OMB is right that we need new methods of engaging with the public that don't allow for capture by special interests. Service design provides some models.
I feel like an outsider coming from a software engineering background reading this. But I get a sinking feeling in my stomach. I feel bad that this level of explanation is needed. These projects just happen with no user research?
Do these projects have roles like “UI designer” and “product manager”? To me, this sort of research is just part of the PM/designer job. Are these projects operating with no designers, or no PMs, or are they hiring inexperienced designers and PMs?
There's a wide range, but, yes, it's true that in government software development projects have not traditionally had product managers. Internally, they were often led by procurement professionals and other compliance functions rather than software professionals, and relied on extensive requirements development without much in the way of product vision. Design often meant graphic design or just layout, but not product design. That is changing, due to the efforts of many wonderful people. But it has resulted in a lot of failure and frustration, which is why I advocate for the adoption of product management in government.
For many years, almost every time I said "product management" in government, what people heard was "project management." I finally got a good concise way of explaining the difference and now say it over and over again. Project management is the art of getting things done. When you develop 6,700 requirements, there's a lot to manage. Product management is the art of deciding what to do. Which of those 6,700 requirements are actually important? What needs are you trying to meet? Who owns the vision for how the product should work, rather than just checking off the requirements one by one over the course of many years?
If folks are interested, sharing the (hopefully more useful) non-Federal Register page (FR is wonky and sometimes clunky to use): https://www.performance.gov/participation/
His story feels like an enormous tragedy to me. Many of his parks and power projects remain valuable to this day, and just in general he was showing that government agencies could build big, useful things. A lot of his "good government" civil service reforms were excellent, many of the ways he re-shaped state government are still with us today. But he was just willfully blind to the inadequacy of cars relative to mass-transit, probably in part because of his staunch belief in the idea of separating the classes. He never wanted Those People to be able to reach his parks anyways, hence why he worked hard to _prevent_ mass transit links to them. And it's hard to read the chapter of The Power Broker about how he treated his own family, and not conclude that he was just monumentally egotistical and cruel. Such a waste -- one of the most brilliant minds of the twentieth century, full to bursting with worthy ideas, but his legacy is utterly poisoned. I wish he'd learned more from Al Smith's motivations, rather than only his pragmatic practice of politics. (For that matter, his brother Paul seems to have understood how disastrous the investment in highways was going to be. It's a shame RM didn't make his brother a partner, they probably would've made a much better city. But he couldn't stand to share credit.)
I was reading an article by Steven Johnson who wrote about chapter nine of the power broker entitled the “a dream” and how geology influenced Moses way of thinking: as Steven Johnson puts it:
“Moses’ personal journey of discovery—in the deep history of geology: in the collision between water, ice, soil, and sand that made Long Island itself. Early in the chapter, Caro rewinds the clock about ten thousand years, to the glaciers that retreated north at the end of the so-called Wisconsin glaciation:”
I think it is interesting how Moses was perplexed about the obsolete maps of that part of Long Island. An urban planner using the lessons learned from deep history of geology. Fascinating.
I feel like an outsider coming from a software engineering background reading this. But I get a sinking feeling in my stomach. I feel bad that this level of explanation is needed. These projects just happen with no user research?
Do these projects have roles like “UI designer” and “product manager”? To me, this sort of research is just part of the PM/designer job. Are these projects operating with no designers, or no PMs, or are they hiring inexperienced designers and PMs?
There's a wide range, but, yes, it's true that in government software development projects have not traditionally had product managers. Internally, they were often led by procurement professionals and other compliance functions rather than software professionals, and relied on extensive requirements development without much in the way of product vision. Design often meant graphic design or just layout, but not product design. That is changing, due to the efforts of many wonderful people. But it has resulted in a lot of failure and frustration, which is why I advocate for the adoption of product management in government.
For many years, almost every time I said "product management" in government, what people heard was "project management." I finally got a good concise way of explaining the difference and now say it over and over again. Project management is the art of getting things done. When you develop 6,700 requirements, there's a lot to manage. Product management is the art of deciding what to do. Which of those 6,700 requirements are actually important? What needs are you trying to meet? Who owns the vision for how the product should work, rather than just checking off the requirements one by one over the course of many years?
If folks are interested, sharing the (hopefully more useful) non-Federal Register page (FR is wonky and sometimes clunky to use): https://www.performance.gov/participation/
Would love some nuance/acknowledgement of the incredible good Robert Moses did for the world.
Indeed. He did some meaningful good.
His story feels like an enormous tragedy to me. Many of his parks and power projects remain valuable to this day, and just in general he was showing that government agencies could build big, useful things. A lot of his "good government" civil service reforms were excellent, many of the ways he re-shaped state government are still with us today. But he was just willfully blind to the inadequacy of cars relative to mass-transit, probably in part because of his staunch belief in the idea of separating the classes. He never wanted Those People to be able to reach his parks anyways, hence why he worked hard to _prevent_ mass transit links to them. And it's hard to read the chapter of The Power Broker about how he treated his own family, and not conclude that he was just monumentally egotistical and cruel. Such a waste -- one of the most brilliant minds of the twentieth century, full to bursting with worthy ideas, but his legacy is utterly poisoned. I wish he'd learned more from Al Smith's motivations, rather than only his pragmatic practice of politics. (For that matter, his brother Paul seems to have understood how disastrous the investment in highways was going to be. It's a shame RM didn't make his brother a partner, they probably would've made a much better city. But he couldn't stand to share credit.)
I'll never forgive him for making a subway to LaGuardia an impossibility forever.
I was reading an article by Steven Johnson who wrote about chapter nine of the power broker entitled the “a dream” and how geology influenced Moses way of thinking: as Steven Johnson puts it:
“Moses’ personal journey of discovery—in the deep history of geology: in the collision between water, ice, soil, and sand that made Long Island itself. Early in the chapter, Caro rewinds the clock about ten thousand years, to the glaciers that retreated north at the end of the so-called Wisconsin glaciation:”
I think it is interesting how Moses was perplexed about the obsolete maps of that part of Long Island. An urban planner using the lessons learned from deep history of geology. Fascinating.
Fascinating!