Modernization that states can own

Over the last several years, I’ve had the opportunity to work alongside Health and Human Services (HHS) leaders across the country who are navigating a common challenge.

They know government modernization is necessary, but they’re trying to modernize in an environment that never stops changing. Policy priorities shift. Funding evolves. Leadership changes. Expectations from legislators, stakeholders, and the public continue to grow. At the same time, many of the systems supporting critical HHS programs were designed for a very different reality.

When we talk about modernization, it’s easy to focus on the technology itself—new platforms, new tools, new capabilities, and increasingly, new opportunities created by AI. But the more time I spend working with state agencies, the more convinced I become that technology is only part of the equation. The larger question is whether we’re helping agencies build systems and ways of working that can continue evolving long after a project is complete.

Every technology eventually becomes legacy technology. The true measure of modernization isn’t whether a new system gets implemented. It’s whether an agency is left better equipped to adapt when the next change arrives.

One of the most encouraging modernization efforts I’ve seen involves a child welfare agency trying to solve a challenge familiar to many public sector leaders: frontline staff spending too much time on administrative work, reducing the time available for children and families.

The agency could have approached the effort like many large technology projects. Requirements could have been gathered, a solution selected, and a system eventually delivered. Instead, they chose a different path.

From the beginning, caseworkers, program staff, agency leaders, designers, and engineers worked together throughout the process. Rather than waiting until the end of a multi-year initiative to learn whether the solution met the needs of the people doing the work, frontline staff played an active role in shaping and testing the future experience. Within six months of kickoff, caseworkers were already participating in user acceptance testing of core case management workflows.

What stands out to me about that effort is that the most important conversations weren’t about technology. They were about the work itself. Teams focused on reducing administrative burden, making information easier to find, improving documentation, and creating more time for direct engagement with families. Technology was an important enabler, but it wasn’t the headline. The headline was creating a better experience for the people delivering services every day.

That distinction matters because modernization should never be an end in itself. The goal isn’t to deploy software. The goal is to create better outcomes for the people who rely on these systems and the people who use them.

Historically, many modernization efforts have been organized around a straightforward objective: replace an aging system with a newer one. Those programs often achieve exactly what they set out to accomplish. New technology is implemented. New functionality becomes available. Important milestones are reached.

Yet many agencies find themselves confronting a familiar challenge only a few years later. The technology may be newer, but making policy changes still feels difficult. Accessing information still requires specialized expertise. Adapting to changing program requirements still takes more effort than it should.

The platform changes, but the organization’s ability to respond to change doesn’t improve at the same pace.

That’s why we need to evaluate modernization differently. Rather than asking whether a new system was successfully delivered, we should ask whether the agency emerged from the effort with more capability than it had before. Does the organization have greater flexibility? Better visibility into its operations and data? More confidence in its ability to evolve as needs change?

Those questions determine whether modernization creates lasting value.

In conversations with HHS leaders, the topic of ownership comes up frequently, but not necessarily in the way people might expect. Most leaders aren’t focused on ownership as a legal concept. They’re focused on ownership as an operational reality.

Can agency teams understand how policy decisions translate into system behavior? Can leaders see how information moves across programs? Can changes be made with confidence when priorities shift? Can new partners contribute without rebuilding years of institutional knowledge?

These questions matter because change has become constant. No system design can perfectly predict what programs will need five years from now. What agencies can do is make sure modernization efforts leave them with the visibility, knowledge, and flexibility needed to respond when those changes arrive.

This is where I believe co-creation becomes important.

For me, co-creation isn’t simply about collaboration. It’s about intentionally designing a modernization effort so that knowledge and capability grow inside the agency throughout the process.

When program leaders, frontline workers, technologists, and delivery partners solve problems together, they make better decisions because more perspectives are represented. Solutions become more practical because they’re grounded in the realities of the work. Most importantly, the agency develops a deeper understanding of the environment being built around it.

Over time, that leads to greater transparency, stronger internal capability, and more confidence in the organization’s ability to continue evolving after a project concludes.

The best modernization efforts don’t simply deliver software. They leave agencies stronger, more knowledgeable, and better prepared for whatever comes next.

Too often, modernization conversations begin with discussions about technology selection. Those conversations matter, but they’re not the best place to start.

A better starting point is asking what capabilities we want agencies to have when the work is complete. Do we want organizations that can respond more quickly to policy changes? Do we want frontline staff helping shape continuous improvement? Do we want leaders to have greater visibility into operations and performance? Do we want systems that can continue evolving without requiring wholesale reinvention every few years?

If the answer is yes, then modernization has to be about more than replacing technology.

It has to be about building capability.

Because at the end of the day, success isn’t measured by whether a system went live. It’s measured by whether the agency is better equipped to serve people five years from now than it is today.

If your agency is evaluating its modernization strategy, planning how that work should be structured, or exploring how to build flexible systems you truly own, reach out to continue the conversation.