I would add that there are two principles, regardless of what that ratio is. I think we agree that there should be at least considerably more in-house tech talent than the current ratio. Regardless of what the perfect ratio might be, to me two principles come to mind. For technology products to succeed, you need better feedback loops. Part of that is public service culture. It's really hard, from the ground level on up, to share bad news up the chain. You can imagine stories about Phoenix, where people with their hands on the keyboards were like, “Wow, this is totally going to blow up.” Of course, as that goes up the chain, it gets watered down every time. The project manager above them is like, “We're dealing with some issues, but it will totally turn out better”, and then the layer above them says, “You know, aside from a few things, it seems great.” By the time it gets to the deputy minister, it's glowing green lights all across the board. So figuring out ways to short-circuit the lag time or the telephone tag that happens between the technology folks doing the work and the decision-makers eight or nine layers above them is really important.
The other angle, as Professor Clarke mentioned, is around ministerial accountability in technology products in the federal government. It is so diluted and so diffuse, where any given project has so many external dependencies. For example, you have the team building the product, you have their contractors, you have Shared Services doing some things and you have TBS needing to get reports on other things. It is so hard to say, “Here's the team that's ultimately accountable at the end of the day. Here's the director. Here's the ADM. Here's the deputy minister. Here's the minister.” It's just so diffuse. That is something where the more that you can reduce external dependencies, the more likely your project is to succeed. Cut SSC out of it and cut other groups out of it. Just have a good team and do the work. Fend off everyone else for as long as you can.