I think was the fact that we, you know, we weren't sent to their door because something was on fire. We weren't that team, but we were a team in GSA acting like a consultancy. So the General Services Administration does a lot of Business on behalf of other agencies in a lot of ways, you know, they're the landlord for the federal government. They're the buyer of everything from pencils to tanks for the federal government. So they act on behalf of the federal government. And often, you know, there are fees associated with that. There's all kinds of ways that GSA operates. And so we were in that machine machine, which simply by that fact made us different. And, you know, the way we were created and funded was through a fund inside GSA called the Acquisition Services Fund. And it's essentially their. Their fund that allows them to be a buyer, make investments, and know that they're going to get paid back for those. And so since we were funded by that, we were kind of beholden to that same, you know, a statute which was, this is money, but it's got to get paid back. So we had a relationship with partners and partner agencies where we would do work with them, but we were consultants. They had to pay us. So we, we, you know, we did the work for a fee. And I think that creates. It created both accountability to our partners because there is kind of this client relationship. But it also meant that those folks had skin in the game in a different way. You know, we weren't just showing up at their door with, you know, our fire hats on, but we were showing up, like, really wanting to help them.
- [21:57]
Kevin Frazier
I don't know. I mean, showing up in fire hats could be a compelling thing just to send a message.
- [22:05]
David Eaves
Dear old work platform, it's not you, it's us. Actually, it is you. Endless onboarding, constant IT bottlenecks. We've had enough. We need a platform that just gets us.
- [22:16]
Kevin Frazier
And to be honest, we've met someone new. They're called Monday.com and it was love at first.
- [22:21]
David Eaves
Onboarding. Their beautiful dashboards, their customizable workflows got.
- [22:26]
Kevin Frazier
Us floating on a digital cloud nine.
- [22:28]
David Eaves
So no hard feelings, but we're moving on.
- [22:31]
Kevin Frazier
Monday.com, the first work platform you'll love to use.
- [22:35]
David Eaves
What if I told you that right now millions of people are living with a debilitating condition that's so misunderstood, many of them don't even know that they have it. That condition is Obsessive compulsive disorder, or OCD. I'm Dr. Patrick McGrath, the chief clinical officer of NOCD, and in the 25 years I've been treating OCD, I've met so many people who are suffering from the condition in silence, unaware of just what it was. OCD can create overwhelming anxiety and fear around what you value most make you question your identity, beliefs and morals, and drive you to perform mentally and physically draining compulsions or rituals. Over my career, I've seen just how devastating OCD can be when it's left untreated. But help is available. That's where NOCD comes in. NOCD is the world's largest virtual therapy provider for obsessive compulsive disorder. Our licensed therapists are trained in exposure and response prevention therapy, a specialized treatment proven to be incredibly effective for OCD. So visit nocd.com to schedule a free 15 minute call with our team. That's nocd.com hey prime members, are you.
- [23:36]
Kevin Frazier
Tired of ads interfering with your favorite podcasts? Good news. With Amazon Music, you have access to the largest catalog of ad free top podcasts included with your prime membership. To start listening, download the Amazon Music app for free or go to Amazon.com ADFreePodcasts that's Amazon.com ADFreeP Podcasts to catch up on the latest episodes without the ads. Dave I'm sure listeners at this point are like, wow, 18F great. I probably should have known about it before this podcast. Glad it existed. Very sad it now doesn't exist, but are still left asking, well, what did it actually do? Give it. Give me an example of a project or a project or two where 18F was actually doing the work we've talked about. What did that work actually look like? And critically, as you all point out in your forthcoming lawfare piece, how is that work essential to then setting up the government generally or having positive externalities on the government work going forward?
- [24:42]
David Eaves
Yeah, so I love this question. So maybe the first thing just to kind of, maybe also contextualize even more kind of what Hillary was just talking about, which is. So I've been studying governments around the world and how they're kind of grappling with this problem. And the US Government was kind of unique in that it had two teams, not just one, but two teams that were kind of doing this. And one of the things that's so powerful is you have this other team called the United States Digital Service, which is where Doge. Doge has kind of taken over that part. And it was a group in its early days. It was really, it was the, the group with the fire hats. Like they would go often, sometimes when directed to projects that were in crisis. And I kind of jokingly, in the piece I was talking about, like, they're the Marine Corps and they kind of like they show up and they're like, we're here to help. And if you kind of say, well, I don't think I need to help you, like, then you're really not going to, like, the next phone call you get. Like, it's like, we're not really asking. That was very powerful, and it gave them, you know, real leverage, but they were really there to go solve a problem, whether you liked it or not. Whereas I think what was so powerful with 18F is they were the Peace Corps. They only went where they were invited, and they were going to work with you, and they were only going to work with you if you asked them to come in. And so not everybody wanted them to come, not everybody asked. But the places that did ask knew that they needed to figure something out and do something differently. And so you had kind of, like, they went where there were coalitions of the willing that wanted to change. And I think, like, that's a really wonderful story. And part of what makes it wonderful is that they changed the way people worked and thought. It's hilarious. Hillary doesn't even know this. Just yesterday, I was doing an interview for another case study that I'm writing about DOT Flow, the Department of Transport's Flow project, which is this kind of data data trust that they've created around shipping data that was used to help prevent the backlogs at the ports. So, like, nobody knew was going on the ports. Nobody had any data. And so they created this kind of data trust where the shipping companies actually trusted them to hold the data so they could analyze and predict when there might be problems. And in the middle of this interview, a DOT employee suddenly says yes, and we invited 18F in, and they walked us through the way to think about this, because they're like, we are regulators. And suddenly we weren't using our regulatory tools. We had to go build something that people wanted to use, and that had to be compelling and interesting to them. They were going to have to volunteer to participate. And we just had no way of thinking about that. And I wish I almost had this person here because they were genuinely transformed by the experience and the way it made them think about their job and the way they interact with the people they serve and the way they think about their relationship with citizens and the way they think about their relationship with technology. So that, for me, is a great example of kind of like the power of what 18F does when it was operating its best. But the second thing that I really want to hammer home on, which I don't think was intended when 18F started, was the way it evolved to become something, I think, even more powerful than initially conceived. So what we've really talked about are these kind of interventions. And so 18F would get invited in, it would do kind of project work, and that's where it started. But I think the thing that then happened is that the team started to see patterns, like the problems didn't just occur once. It was like, oh, we had the same problem here and the same problem here, the same problem. So then they began to write guidance. Hey, what is the way that we could solve this problem? To help their own teams. But then they're like, because as Hillary said, let's make it all open. So then they shared with the whole world, not just the government, the whole world. And that helped scale these solutions. And then they said, wow, we keep building the same solutions over and over again to solve these problems. So then they started to make products. And so now you had a product line where you were starting to build products that people were using, and they open those products up so anybody, even people they weren't working with, could come and download and use those products. And then some of those products became so valuable and so important that they eventually kind of transformed into a kind of infrastructure where they were core tools that the government could use and rely on that were being run internally at a fraction of the cost of procuring them. And I think that evolution of taking things from advice to consulting to product and then to infrastructure is almost unique. From what I've seen around the world, there are people who get to enter the infrastructure phase, but it's through a different booth, but very, very unique story that I think is a particular contribution of 18F.
- [29:03]
Kevin Frazier
And without getting too political, because we've talked about a lot of positives for 18F. Hillary, I'm going to put you in a tough position because I'm a law professor and I get to cold call on students and it scares them. And now I'm partially cold calling on you. So what's the argument against 18F? Who was opposing this work in terms of creating novel products, in terms of collaborating with agencies, identifying these positives way forward. So if you could walk us through both, when 18F was at its zenith, things are going best. Who's opposing 18F in that scenario? And then if you could also walk us through 2025, what pushed 18F onto that cut list and ultimately resulted in its demise?
- [29:48]
Hilary Hartley
Yeah, if you do a Google search for 18F, well, now the results are all about what happened in March. But before that, you would see kind of articles that would run the gamut from talking about the incredible work that the team shipped in terms of the kinds of things that David was just talking about. So building Cloud.gov, you know, a platform as a service for the government, just incredible. Login.gov, analytics.usa.gov and then, you know, not to mention all of the sort of program specific work that the team did over 10 years. So incredible work, lots of coverage on that. But two things kind of always dogged the team. One was just there was resistance from the beginning from external DC Media vendors to see this group of kids come in wearing their flip flops and shaking things up. And even though I truly do not believe it was warranted, there was always chatter about bringing these kids in from Silicon Valley who think they know better than us. And the number of folks actually from Silicon Valley was pretty small. But that was the mentality of, why are you bringing these folks in? They don't know any better than us. They don't know our business. And so folks external to government vendors, D.C. media, were more than happy to pile onto that because there was, I think, just resistance to a team of smart, capable folks inside government building things at a fraction of the cost. So there was resistance whether it was from vendor community or from media, or just from other parts of. Well, if I'm honest, other parts of gsa, we always try to build a narrative to overcome that and, you know, and to really go into meetings with current and new partners, you know, in a way that always showed empathy, always showed that, like, you know, your business, here's what we know, let's work together, because that's going to make magic.
- [32:05]
Kevin Frazier
If I were listening to this, and I hadn't heard you say the words 18F and I just really want you to double down on this because it'll tee us up nicely for the end here, which is. So you mentioned a bunch of kids in flip flops. They're younger, they say they know how to fix things. They're kind of pointing out wild suggestions that no one's heard of. Can you just describe again? So we have you all were transparent with the blog. You only came at the invitation of the agency. Is there anything else that you really think made the 18F distinct from a sort of move fast and break things? Because that may be the connotation that people have coming into their mind. What else made it a partner more so than the angry consultant? Let's imagine a consultancy that comes in and says, we're just going to tell you what to do. Are there any other sort of formal or informal safeguards that you saw that made 18F more in that collaborative fashion?
- [33:05]
Hilary Hartley
Yeah, 18F and USDS both often started with, which is kind of a, an industry term. And if you're building products in the private sector, but we would often start with a discovery sprint. So that's, you know, it's a couple weeks where you're just really getting to know the partner, their problem, some of the users, etc. Like you're just trying to wrap your head around the problem. You're doing some user research. Maybe during that time you do a couple paper prototypes so you can try something out with actual users. But, but the idea is that you're trying to wrap your head around the problem. You're not coming in, claiming, claiming to know how to fix whatever you're there to do. And I think that was, that's an empathy tool. It's an empathy building tool, you know, and it's what good product developers do. You know, they, they do user research, they try to wrap their head around the problem and they identify the user stories that are going to actually create good outcomes for people.
- [34:06]
Kevin Frazier
I really appreciate that point because it really crystallizes the difference between identifying a solution and telling the agency how to implement it versus hearing about a problem and working through what the solution could look like. And I think that's a critical distinction.
- [34:22]
Hilary Hartley
Yeah. And we didn't have anything out of the box or that we built before, so we were different from vendors. We, we weren't coming in saying, we've done this with this thing before and all you have to do is turn it on. We know your problem so well, just turn it on. So it was a big difference.
- [34:38]
Kevin Frazier
And Dave, I cut Hillary off earlier. I'd love you to build upon that. And if you could also talk about what ultimately motivated the demise of 18F in March.
- [34:49]
David Eaves
I do think the critiques of 18F, I think it depends on where you're standing. But I think there's always some challenges teams like this face. The first is if you have a group of people where you say this is kind of where the newness is happening, this is where the innovation is happening, this is where the new practices are. It is an implicit, it runs the risk of sounding like an implicit critique of everybody else and a lot of other people. They're doing great work, they're struggling in the trenches, and suddenly there's this other group that suddenly has a spotlight on them and, and is maybe given different resources, maybe it's even given More latitude. And that can breed resentment. And this is a challenge. Any innovation team, any enterprise, but especially in government, will suffer from this challenge. And so you actually have to kind of work harder to be friendlier. You have to work harder to be humble. You got to work harder to kind of spread the kind of the limelight in order to not be perceived that way. So I think there's always that challenge that you face and then the other challenges, 18F and USDs. But I think 18F in particular really was challenging a consensus position that had emerged in many governments, which is that governments weren't really competent, they couldn't do things, and that things are best outsourced. And this notion that actually it might be cheaper and more effective and create more value if you build things in the house was very threatening to a lot of people. And you couldn't allow that to succeed because if it succeeded in this domain, my gosh, that blows the entire thesis of this consensus apart. Maybe government's going to start building more capacity in other domains too. And so there were a set of private sector vendors that were deeply concerned about its mere existence even before it had any successes, because any success would present a threat. And I don't think you should underestimate the challenge that those two things posed. I think the sad truth is, funny, I was joking around earlier, I've got my clue little envelope here and I think it says DOGE in the executive office with an exchange server. And I think I just won. But I think the sad truth of the demise is 18F was filled with there's two ways of cutting what's happening with Doge. One is there's just a kind of let's shrink government. But there is a belief out there that we're going to go after the parts of government where it is believed. People who believe in state capacity and are more skewed towards the left tend to be hanging out. And there are tweets and quotes from Musk basically saying this team we got to get rid of because it's filled with basically Democrats or left leaning people, which I don't think was entirely true and I don't think was fair. And so I think that my big fear is that more than any kind of rational assessment about the capacity is what drove it. Which is kind of doubly ironic because actually there is an element of this administration that actually does believe to some degree, a small degree in state capacity in certain ways. And so this team could have actually been serving that interest really, really well.
- [38:04]
Hilary Hartley
And if I could Quickly, Kevin, what David started with there, in terms of 18F, these digital service teams, I think kind of writ large, but their attitude is not always like, move fast and break things, but it is move fast and test things. And it is a fundamental belief that we can do better, that government can do better, that we can deliver better service. And I think that in and of itself, you know, it attracts a certain kind of person, it builds a certain kind of team. And, you know, I think it was we at and F has all. And a lot of digital service teams probably have been filled with folks that like David started with, have just kind of said, this isn't going well, and we need to do it better. And that's. That's just a hard message, I think, for some folks to hear.
- [38:57]
David Eaves
Back when we did the PIF trainings, we talk about. Actually I would do a lot of work with the PIFs, and we talked about, like, the three archetypes of the PIFs, which is actually a little bit of the archetypes of the type of people who end up in 18F. But. But with the PIFs in particular, there were three. There was the careerist who was like, this will just look good on my. My cv. I'm going to show up. I'm gonna do a year of duty. You know, I feel some, you know, some sense of responsibility and do a year of duty, and then I'm gonna move on to the next thing, and it'll be great. And then there were the people, the believers, the people who were like, I believe in product management. I believe in design. I believe in open source. And they were like, I'm going to come and inject this belief into government because I think it'll be better. And these people, they really believe that they could help make government better by bringing this knowledge they had and unleashing it inside this beast and making it better. And then there were the Patriots, who were like, I'll never be asked to join the Marine Corps. I'm not in good enough shape. Or I'm just, like, not the right person. That's not me. I'm not going to serve that way, but I'm here to serve. And you really saw those three people. And what was interesting is they would shift. Sometimes people would arrive as careers and be like, I was here for a year. And then they would become patriots. They'd do the work, and they're like, I'm sold. Sign me up for 20 years. I'm in. And some people would come as a believer, and then they'd Be like, did they become a patriot? Or maybe they'd just become career. They're like, this is much harder. This was harder than I thought. I'm going to do my year, inject what I can and I'm going to get out. But people, they showed up wanting to.
- [40:17]
Kevin Frazier
Serve in some capacity and unfortunately we have to move into the rapid question. Dave, I'm going to start with you and I'm going to give Hillary the last word here. So Dave, the 48th president of the United States shows up and says, dave, I want to restart 18F. What's one reason I should and what's one reform I should consider?
- [40:40]
David Eaves
That's a great question. So I think the answer is definitely yes. And the reason you should is that pipeline that I talked about about moving things from discovery and kind of advice to infrastructure is so important for a digital era. Government, we have to have government. That that was like a sensory everything. It was a sensory thing which go and find problems, identify problems, categorize and identify what problems had patterns and then figured out how to solve those. Those problems at scale. Like how to address those patterns at scale is such an important function to have inside any enterprise and most important inside government, an organization as large as the United States government. So that for me is like a very compelling reason. And that thing pays off dividends in the short term through small projects, but over a 10 year or a 20 year period can pay off huge dividends as that infrastructure builds up and starts to solve lots of problems at scale. That's the big advice I'd give. I think the thing that I would do differently is I would be pushing for ways to rethink how we do hiring. Because the problem of 18F is actually that it shouldn't just be an 18F. We need to unleash people across the government. There's lots of great talent already inside the government that I think is constrained, but we also make it easier for new talent to come in. And that's never a fun thing for administration to do because it doesn't get you votes. But it's the kind of thing that builds capacity, that makes government more effective.
- [42:04]
Kevin Frazier
Okay, so Dave's calling for an 18G, an 18H and an 18I. Hillary, how about you? One reason to restart it and one reform you'd consider.
- [42:14]
Hilary Hartley
I think the reason to restart it is pretty simply just about delivery. You need in house talent wrapping their heads around the problem and telling you where to go from there. You don't need vendors telling you what your problem is and telling you this is the best way to solve that problem.
- [42:37]
Kevin Frazier
I don't know, New Yorkers might say, hey, they helped us point out that our trash cans aren't as readily available as they need to be. That was facetious, but yes, this is good, good.
- [42:47]
Hilary Hartley
But I think that's, for me, that's the bottom line is just back to that line. It was maybe Robin Carnahan that I stole it from. But government has outsourced its mission and, and we have to insource it. We have to take accountability for outcomes, we have to understand what the problems are and we have to do that in a user centered way so that what we, the policies we create and the tools to implement those policies meet the needs. Because that's product development, but that's product development in government and that's how it's different is this kind of marriage of policy and delivery that various teams sort of skew toward one or the other and try to get it right. But I think we can continue to work on getting those two things to ship together. What would I change? I think in addition to just really needing to break hiring for the federal government and maybe that's the lasting thing that DOD has left us with, is that there will be a lot that needs to be rebuilt. I think the creation of teams is what David was talking about. I think a centralized team that can drive that need around. The marriage of policy and delivery is still super necessary. But we do have to be thinking about more diversified teams. And in order to do that, you got to think about a diversified funding model. So we can't just pray that each administration is going to work us into appropriations and is going to give us money. I mean, even, I think it was in October, USDs actually crossed the bridge from being fully appropriated into like doing some cost recovery work because they weren't sure about their budget. So we do have, we have to think about diversified funding and what's going to lead to longevity.
- [44:36]
Kevin Frazier
Praying for money hasn't worked for me yet, so I think that's a particularly good reform with that. Dave, Hillary, thank you so much for joining. We'll have to leave it there, but I trust we'll find some way to bring you both, both on again at some point down the road. So thanks folks.
- [44:52]
David Eaves
Thank you.
- [44:56]
Kevin Frazier
The Lawfare podcast is produced in cooperation with the Brookings Institution. You can get ad free versions of this and other Lawfare podcasts by becoming a Lawfare material supporter at our website, lawfairmedia.org support. You'll also get access to special events and other other content available only to our supporters. Please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts. Look for our other podcasts including Rational Security, Allies, the Aftermath and Escalation. Our latest Lawfare Presents podcast series about the war in Ukraine. Check out our written work@lawfaremedia.org the podcast is edited by Jen Pacha. Our theme song this song is from Alibi Music. As always, thank you for listening. They say opposites attract. That's why the Sleep Number Smart bed is the best bed for couples. You can each choose what's right for you whenever you like. You like a bed that feels firm, but they want soft. Sleep Number does that. You want to sleep cooler while they like to feel warm. Sleep Number does that too. Why choose a Sleep Number Smart bed so you can choose your ideal comfort on either side. Sleep Number Smart beds start at $999. Price is higher in Alaska and Hawaii. Exclusively at a Sleep Number store near you. See store or sleepnumber.com for detail.