Blue Sky Thinking to Reimagine and Reinvigorate Government Effectiveness
Since the founding, Americans have spent a lot of time critiquing the work of the federal government. This is both our right as citizens and an expectation baked into the functioning republic: complaining and criticism are in our DNA. But we spend far less time imagining the kind of government we’d prefer instead–what it would look like, how it would function, how it would listen, engage, perform and earn trust. That’s normal: tearing down is a lot easier than building. But today we have an opportunity to reimagine the shape and purpose of government, and it’s time to stretch those muscles.
And no, I’m not only talking about the massive shifts and gaps in capacity DOGE is leaving. I’m also talking about how Loper Bright opens up entirely new expectations on the roles of Congress and the executive branch; how the changes in federal financial assistance put new burdens on states; how artificial intelligence opens up entirely new horizons for organizing work; and how the federal government has both made miracles happen in science and still struggles to address generational challenges in climate change and basic service delivery.
There is no one answer to any of those challenges, and the federal government won’t be the only part of the equation. But we can start with making talking about the future of government a regular practice and an expectation. And you can join in.
This summer, the Future State project, in collaboration with the Federation of American Scientists, convened a series of futures exercises to do just that. Using visioning, world-building, scenario planning, and other foresight tools, participants set aside today’s constraints to design blue-sky models of a future American government. These models ranged widely: decentralized, AI driven, technocratic, outcomes oriented, community-based, and much more. The goal was not to predict the future, but to create space to imagine preferred futures in vivid, actionable detail—beyond slogans into the weeds of how they would actually work.
You can join the conversation too–all it takes is a willingness to explore what might be, and discipline to explore how. Try this: fill in the blanks of this statement. I want government to prioritize _____ so that in 2050, [what would be different / what will have happened / what the world would be like; what government will be capable of].
Got it? You’ve done the hardest part. If you want to play along, we’ve shared a simple facilitation guide here for the whole community dedicated to reimagining government. Here’s how we did it, but you can adapt to your workplace, your classroom, or your happy hour.
Methodology
Fifty-plus participants were guided through a visioning exercise set in the year 2050, imagining themselves as architects of a transformed government and describing the successes, partnerships, and public impacts that would define it. Working together, they developed vision statements of their desired governance model, identified both the best and worst possible versions of their proposed operating models, and explored the tradeoffs each might entail. Using foresight mapping techniques, they charted first-, second-, and third-order consequences of this model (both positive and negative) across political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental dimensions. In the final phase, participants moved from broad concepts to concrete details, specifying key management increments, governments, and relationships needed to bring their vision to life.
Reimagined Governments
The models that emerged (summarized below) are not meant to be definitive answers–yet! They are provocations and starting points for deeper discussion, experimentation, and collaboration. Summaries below only scratch the surface of conversations that were exciting, terrifying, inspiring and hilarious all at once. Even better: they’re starting points for you as you consider the future of public sector talent, data, structural organization, partnerships, and more.
Abundance
Core Goal
To drive down the cost of essential “building blocks to life and scientific progress” by 2050, enabling Americans to pursue their version of the good life, with needs met, and ensuring the nation is a leader in building and research
Key Characteristics
- Radical redesign of policy development moving away from rigid, process-focused mandates towards an iterative, problem-focused approach that directly incorporates outcomes and service delivery into policy planning. Policy councils are totally reset to be problem/outcomes focused rather than process focus, with portfolio teams across government.
- Focus on concrete deliverables like housing, clean air/water, and affordable food, while also acting as an enabler for large-scale achievements
- Accepts a certain percentage of risk of failure or fraud as an operating cost to prioritize speed and innovation over risk aversion. Embraces a “Mackenzie Scott” model of grant delivery (less reporting and a more streamlined process);
- Productive and timely public engagement–not reduction or elimination–like: shift in public engagement and democracy models for early steers and iterative builds (such as shifts elections, referenda, earlier public input; more agile and less structured public comment); increased public engagement in outcomes oversight and accountability; operating in radical transparency; move from waterfall / veto public engagement to agile, collaborative or negotiating models.
- Emphasis on proactive and frictionless access to government incentives and benefits (financial assistance, safety net services), reducing administrative burden. Participants proposed a centralized federal system for benefits and services (with connections to intersecting services and models at state and local levels).
- Data is no longer siloed but safely and securely shared across agencies, used as an “indicator light” to direct funds and track outcomes. Encouragement of more experimentation in data collection, management and production (less handholdling; public servants are trusted to do the right thing within the right systems
Critical ingredient
Government as an enabler. This involves redesigning the policy process to be more iterative and less risk-averse, with experts in charge, allowing for quick approvals and clear communication. The government prioritizes innovation and aims to drive down the cost of life’s building blocks.
Potential Benefits
Increased household incomes, reduced eviction rates, improved mental health, and greater social mobility
Potential Risks
Could lead to low-quality investments or compromise quality for speed. Risks of over-simplification, losing trust, and picking the wrong problems Potential for short-term state budget crises due to increased mandatory spending
Outcomes
Core Goal
To establish a government entirely service delivery focused, organized around desired outcomes, with transparent performance tracking and rapid adjustment capabilities. The aim is to shift political debate and policy design towards measurable results and citizens’ priorities.
Key Characteristics
- “Law as code” approach, where policy is iteratively tested and updated in real-time based on feedback, ensuring “survival of the fittest” ideas. Coders attuned to slow downs, breakdowns, and want to optimize for impact and seamlessness.
- Government organized around people’s experiences and needs, providing essential goods, dignity in jobs, and basic freedoms.
- Significant shift in talent: need people who can write outcome-based legislation and policy; sociologists who can understand community impact; monitoring, evaluation, and learning experts who can devise effective measures and oversee implementation.
- Agencies given more power to decide their strategy, with a talented civil service that moves fluidly between sectors.
- Heavy reliance on data gathering, modeling, and real-time policy updates.
- Outcome-based contracts for procurement and budgeting.
- Practical and outcomes oriented oversight, bring in lived experience and communities (e.g., to hearings).
Critical ingredient
Outcomes-oriented policy modeling and adaptive governance. This vision centers on focusing political debate on tangible results, using real-time feedback, and updating policies as “law as code.” This approach ensures that only ideas achieving desired outcomes are kept, allowing government to rapidly adjust and drive towards goals like clean energy, affordable housing, and healthcare. It emphasizes continuous evaluation and flexibility for agencies to adapt to changing conditions without constant legislative intervention.
Potential Benefits
Highly responsive, adaptive, and effective government that delivers tangible results and fosters greater accountability.
Potential Risks
Outcomes could become politicized, leading to a lack of sustained agreement. Need to address current culture of fear of litigation and risk. Risk of being too technocratic, leading to distrust, bias towards majoritarian policy, and neglecting intangible values like dignity and justice. Danger of ends justifying the means..
Distinguishing factor
Aspiration for a government that operates on a “law as code” principle, where policy updates are done in real-time, and policy itself becomes a “survival of the fittest” based on continuous testing and real-time feedback to achieve desired outcomes. This framework aims to focus political debate on measurable results rather than getting mired in strategic decisions.
Equity
Core Goal
To ensure that no one’s future is limited by their background (race, gender, zip code, income) by 2050, narrowing economic gaps and enabling all communities to flourish.
Key Characteristics
- Equity/fair outcomes is codified into law, requiring all levels of government to apply an equity lens that is enforceable
- Broad acceptance of equity’s definition and the acknowledgment of root causes and historical facts in addressing inequities
- Emphasis on co-governance, participatory citizen boards, and integrating experts in their own lived experience into decision-making
- A focus on preparedness and response that recognizes and mitigates existing inequities, with a “no wrong door” approach and trauma-informed care
- Data that measures equity and equitable outcomes is prioritized and front-loaded for investment. Use of disaggregated data and multiple communication platforms to ensure no one is left behind
Critical ingredient
Deep community engagement and co-governance. This involves fostering cultural competence among staff, and creating participatory or citizen boards where experts in lived experience advise. The goal is to ensure a responsive government that meets people’s needs and that all Americans, regardless of background, experience that government works for them. Resiliency planning in advance, with community engagement, is also highlighted.
Potential Benefits
Greater trust in government, stronger democracy, reduced wealth gap, and increased civic participation.
Potential Risks
Risk of equity being viewed as zero-sum rather than additive, further entrenching existing disparities.
Distinguishing factor
Directly integrating community members, particularly those with lived experience, as advisors in policy design and implementation and oversight.
Dignity
Core Goal
To ensure every person’s basic needs are met, they find purpose and connection, and feel valued and respected in every government interaction by 2050. This aims to foster deep interconnectedness and mutual flourishing.
Key Characteristics
- Government interactions are rooted in compassion and consistency, particularly for marginalized people
- Incorporation of citizen feedback transparently and in real-time, with immediate feedback and proactive engagement
- Measures of success go beyond economic metrics to include affordability, community thriving, and levels of trust and respect in government interactions
- Policymaking is guided by how it advances the dignity of individuals, families, and communities; driven by consensus based decision-making
- Greater accountability for wrong doing; greater emphasis on going upstream to root problems
- Emphasis on human-centered design, behavioral economics, and positive feedback loops in service delivery
Critical Ingredient
Human-centered service design and compassionate interaction. This means government treats all people, especially the marginalized, with dignity and respect, rooted in compassion and consistency. Feedback loops are essential for incorporating citizen input in real-time and real ways to build trust.
Potential Benefits
Increased trust, willingness to pay taxes, greater community safety, and a sense of purpose and connection among citizens.
Potential Risks
Challenges in accounting for all diverse lived experiences and engaging distrustful populations. Risk of divided purposes leading to a less functional government and further declines in trust.
Distinguishing factor
Proposing a “dignity score” to measure and improve government’s compassionate and consistent service delivery.
Place Based and Customer Experience Focused
Core Goal
To create thriving communities with energy-efficient infrastructure and effective service delivery that is easy for people to use. This involves building world-class in-house government teams.
Key Characteristics
- Government services are responsive, easy to use, and seamlessly integrated, akin to a trusted service provider that aims at getting good outcomes and well-being, not process compliance (like pet food retailer Chewy!)
- Focus on “one-stop shops” for government services to build trust and provide faster delivery, with greater reliance on “navigators” to help deliver outcomes. New federal institutional emphasis on engagement, storytelling.
- Emphasis on real-time data and evidence-based decision-making, utilizing pilot projects for quick learning and scaling.
- More government work done in-house, with federal government developing enterprise frameworks and data sharing, while local government focuses on communication and results.
- Organization around key life events (birth, death, marriage, etc) rather than through legacy bureaucracies, with the ability to access navigators to help facilitate benefits and services.
- Subsidizes local innovations that have societal benefits but little market investment opportunity
- Model incentivizes more “caseworker” like approach of elected officials, who are incentivized to show progress on outcomes or risk losing election.
Critical ingredient
Integrated, localized, and seamless service delivery. This section envisions government meeting people where they are, providing a “one-stop shop” for services, and ensuring cross-enterprise seamlessness. The federal government supports state and local governments with research and resources, aiming for services that are responsive, easy to use, and foster a feeling of being seen by customers. It prioritizes understanding problems locally and filling gaps.
Potential Benefits
Builds trust, faster recovery, and more engaged government. Increased household incomes and consumption due to frictionless safety net benefits
Potential Risks
Significant privacy concerns due to massive data sharing.
Distinguishing factor
Bringing world-class technical and service delivery expertise in-house rather than relying on external contractors. This is coupled with the aim of creating “one-stop shops” for government services and redesigning the customer experience to be as seamless and responsive as the private sector.
Burden Reduction
Core Goal
To create a government that trusts its citizens, assumes positive intent, and reduces administrative burdens so people can easily access services they deserve.
Key Characteristics
- Shifting from fraud management and process compliance to supporting people,
- Consider universal basic income-like model where people raise their hand to receive benefits rather than applying
- Focus on agile government that responds quickly to crises and changes
- Oversight based on outcomes (e.g., “did we end childhood poverty?”) rather than process
- Making civil service enticing, empowering, and highly talented through competitive hiring/firing and shorter stint with cross-pollination. Attracts the best people to public service because they are empowered to do the work they need to do and make decisions to get there
- Automated tax collection and public service delivery using existing government data, following a “tell us once” principle
Critical Ingredient
Trust-based, frictionless access to essential services. This aims for a government that trusts its citizens and is designed to support people rather than primarily manage waste, fraud, and abuse. It envisions radically simplified processes, potentially moving towards models like universal basic income where people receive benefits by “raising their hand” rather than navigating complex applications, thereby reducing poverty and increasing access to vital services.
Potential Benefits
Improves lives, engages citizens in problem-solving, and fosters a low-burden, high-trust government. Easier access to services, leading to more resources/tools and less stress for individuals.
Potential Risks
Risk of diseconomies of scale if excessively centralized or dispersed. Danger of losing focus by prioritizing access over actual need, potentially running out of resources or not reaching full potential.
Distinguishing factor
Moving away from a system primarily built to manage waste, fraud, and abuse towards one that implicitly trusts its citizens and radically reduces administrative burdens. An extreme example is the idea that people could “just raise their hand and then received,” based on the assumption that the vast majority of applicants are eligible.
AI and Tech for Good
Core Goal
To utilize AI to create a smaller government that can effectively provision services and benefits and manage tasks. The aim is for “AI for Good” that supports public and national interest.
Key Characteristics
- Streamlined and standardized service delivery with clear differentiation between tech-provided and human-provided services
- Strong emphasis on data and evidence for policy decisions, with active work on guardrails for AI use
- Replacement of some human capital, including middle management and compliance oriented roles, by AI, leading to fewer people in government and more technical talent
- Focus on agility in regulation and policy, with incremental improvements and more delegation
- Increased accountability for outcomes rather than how government operates
Critical Ingredient
AI-driven efficiency and automated governance. This envisions a much smaller government that can still effectively provision resources and manage tasks through the extensive use of AI for streamlined service delivery and standardized systems. AI would replace some human capital, consolidate platforms, and contribute to a stronger data and evidence base for policy decisions, allowing for agility in regulation and policy.
Potential Benefits
Increased access to services, significant business and economic benefits, and greater trust in agencies like VA or Social Security.
Potential Risks
Concerns about decreased personal privacy and potential increases in poverty and economic inequality due to job displacement.
Distinguishing factor
Leveraging artificial intelligence to significantly reduce the physical size of government.
Decentralized Government, Delegated Authority
Core Goal
To achieve responsiveness, speed, and quality of service grounded in customer knowledge through a delegated governmental structure that centers communities.
Key Characteristics
- Enables customization and tailoring of responses to specific needs
- Aims for greater staff productivity, better outcomes, and innovative solutions by unleashing the workforce
- Facilitated by enabling digital technologies and attracting quality talent
- People experience faster results, feel more respected and engaged, and are more willing to interact with government, leading to increased trust and co-creation of solutions
- Involves a shift in talent management from federal to local focus, emphasizing digital customer experience and AI tech talent, and a qualitative shift from compliance to delivery/creative roles
- Oversight moves towards carrots instead of sticks, focusing on interoperability, coordination, standards, and best practices
Critical ingredient
Customer-centric responsiveness and localized service delivery. This approach prioritizes responsiveness, speed, and quality of response grounded in customer knowledge, allowing for the customization and tailoring of services to individual and local needs. This fosters a more positive citizen experience, leading to people feeling results faster, more respected, and more engaged, thereby increasing trust in government and encouraging greater interaction and potential co-creation of solutions.
Potential Benefits
Improved quality of life for all citizens; positive impact on front-line workers deeply engaged in mission and communities with a profound commitment to serve.
Potential Risks
Potential for stakeholder capture and inter-agency conflict due to conflicting goals. Risk of loss of value congruence and economies of scale. Challenges with best practices not being shared and a lack of adherence to consistency or merit systems. Could lead to different parts of government working at cross-purposes and internal competition for resources. May increase demand that needs to be managed and measured differently.
Distinguishing factor
Fundamental re-orientation of government operations from federal to localized service delivery. This entails a shift of resources and talent from the federal to the local level, specifically emphasizing the need for digital CX/AI tech talent to manage increased incoming demand and drive technological innovation at the local point of service. While this model fosters responsiveness, speed, and quality of response directly grounded in customer knowledge, it inherently faces unique challenges such as the potential for stakeholder capture, loss of value congruence, and the risk of unshared best practices and internal competition across jurisdictions.
Using visioning, world-building, scenario planning, and other foresight tools, participants set aside today’s constraints to design blue-sky models of a future American government.
“The first rule of government transformation is: there are a lot of rules. And there should be-ish. But we don’t need to wait for permission to rewrite them. Let’s go fix and build some things and show how it’s done.”
Using the NIST as an example, the Radiation Physics Building (still without the funding to complete its renovation) is crucial to national security and the medical community. If it were to go down (or away), every medical device in the United States that uses radiation would be decertified within 6 months, creating a significant single point of failure that cannot be quickly mitigated.
As the former U.S. Chief Data Scientist, I know first-hand how valuable and vulnerable our nation’s federal data assets are. Like many things in life, we’ve been taking our data for granted and will miss it terribly when it’s gone.