������Ƶ

By Daniela Flores

A wave of tech policy conversations have centered around governance models and regulatory mechanisms for proprietary systems. Calls for “” or “” have made their stake in these conversations as a way to mitigate potential harms and risks produced by novel technologies. Before I started a research internship at ������Ƶ’s Digital Impact and Governance Initiative, I was primarily interested in understanding the tools that policymakers use to regulate privately developed technologies and how “ethical tech” can serve as a guiding principle toward these efforts. However, in the last six months working with DIGI, I substantially broadened my policy view. I had the opportunity to lead research and author content for our monthly publication, Digital Matters. In this research, I looked more deeply into how governments are leveraging technology as a tool for the public good. Some of my favorite projects I tracked are Vermont’s , Sam Pressler’s , and the Beeck Center’s . Contributions such as these and the efforts of digital service teams, especially at the state and local levels, have inspired me to recognize the ways in which community-driven innovation can open pathways to essential services.

Alongside the work I’ve been doing with ������Ƶ, there are two authors that help illustrate the importance of community-driven approaches for better outcomes despite the structural and operational realities that public systems are forced to grapple with. This is a theme explored in Cyd Harrell’s “" (2020). Harrell sheds light on the challenges of relying on technology to bring about change in government. This is a topic of particular importance today during this period of political transition in the U.S., as the initial proposal for the (DOGE) may be eyeing . While these plans are not set in stone, and we have yet to see how the next administration will implement technology within government, it raises an important question of whether technology itself can bring about meaningful change in public settings.

For Harrell, one reason for innovation’s inability to spark change in government is the fact that civic technology tends to compare itself to a standard of technology created in the private sector. Harrell finds that the unfair comparison–being well-funded, with plenty of good hires and the latest tooling–may contribute to the disillusionment of how technology is actually developed in the public sector. Government is often under-resourced, less nimble, and much more risk-averse by design, so the technological tools and skills in this space may be distinct from those in the private sector.

Another reason for the “flawed framework” of innovation that Harrell describes comes from the fact that innovation implies a kind of “newness.” Civic technologists may often assume that thinking outside the box and creating something completely new is the best way forward. But innovation should not be the goal in and of itself because there may be other solutions that aren’t necessarily “new” that are better fit for the problem at hand. This is a part of the value proposition of (DPGs), which emphasize . For instance, DPGs like the and prioritize reusable, open source technological components that are adapted to the needs of a particular public context. Such initiatives demonstrate how technological solutions to public problems can center around refining and scaling proven tools. The idea of innovation as a completely fresh enterprise or revamp may be ill-fitting for government, particularly when many public institutions find it more practical to adopt existing frameworks rather than act as a first-mover.

In order to work against these false ideals of civic tech, we need to create a new framework. Instead of seeing innovation as making something from scratch, Harrell thinks we should essentially set the bar with the question: “Is this the right fit for this context?” The goal may not be to create something new because newness in itself is somehow valuable, but to create something that is better for a particular context. This lends a more nuanced understanding of what civic technologists are actually capable of doing in the constraints of government, and what they should focus their efforts on. Under an innovation-based framework, tech is seen as an end-in-itself, rather than means for achieving well-suited solutions for a specific problem.

This shift in thinking also extends to policymakers. In the seminal essay, “” (1959), Charles Lindblom makes a distinction between “root” and “branch” approaches to policy making. Under the “root” approach, policy formulation is seen as a means-end analysis and the test of a “good” policy is that it demonstrates the most appropriate means to a desired end. “Root” policymaking assumes that policymakers can essentially start from scratch and identify entirely new solutions for a given problem. The “branch” approach, by contrast, focuses on context-dependent adjustments to existing policies and systems. This approach looks at policymaking as primarily making incremental, more adaptive steps rather than sweeping changes. For Lindblom, the “branch” approach is more appropriate for solving complex problems because it reflects the constraints of how policy decisions are made in practice. Lindblom’s theory of “branch” policy making aligns closely with Harrell’s understanding of innovation in the public sphere, emphasizing the importance of practical, iterative solutions for civic tech.

The lessons from Harrell and Lindblom resonate closely with my experiences at DIGI. While my initial interest in tech policy primarily centered around sweeping regulation or large-scale governance models, I’ve had the opportunity to understand the value of incremental and community-based approaches in the field. Unlike one-size-fits-all frameworks for innovation or aims to overhaul efficiency, these approaches urge technologists and policymakers to refine their understanding of the specific problems faced by the communities they serve and adapt innovation-based solutions accordingly. This ensures that technology is not seen as an end-in-itself, but as a tool for public interest.

As I continue my journey in technology policy, I am committed to balancing the promises of innovation with the realities of implementation. My research experience at DIGI has solidified my interest in civic technology and I plan to continue tracking the work of digital service teams across the U.S. In particular, I plan to look more deeply at state and local initiatives collaborating on digital transformation efforts.

This period of political transition presents uncertainties about the future of technology. While the fear of and a potential rollback of Biden’s on responsible AI looms, states and localities can solidify their digital transformation efforts and policies with an acute focus of serving the needs of their communities. Furthermore, by understanding the shortcomings in innovation-first frameworks, civic technologists can better navigate structural constraints while tailoring context-specific solutions.