But when it comes to IT projects, that process too often becomes a tangled web of bureaucracy that stifles progress. If you’ve ever wondered why government technology seems stuck in the past while the private sector surges ahead, look no further than the way projects get approved.
Central IT agencies were supposed to prevent costly IT debacles by making sure projects were carefully planned. In theory, that’s smart. No one wants another multimillion-dollar failure. But in practice, these approval frameworks have turned into slow-motion obstacle courses. IT projects that should take months can take years just to get a green light. By the time an agency wins approval, the technology they proposed is often obsolete.
WHEN ACCOUNTABILITY BECOMES A LOGJAM
Project approval processes were meant to ensure good governance. Instead, they’ve created a culture of paralysis. Central IT agencies are stuck in a lose-lose situation — blamed when projects fail and blamed when they take too long to start. The result? An overabundance of caution, where no one moves forward confidently. But here’s the thing — playing it too safe is its own kind of failure.
A SMARTER WAY FORWARD: LESS RED TAPE, MORE RESPONSIBILITY
Let Agencies Own Their Projects: Right now, many central IT agencies act as gatekeepers, deciding for other agencies which of their IT projects live or die. But this makes these other government agencies overly reliant on bureaucratic approval rather than taking ownership of their own success. If agencies were held directly accountable for outcomes, they’d have a much stronger incentive to get things right.
Tailor Oversight to Readiness: I’ve heard of state central IT agencies that require the same approval process regardless of the level of skill and experience of the agency they are overseeing. That’s like forcing an airline pilot to retake their flight certification before every trip. Instead, let’s match oversight levels to governance maturity. Agencies with a proven track record should be able to move projects forward without unnecessary hurdles.
Fix the IT Governance Gap: Many approval frameworks fail to set clear rules for tracking whether a project is on time, within scope or on budget. And when problems arise — like a vendor defect or a budget overrun — there’s often no built-in way to escalate issues and make smart decisions fast. The solution? A real governance structure that ensures rapid problem-solving and accountability. Let’s focus our time and effort on making better decisions in the course of implementing an IT project — and not on reviewing an IT project proposal.
Less Paperwork, More Problem-Solving: Many IT projects obsess over independent verification and validation, which often rewards box-checking instead of fixing real issues. Imagine if agencies had “owners' reps” embedded in projects to tackle challenges in real time. Like their counterparts in building construction projects, these owners' reps would have real skin in the game, starting with the initial IT project proposal, helping to write the project RFP, and working directly with the IT project leader and vendor to ensure effective project execution.
Make Success a Shared Responsibility: IT projects don’t fail just because of vendors. They fail because of misalignment, poor oversight and lack of accountability. Agencies must take ownership of their roles, alongside vendors who must meet their contractual obligations. Central IT agencies can play a valuable role by shifting from gatekeeping to execution oversight — making sure project sponsors, leads and teams are actively engaged in success.
Allow Smart Adaptations, Not Endless Amendments: In the tech world, flexibility is key. Yet, any significant change to a government IT project requires jumping through hoops and lengthy amendment processes. Instead, let’s create an agile but structured approval process with a more efficient decision-making approach that gives departments more authority to make necessary scope changes so that innovation doesn’t get strangled by red tape. For example, simultaneous and not sequential review and approval processes can help expedite decision-making.
Focus on Results, Not Reports: Government IT project reporting is a marathon of paperwork that often focuses on compliance rather than outcomes. A shift toward a results-based framework that measures project timeliness, budget adherence and public value could provide clearer indicators of success.
THE REAL QUESTION: HOW MUCH RISK IS TOO MUCH?
Government’s obsession with risk elimination is part of the problem. Yes, IT failures are costly, but so is inaction. In the private sector, companies accept that some projects won’t pan out, but they also know that calculated risks drive innovation. If government expects zero risk in IT, it will get zero progress.
IT'S TIME TO FIX THE SYSTEM
Efforts to rethink IT project approvals are a promising start. But real reform requires more than tweaks — it requires a mindset shift. We need a system where central IT agencies focus on high-level strategy, while agencies take real ownership of their projects.
And let’s be clear: The approval process is just one piece of a much bigger puzzle. If government truly wants to modernize IT, it needs to rethink not just approvals, but also RFPs, vendor selection and project execution. Otherwise, we’ll be having this same conversation five years from now — still waiting for yesterday’s technology to be approved.
And if we keep playing it safe, we’ll keep getting nowhere fast.
