Government IT Projects in India: A Tale of Tech Hormesis and Missed Opportunities

The Trigger

I came across this old article by MoneyControl: https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/why-indian-it-struggles-with-india-government-projects-7066591.html

The Prologue

Government IT projects in India often resemble a bureaucratic labyrinth, plagued by a cocktail of challenges. From the stranglehold of rigid processes to the agonizingly slow pace of implementation, these projects frequently fall short of their intended goals.

The tendering process, a spectacle of cost-cutting over quality, often results in subpar solutions. This, coupled with chronic payment delays that cripple smaller IT firms, creates a hostile environment for innovation. "There was not a single (govt) project (that) Infosys has done where the company had not lost money. That’s a reality when dealing with governments," Infosys founder NR Narayana Murthy said six years ago, which I guess would be around 2015-16.

Accountability? A distant dream. Both government agencies and IT contractors seem to operate in a blame game, with responsibility conveniently shifting like sand through fingers. This lack of ownership breeds inefficiency and delays that stretch on interminably.

Furthermore, the chasm between government expectations and the realities of IT development is often vast. Unclear requirements and unrealistic timelines set the stage for inevitable disappointment. And let's not forget the entrenched resistance to change. Legacy systems, like aging dinosaurs, continue to dominate, hindering the adoption of modern technologies and the integration of crucial systems.

The Missing Link: "Technological Hormesis"

One glaring oversight is the absence of "technological hormesis" – the principle of learning from both successes and failures. In the realm of technology, this translates to analyzing past projects, understanding their shortcomings, and using these lessons to improve future endeavors. Sadly, this crucial learning process seems to be conspicuously absent in many government IT initiatives.

The Integration Nightmare:

This lack of "technological hormesis" manifests in the persistent failure to integrate even the most basic government systems. Imagine a sprawling mansion with rooms designed in isolation, each with its own unique set of locks and keys. This, in essence, is the state of many government systems – fragmented, incompatible, and utterly inefficient.

Risk Aversion: A Paralyzing Force

Risk aversion within government bureaucracy has reached epidemic proportions. Decision-making processes are often bogged down by an overwhelming fear of failure. This leads to a peculiar phenomenon: projects are kept "alive," perpetually discussed but never truly implemented, becoming mere talking points rather than tangible solutions.

The UPI - How Long to Piggyback on This Achievement:

People often point to UPI as a shining example of successful technological implementation. While UPI undoubtedly represents a significant achievement, it's crucial to remember that it's an anomaly, not the norm. For every UPI, countless other promising projects languish, stifled by bureaucratic inertia and a profound lack of vision.

The River of Sadness - Where Decision Paralysis Pays Handsomely

It is rather disheartening to see that majority of government departments do not see MIS and dashboard as a tool for understanding probability and decision-making (sounds like the subject statistics, doesn’t it?) but more of a list of metrics to be chased. The journey into the area - how these metrics are defined, without any logic or taxonomy – is a rabbit hole which I do not wish to embark upon right now. A separate post is definitely required on it, which will be put up in due time. That lamenting aside, with less than adequate exposure to evolving systems, isn’t technological hormesis like compounding the problem?

So what is happening now? Is shying away from tech tinkering the new "cautious approach" that will yield results? Should we break those shackles where we were only interested in "tried and tested" methods, that too with respect to fast, evolutionary, complex technological advances? The distance, this time, might not be in kilometers or miles, but in light years, to the point where civilizations would go unrecognizable, esp. for those who will be left behind, PURPOSEFULLY.

What Does Not Kill Us Makes Us Stronger - Unless I am Being Held Accountable!

Bureaucracy and risk aversion provides an unconquerable sense of certainty and security, not just to individuals involved but to the entire system. The price to be paid for inactivity and decision making paralysis is actually zero in Indian context. This massively robs us of any kind of courageous tinkering and gaining 'anti-fragility'. Instead of being antifragile – systems that not only withstand shocks but actually benefit from them – these projects demonstrate a profound fragility. Delays, budget overruns, and outright failures are the norm, not the exception. This fragility stems from a confluence of factors:

• Over-engineering for the known: Government agencies often prioritize mitigating known risks, leading to over-engineered, inflexible systems. This "precautionary principle" ironically makes them more vulnerable to unforeseen events. As Taleb points out, "trying to eliminate randomness often backfires."
• Lack of optionality: Rigid contracts, inflexible timelines, and a resistance to change severely limit options for adaptation and improvisation. This lack of optionality makes the system brittle and unable to respond effectively to unforeseen challenges.
• Focus on predictability over robustness: The emphasis on predictable outcomes, often through micromanagement and excessive control, hinders the development of robust systems that can withstand shocks. Taleb argues that true robustness emerges from disorder and the exploration of diverse possibilities.

The Illusion of Control:

The belief that government agencies can fully control and predict the outcome of complex IT projects is a dangerous illusion. In reality, these projects are inherently unpredictable, subject to a multitude of "black swan" events – unforeseen and impactful occurrences.

Instead of striving for perfect predictability, government agencies should focus on building antifragile systems that can:

• Thrive on volatility: Learn and adapt from unexpected challenges, emerging stronger from each disruption.
• Benefit from randomness: Embrace experimentation and explore diverse approaches, allowing for serendipitous discoveries.
• Leverage uncertainty: Utilize uncertainty as an opportunity for innovation and improvement.

So, where does this leave us? Stuck in a limbo of "tried and tested" methods that, in the fast-evolving tech world, now resemble outdated relics. The irony is striking: the more we shy away from technological tinkering and real innovation, the more we entrench ourselves in a cycle of mediocrity. As the world surges ahead, India’s government IT projects might just become a cautionary tale for those who refuse to evolve. The real question is: will we continue to tiptoe around change, fearing failure, or will we take the plunge and embrace the chaos, learning from it to build systems that are not just resistant, but robust, adaptive, and ready to thrive in the face of the unknown? The clock is ticking, and the gap is widening.