After decades in the technology industry, I’ve learned that digital transformation isn’t just a buzzword—it’s a matter of survival for most organizations. But more than 60% of digital transformation efforts fail. It’s not faulty technology that does them in. What usually happens is that organizations consistently stumble over the same few blockers. 

The good news is, these blockers are entirely avoidable. We’ve experienced our share of setbacks and successes, and we’re passionate about helping others navigate this complex landscape. Let’s break down these blockers and chart a course for more consistent digital transformation success.

Blocker 1: Lack of a Clear North Star Outcome

Many organizations dive into digital transformation without a clear destination. They get lost in a sea of technical requirements and deliverables, losing sight of the “why” behind their efforts. It’s like setting sail without a compass—you’re moving, but are you really getting anywhere?

A clearly defined, measurable outcome—a North Star—is essential for aligning teams, focusing resources, and achieving success. This North Star should be:

• • Tangible and measurable
  • Aligned with broader business goals
  • Understood and embraced by all key stakeholders

For instance, when we worked with a large federal agency, the North Star was crystal clear: replace a legacy system that posed significant cybersecurity risks and hindered modernization. With one of our large financial services clients, the goal was to close five specific FDIC audit gaps that were stifling growth. In both cases, having a clear North Star provided the focus and direction needed to drive transformation.

Once defined, your North Star outcome becomes the foundation of your transformation efforts, guiding all organizational communication, setting a clear and unifying expectation across every level of the organization. 

Without a North Star, projects may seem successful on paper, but fail to deliver meaningful business impact, and stakeholders become disillusioned as they struggle to see the value of their investments. This misalignment can create a ripple effect, causing future transformation initiatives to be met with skepticism or resistance. Moreover, without a clear North Star, you’re more susceptible to “scope creep” and endless customizations that deviate from your core objectives.

How to Overcome It: 

The first step is to gather your key stakeholders for a facilitated session to unearth the fundamental “why” behind your transformation efforts. Consider enlisting a neutral third-party facilitator to lead this discussion. An external perspective can help mitigate internal biases and foster more open, honest dialogue.

Begin by creating a secure environment where participants feel safe to voice their thoughts candidly. This trust-building exercise is crucial before diving into the tough questions. Once you’ve established this foundation, probe deeper: What keeps you up at night? What would make this investment a game-changer for your organization?

As you refine your ideas, continuously challenge them with questions like “So what?” and “Who cares?” This process helps distill your North Star into a clear, impactful one-sentence statement. Remember, this exercise requires skill and experience to navigate effectively. If the prospect seems daunting given the personalities in your organization, don’t hesitate to seek expert help.

Your North Star should be so clear and compelling that everyone from the C-suite to the front lines can articulate it. In fact, it should be so simple that you could explain the business outcome to your partner at home, without any prior IT knowledge. Remember, if your outcome sounds like “implement XYZ software,” you’re still lost at sea. The clearer and more relatable your North Star, the more effectively it will guide your transformation journey.

Blocker 2: Underestimating the Human Element

It’s easy to get seduced by the allure of new technology, but remember: technology alone doesn’t produce outcomes—people do. If you don’t invest in change management, training, and driving user adoption, your transformation efforts will fall flat.

Think about your smartphone. What percentage of its features do you actually use? Most people only scratch the surface. The same is true for enterprise technology. 

Without proper communication and enablement, low adoption rates will undermine the entire transformation effort, regardless of how cutting-edge your solution is. You may find pockets of resistance throughout the organization, with employees reverting to old processes or creating workarounds. 

This not only diminishes the return on your technology investment but can also lead to deteriorating customer and employee experiences, putting your professional credibility on the line. Once you lose momentum, it’s incredibly difficult to regain. Remember, if you lose people from the outset, it’s an uphill battle to turn things around. While technology can often be fixed, poor communication isn’t so easily mended.

How to Overcome It:

Start by identifying key stakeholders early in the project and understanding their unique needs. Then, launch targeted, multi-channel communications tailored to different audiences. Focus on explaining why the change is happening, what’s in it for them personally, and how it will benefit the organization. Use a variety of formats like town halls, email campaigns, and open house events to create awareness and drive adoption throughout the project lifecycle.

At one federal agency, we created over 450 pieces of communication in 18 months across various projects. This level of engagement was crucial for driving adoption and ultimately achieving the desired outcomes. They reached 80% adoption of their self-service portal in ServiceNow.

But you can’t just talk at people—you have to engage them. Create feedback loops that make employees feel heard. Host “innovation jams” where staff can brainstorm ways to leverage the new technology. And remember, training isn’t a one-and-done deal. Create a continuous learning environment with refresher courses, peer-to-peer coaching, and easily accessible resources. Your goal is to make the new way of working so intuitive and beneficial that going back to the old way feels unthinkable.

Blocker 3: The ‘Project Completion’ Mindset

It’s tempting to draw up a finish line as soon as you start a transformation project. But digital transformation is an ongoing journey of evolution and improvement. If you don’t plan for continuous change and innovation, you’ll quickly lose momentum and fall behind.

Imagine a train that’s been stuck in one place for years. You invest enormous effort to get it moving again, only to immediately cut the fuel supply once it starts rolling. That’s what happens when organizations view transformation as a one-time project rather than an ongoing capability.

Without the right mindset, you risk falling into the “implement and forget” trap. Initial gains may quickly plateau or even regress as the organization fails to keep pace with evolving needs and technologies. This stagnation can lead to a widening gap between your capabilities and market demands. You may find yourself in a cycle of large, disruptive overhauls every few years, rather than benefiting from continuous, manageable improvements.

How to Overcome It:

Start by establishing a “transformation taskforce”—a cross-functional team charged with keeping the momentum going long after the initial project wraps up. Empower them with resources and executive support to continually identify and implement improvements.  Ensure that you have the appropriate leadership, architecture, development, and communications capabilities budgeted into your O&M function. If not, it will feel like the momentum has slowed or stopped, in which case, we have lost credibility, and it is hard to get it back.

Next, bake adaptability into your infrastructure. This might mean adopting modular systems that can be easily updated or creating APIs that allow for seamless integration of new technologies. The goal is to build a flexible foundation that can evolve with your needs.

Finally, shift your budgeting mindset. Instead of allocating all your resources upfront, create an “innovation fund” for ongoing enhancements. This sends a powerful message that transformation is a journey, not a destination. It also allows you to quickly capitalize on new opportunities or address emerging challenges without getting bogged down in bureaucracy.

The Path Forward

As you embark on or continue your transformation journey, keep these key principles in mind: start with a clear, measurable North Star outcome. Invest heavily in the human side of change. And build for continuous evolution, not one-time implementation.

Digital transformation is challenging, but with the right approach, it’s also incredibly rewarding. By avoiding these common pitfalls, you can position your organization to thrive in the digital age. The journey may be complex, but with a clear vision, a focus on people, and a commitment to ongoing innovation, you can navigate the path to digital transformation success.

Years ago, we had an epiphany in the way we hire people at Intact. 

This epiphany was born out of big shifts we made to our business: shifts from focusing on short-term project delivery to driving long-term customer outcomes, and the realization that the implementation of software is just the beginning of a customer’s outcome journey.

We were building a company focused on customer success, and in order to do this effectively, we knew we had to prioritize hiring for, and training in, emotional intelligence.

In IT projects, the focus is often solely on technical expertise and much less on the emotional intelligence and behaviors of a consultant or developer. At Intact, we believe that the balance between EQ and IQ is critical. Ensuring a client feels seen and heard, understanding the pressures they face, and solving their problems—all essential ingredients of success—require staff with high EQ.

Ten years ago, we decided to add a powerful Managed Service offering to our business model to drive long-term outcomes and customer success. Because these resources did not readily exist in our industry, we chose to build our own recruiting and training program to create our own supply of talent. From that experience, we have built a highly successful workforce development program—one that attracts the best of the best, from all over the country.

A rigorous EQ interview

Our need, and subsequent learning, led to us building a unique hiring process that balances EQ needs along with traditional credentials.

This process begins with an interview that assesses key EQ attributes: situational awareness, empathy, resilience, and a growth mindset. Unlike traditional interviews, we shift the initial focus away from background and work experience. Those indicators have always felt less predictive of success in the job, anyway.

Instead, we drew on principles from Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow and Daniel Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence and worked closely with a behavioral psychologist to shape our interview questions. This was around the time that Heineken aired The Candidate, its search for an employee that involved the interviewer faking a heart attack in the room to see how candidates responded. While no one in our interviews fakes heart attacks, we draw on a similar principle: we’re looking for situational awareness and a bias to action for helping others. 

Some sample questions from the interview include:

• “When was the last time you unintentionally offended someone?” This assesses self-awareness and willingness to take responsibility and apologize. If people can’t own up to their mistakes, they can’t learn and grow.
• “Tell me about a time when you sensed something was bothering a peer—what did you do about it?” This evaluates proactive empathy and ability to read and respond to others’ emotions. It’s essential for putting ourselves in our customers’ shoes.
• “What’s the most difficult thing you’ve ever experienced?” This gauges resilience and ability to stay composed under pressure, important for client-facing roles. 

Beyond technical skills

Candidates who pass the interview enter an intensive, paid, 8-12 week training program. Each cohort is about 20 people, and the curriculum they experience includes modules on technical capabilities, like Intact’s delivery model and products, IT concepts, and ServiceNow training, as well as broader skills training, like consulting 101 and communication.

In the curriculum, there’s also a dedicated EQ training module led by a behavioral expert. The topics she covers with the cohort include active listening, emotional regulation, and the role of empathy in business. We teach this because we believe it’s both essential for success in delivery of client work and also for building a company where people are cared for. 

The results: A high-performing, people-centric team

After the training, candidates “graduate” to support federal and commercial customers as full-time technical consultants—the backbone of Intact’s managed services offering. We have a 95% graduation rate from the program, a 95% first-time pass rate for ServiceNow CSA certification (vs. 34% industry average), and a 90%+ retention rate over the last four years. 

By prioritizing people skills in hiring and training, we have built a team uniquely equipped to navigate the human challenges of sustained digital evolution. We empower our team to be sponges, to learn and grow, and to inspire others.

Despite rapid modern enhancements, technology does not deploy itself. People deploy technology; you can’t have great technology without great people. It’s time for the industry to recognize this and prioritize putting people first.

At Intact, we’re not afraid to be different, and we love to share what we’ve learned. We hire differently, train differently, and work differently from your typical IT consultant. This is how we have built an award-winning, high-growth, human-centric company that delivers for our clients.

Two decades ago, it seemed I had every defining feature of success in corporate America: I worked at a large and successful consulting company; I had helped grow it to more than five times its size over the course of my 12-year tenure; I had learned a lot about IT service management; and I was on track to be made a partner. 

But I was deeply unhappy.

The long hours, constant travel, and relentless pursuit of revenue and chargeability became suffocating. We were at the mercy of what felt like arbitrary numbers targets—and the bottom 10% of performers, as relative to these targets, were cycled out of the organization constantly. This resulted in continuous elimination of colleagues I was close to, mentors I admired, and mentees I cared deeply about regardless of whether they had been high performers the year before or missed a sales quota by 1%. The fear of missing these targets created a high-stress environment. You either got promoted, or you got the boot, and there was little room in between to enjoy or thrive.

It was this industry-wide focus on profits over people that eventually burned me out. After 12 years, and much to the surprise of some of my colleagues, I quit.

Taking time off

I have a wide variety of interests and hobbies: I love living on the water, I love theater, I love traveling (for pleasure). I had taken sabbaticals before—sometimes three months, sometimes as long as six months—to pursue many of these interests. The pace of work required these kinds of breaks. I knew that this next break would be different and longer, but I hadn’t yet realized just how long it would be.

I became a sailboat charter captain. I taught sailing and pursued a passion for being on the water every day. I felt like the luckiest person in the world, getting to do something I loved every day and make a living off of it. Two years stretched into three, and before I knew it, this chapter of my life lasted for over 10 years. It was 10 years of recovery and repair, and I have endless gratitude for the opportunity to have done it.

Planning for the next chapter 

About 10 years into my life on the water, I began to feel the itch to return. But I promised myself that if I also returned to consulting, it would have to be for a very different kind of company: one that allowed me to work remotely most of the time and one that approached people, work, and company culture in a radically new way.

I found Intact at the most perfect moment possible.

At Intact, my interests outside of work and my desire to contribute to a valued-based workplace were viewed as assets—not liabilities. This was made clear to me right at the outset, in my early hiring conversations with the leadership team. CEO Jesse White and others impressed upon me clearly that at Intact, they prioritize people above everything else. Customer success is the primary KPI, over revenue and profits, and “do the right thing for the customer” feels emblazoned in the company’s collective consciousness. It creates a culture that is far more humane. And it also delivers excellent results.

The Intact way

Coming to work every day is a deeply affirming experience. The Intact team has each other’s back, and we consistently strive toward doing the right thing and aligning with our core values. 

In situations where we are navigating scope creep, for example, a traditional consulting firm may evaluate me by my ability to strictly stick to a contract or to maximize contract profitability. The room for error is slim, and the consequences are severe. At Intact, however, we navigate those situations very differently. We ask: is this the right thing to do for the customer? Is this going to be valuable and impactful for them? While we still take into account costs and resources, we understand that sometimes the most effective solutions require a more flexible approach.

And we’re finding that this approach is working. By prioritizing customer success over profitability, we are prioritizing excellent results and rapid growth. This is readily apparent to customers—which is one of the many reasons why they love working with us. Shared incentives for success deepens trust and relationships in tangible and intangible ways. I am available to my customers whenever they need me, without worrying about profitability, scope creep, and how the company may penalize me for not delivering efficiently toward its profits. 

An ongoing voyage

My return to the consulting world has been joyful and meaningful. I am proud of the work I do every day. I feel a part of something bigger than myself, something of consequence, something I believe in, and something that I am heartened to see is growing. It’s also something that the rest of the consulting industry is taking note of.

I like to believe that there are many parallels between my chapter sailing and my current chapter at Intact. By living our values and commitment to customers every day at Intact, we’re charting a course through new waters, putting people over profits and relationships over metrics. And I get to be a part of this adventure from my home near the Gulf of Mexico, just five minutes from Mobile Bay. It is a life of fulfillment that I did not think I’d find in this profession and one for which I am full of gratitude.

The IT consulting industry’s dominant business model, based on billing for time rather than outcomes, is fundamentally at odds with the efficiency and speed enabled by today’s technologies. This tension is reaching a breaking point.

Efficiencies from technology advancement

The rise of low-code/no-code platforms has enabled major gains in efficiency. A decade ago, out of the box software capabilities would meet 60% of client needs, and we’d have to customize the other 40%. With modern platforms, up to 90% of outcomes can be achieved without unnecessary customization. Even the remaining 10% is dramatically easier to configure. This means we can pursue successful deployments in record time – as short as three weeks in some cases. Complex deployments that used to take two to three years in the government are now taking us six to nine months on average.

Most clients are better served by using these out-of-the-box solutions. But traditional consultancies exploit their clients’ lack of knowledge about what’s possible with low-code/no-code technology. They’ll ask clients what they want to build, knowing full well that the client’s frame of reference is limited to their existing, often outdated systems and processes. The client, understandably, asks for what’s familiar. The consultant then gets to work building out those specifications, billing hour after hour, without ever proposing a more efficient, forward-looking approach.

It’s the equivalent of saying: “Take the new Honda CRV I just bought and turn it into the 40-year-old Honda I am used to driving.” The result? Hours and hours of pay for the consultant.

This business model conflicts with the mission critical modernization goals of the government, which need to be accomplished quickly. 

The Intact difference 

We built Intact on the simple idea of doing the right thing for our customers, just as we would want it done for ourselves. Our business model is outcome-based. We charge our clients for the quality of an end product, not for the time it took us to build it. Our number one KPI is neither profitability nor growth. It’s customer success. And we can build a thriving business with customer success as our north star, because our outcomes-based model actively incentivizes efficiency. 

• A smart approach to technology. We provide leadership in design to ensure best use of your technology investment while eliminating unnecessary customization. This ensures you get to your outcomes quickly and have low technical debt on your ServiceNow platform. In turn, this ensures you can upgrade quickly and take advantage of powerful new capabilities as ServiceNow releases them to market.

• A focus on people. Technology does not produce outcomes – people do. Therefore, organizational change management is critical to the success of our customers. We understand that the most powerful technology in the world is worthless if users don’t adopt it. That’s why we invest heavily in awareness, adoption, enablement, and ongoing user support.

• A subscription model that makes continuous enhancement fast and easy. We offer a subscription model that enables quick action on demand backlogs so that customers can constantly create new platform functionality without needing to constantly start new projects. Our ServiceNow implementations are also easy to upgrade and optimize precisely because they’ve not been over-customized from the get-go. 

These differences are built on a foundational embrace of latest technology advancements, and they are why we are equipped to weather the next wave when it comes.

Adaptation is urgent 

We are in the middle of an AI wave that is poised to make development even faster and more efficient. As we look ahead, the imperative for the industry to change will only intensify. Clients’ expectations for speed and value will continue to rise. In this world, a business model premised on inefficiency is simply untenable. ServiceNow describes the role of AI in the low-code and application development cycle as “revolutionary.” They point to a Gartner prediction that by 2025, 80% of app development will make use of GenAI code generation, with developers acting as validators and orchestrators of back-end and front-end components and integrations. 

A business model that relies on inefficiency is riper for disruption than ever in the face of this oncoming innovation wave. Clients will increasingly demand faster, more cost-effective solutions, as they become even easier to achieve. 

Forward-thinking consultancies that pivot towards outcome-based pricing—and the way they work as a result—can unequivocally embrace new AI technology, without the fear that the efficiency it promises may hurt their bottom line. At Intact, we are thrilled about the potential it will unlock.

The future of partnerships is outcome-based, and we welcome all to join us in it.

For decades, we have lived with a myth: that a college degree is a prerequisite to success in a job. The government, the technology sector, and other employers of all stripes rely on it as a requirement for hiring.

This myth is holding us back as an industry and as a society.

The college degree myth has trapped millions of talented workers in low-wage jobs and in a cycle of poverty. According to Merit America, a national nonprofit looking to break this cycle through focused skills training, 53 million working adults, in the United States, do not earn a living wage. They are stuck with few options to advance: college is prohibitively expensive, and there’s a lack of quality vocational educational options. This group—which equals nearly half of the U.S. workforce—is an extraordinary, untapped talent pipeline, particularly for the technology industry—which evolves way too quickly for a traditional college education to keep up with. In other words, going to college might soon become actively unproductive for talented people interested in specialized technology careers. 

Before I share why, let me be clear: I am not advocating against going to college. College is a wonderful and transformational experience for those fortunate enough to experience it.  

Shortcomings of college degrees in technology

We work in an incredibly fast-moving industry. Many people may say this, but in our case, it’s difficult to overstate. ServiceNow, for example, has two major product releases every year, each one potentially transforming the way we deliver outcomes to our clients. It is highly unlikely, therefore, for any traditional higher educational program to keep up and train for jobs in this space. No matter what a person’s educational background is, they will require intense additional skills training to be successful on the job. 

Computer science degrees are in some ways counterproductive to the low-code/no-code space we operate in. Someone who has spent four years getting a computer science degree may understandably not want to do that kind of out-of-the-box configuration and scripting work. They may instead prefer to use their degree to develop something from scratch, like a game. It’s the equivalent of investing an enormous amount in learning to be a mason—it’s less likely you want to use your hard-earned skills to do concrete printing instead of stone work? (Unless you were to see the potential, the speed and the financial opportunity in doing so.)

People who hold other degrees—be they in business, communications, or marketing—do not have a competitive edge when they come into our pipeline. With or without a degree, new talent will all need to be trained in the same way to harness the potential of the latest technologies. 

By holding on to college degree requirements, companies are severely and unproductively restricting their own talent pipelines. This comes at a time when there is a severe labor shortage in the technology space: over the next decade, jobs in the sector are predicted to grow twice as fast as the labor market, and 64% of IT executives are reporting that it is hard to find qualified candidates.

Predictors of success at work

I have decades of experience hiring talent, and I can tell you that stamps on a resume are the least helpful predictors of job success. Instead, We look for qualities like emotional intelligence, drive, grit, intellectual curiosity, ability to learn quickly, and resilience in the face of challenge. Formal education can help nurture some of those traits, but they also commonly develop through other life experiences outside of college classrooms – and the experience of not going to college is just as powerful in that regard. 

A college graduate today has, on average, more job opportunities than someone without a college degree. Often, the person without a college degree has just one path—and this means they run hard after that opportunity with singular focus and with deep humility.

I speak from experience: I didn’t get a college degree. When I was 16, I wanted to get into the technology sector, and I could see that traditional educational paths at the time would not necessarily get me where I wanted to go. I was hungry, motivated, seized upon the one chance I got, and never looked back.

I look for that hunger in the eyes of a prospective hire. I also look for self-awareness, empathy, positivity, resilience and a humble drive to continuously learn. Taken together, these are the cornerstones of exceptional talent at Intact. (Watch this space for more details on how we have built an interview process at Intact to assess this. I am also always happy to talk more to anyone interested about how we approached this.)

The results, and a call to action

At Intact, we have built our business and our culture on the assumption that talent comes from anywhere. Every year over the last decade, our OnPoint training program has recruited the most impressive cohorts of individuals—regardless of whether or not they have college degrees. Our current graduation rate for this program is 95% with 100% of graduates achieving advanced industry certifications within their first year. It’s hard to imagine that many of our incredible friends and coworkers may have otherwise been unfairly excluded from the prosperity technology can deliver.  They’re delivering extraordinary outcomes for our clients,  their families and the business.

I would argue that employers, particularly in emerging technology sectors, who remain tethered to the college degree are doing a disservice to their own business by locking themselves out of a growing, millions-strong, extraordinary talent pool at a time they probably need it most.  With a thoughtful plan and a commitment to invest, you can unlock limitless potential for hungry job-seekers, positively impact your culture and the local economies you support.  It feels good every day to improve the lives of others and to be inspired in return with their humility, excitement and creativity.  It’s a beautiful reminder of what inspired many of us to choose this dynamic and ever challenging industry.

Let go of this college degree myth: it’s the smart, and the right, thing to do. If you need help doing it, we are here to talk.

A recurring theme of failure often emerges in the world of government IT. It’s usually tempting to attribute these failures to the complexities of technology itself. However, the true culprit lies not in the circuits and software, but in something much more fundamental: procurement. The process by which solutions are sought and acquired, even before any digital system is switched on or any software is deployed, plays a pivotal role. This initial step, often overlooked, sets the trajectory for many government IT projects, leading them down a path fraught with inefficiency and ineffectiveness. Understanding this root cause is essential to grasp why so many well-intentioned projects fail to meet their objectives.

Agencies, driven by budget constraints and regulatory mandates, are inclined to select vendors offering the lowest bids. This approach, while financially prudent at first glance, harbors significant pitfalls. The solutions provided by these low-cost vendors frequently meet only the bare minimum of requirements, lacking the flexibility and scalability necessary for evolving governmental needs.

As a consequence, agencies find themselves trapped in a vicious cycle. The rigid and inflexible nature of these inexpensive solutions necessitates a series of costly customizations and change orders. This not only leads to escalated costs in the long term but also hinders the very efficiency and innovation these projects aim to achieve. The irony is palpable—in an attempt to save funds, government entities end up spending more, both in financial terms and in lost opportunities for technological advancement. 

After the tragic events of September 11, the Pentagon faced a moment of introspection. The harsh realization that the response to such a modern threat was dependent on fleets of B-52 bombers from the 1950s highlighted a critical issue: outdated and inadequate technological capabilities. A thorough review revealed that this was not merely a failure of technology but a systemic issue rooted in acquisition processes and entrenched bureaucratic hurdles within the Department of Defense. The department’s acquisition procedures were mired in a web of bureaucracy, making it challenging to procure new, more suitable technologies.

1. Consolidate authority

In essence, acquisition authority is scattered across various organizations, and it continues to be scattered. There are numerous veto powers and authorities for checks and balances that reside outside of the mission chain. So, if someone says, “I need an airplane that can do X, Y, Z,” they have to convince a variety of people who have no direct impact on the success of their mission that it’s worth pursuing.

The distance between the contracting officers and the acquisition team tasked with executing the requirement often results in a significant misalignment. This misalignment breeds inefficiencies, as the needs and outcomes desired by the project team are lost in translation across the bureaucratic layers. Consolidating acquisition authority within closer proximity to the project teams can dramatically reduce these frictions and align the procurement process more closely with the project’s intended outcomes.

2. Flexibility in contract vehicles is essential

Right from the start of a project, there is a significant dissonance between what the buyer wants, what they think they want, and how they communicate that to a vendor. When the vendor enters the picture, they are not always incentivized to correct the buyer’s mistakes from the beginning. They are merely responding to a Request for Proposal (RFP).

A shift towards flexibility in contract vehicles, where the focus is on collaborative solution crafting rather than ticking off a requirement checklist, can be transformative. This approach encourages a partnership mindset between government agencies and vendors, fostering innovation and efficiency. It’s about moving beyond the conventional procurement paradigm to one that values strategic, long-term outcomes over short-term fiscal frugality.

3. Develop a willingness to experiment and to fail fast

Embracing an agile philosophy in government IT projects is crucial. This involves acknowledging that not all initiatives will be successful and that failure, when it occurs, can be a valuable learning tool. The traditional reluctance to take risks in government projects often leads to missed opportunities for innovation. Adopting a mindset that encourages experimentation, even if it involves an element of risk, can lead to more dynamic and effective solutions in the long run.

This philosophy necessitates a cultural shift within government entities—a shift towards seeing failure not as a setback but as a stepping stone towards finding the most effective solutions. This can be facilitated by establishing streamlined feedback processes and a willingness to iteratively improve or pivot when necessary. Such an approach not only fosters innovation but also aligns more closely with the rapidly changing technological landscape.

Getting to the root of the problem

The repeated failures of government IT projects are not predestined, nor are they primarily failures of technology; they are, more often than not, failures of procurement. The journey from initial vendor selection to project completion is fraught with challenges, many of which stem from outdated, cost-centric procurement practices. This analysis, drawing from real-world examples like the Pentagon’s post-9/11 challenges, underscores the need for a significant overhaul in how government agencies approach procurement.

In envisioning a future where procurement facilitates rather than hinders technological progress, we can draw inspiration from thought leaders like federal CIO Clare Martorana. Martorana advocates for a transformative approach where government agencies don’t just engage in transactions with vendors but collaborate to develop solutions. Instead of each agency establishing its own digital services agreements, there’s a centralized repository of best-in-class contracting vehicles. This approach would streamline the procurement process, allowing agencies to access the most effective solutions readily.

By consolidating authority, embracing flexibility in contract structures, and fostering a culture that recognizes the potential value in failure, government entities can revolutionize their approach to IT projects.

Federal IT buyers are held back by a deep fear: the fear of failure. That may seem sensible at first glance—a careful approach to managing public funds and projects. But this hyper-cautious mindset has unintended consequences, especially in a time when government needs to adapt nimbly to changing technologies and evolving customer or constituent expectations.

Think about the dilemma faced by a typical Program Element Officer (PEO), the linchpin in federal acquisition projects. Whether it’s a state-of-the-art software system or a new fleet of aircraft, the success or failure of these acquisitions weighs heavily on their shoulders. A single perceived failure can spell disaster for their career, one that sees their influence dwindle and relevance fade away. The message is clear: failure is not an option, and the price to pay for it is professional ruin. This fear-driven environment breeds a culture of caution. Taking the path of least resistance becomes the norm, where doing an ‘okay’ job ensures survival—but nothing more. 

Why is it a rarity for federal executives to achieve excellence? The answer lies not in a lack of capability. Indeed, some of the most astute and capable minds are at work within the government. The hurdle is the inherent risk associated with greatness. True excellence often demands stepping out of the comfort zone, challenging established norms, and taking calculated risks—actions that are inherently discouraged in a risk-averse environment.

In such a setting, where every move is under intense scrutiny, risk-taking is often viewed with skepticism, if not outright disapproval. The inherent structure of government organizations, with their elaborate checks and balances, inadvertently ends up suppressing innovative impulses. The drive to excel and innovate is consistently overshadowed by the looming threat of failure, leading to a culture where maintaining the status quo becomes the primary objective, often at the expense of potential groundbreaking advancements.

Snuffing Out Innovation

I’m reminded of the wisdom of Bran Ferren, a leader in technology and design, who recently shed light on this predicament. Known for his groundbreaking work with Disney Imagineering and his contributions to technology (rumored to include the patent for pinch-and-zoom on the iPhone), Ferren’s outside perspective can teach us a lot. During a visit to our office, he told us what he tells leaders who are risk-averse to an extreme degree: “You will never foster innovation in your organization because you are simply structured in a way to snuff it out at the lowest level.”

Ferren’s experiences echo a broader truth: The moment an unconventional idea emerges, it faces the gauntlet of hierarchical scrutiny, often getting thrown out before it can mature into a viable project.

We see this play out in government acquisition all the time. Despite promising to deliver outcomes, a project can be derailed by any number of factors: security concerns, compliance hurdles, or simply the inertia of bureaucracy. Even solutions that meet all regulatory requirements, like being “FedRAMPed,” are not immune from getting tossed or stuck in a web of documentation and requirements, rendering them ineffectual.

Rethinking Risk

The first step towards innovation is changing the narrative around failure. Government entities can start by establishing ‘safe-fail’ projects or pilots where the focus is on experimentation and learning, rather than immediate success. Leaders should publicly recognize and reward teams that take calculated risks, even if the outcomes aren’t as expected. This recognition can come in various forms, such as internal awards for innovative attempts or highlighting these efforts in communications to reinforce the value placed on experimentation.

Another key strategy lies in borrowing successful practices from the private sector. The creation of small, agile teams that operate with a degree of autonomy can prove transformative. These teams, somewhat insulated from the usual bureaucratic constraints, should be empowered to experiment, iterate, and develop proof of concepts. This ‘incubator’ model allows for the nurturing of innovative ideas in a controlled environment, mitigating the risks associated with large-scale implementations, and providing valuable insights before broader rollouts.

The path to unlocking the full potential of federal procurement and project management is not through avoiding risks but by embracing them judiciously. A cultural shift is needed—one that values innovation and understands that true excellence is often born out of bold, calculated risks. By fostering an environment where risk is not a deterrent but a catalyst for growth, the government can not only improve its procurement processes but also set a precedent for other sectors to follow.

In the words of Bran Ferren, innovation can’t happen without the organizational courage to pursue them in the face of uncertainty. It’s time for government entities to develop this courage and venture beyond the safe harbor of mediocrity.

In my almost two decades leading Intact, I’ve fielded countless requests from enthusiastic customers and partners brimming with ideas to customize the platforms and services we implement across their organizations. Their intentions are good—they want to leverage our tools to solve problems. But left unchecked, over-eagerness on both sides can morph into scope creep, technical debt, and products losing their identity.

In our hurry-up culture obsessed with pleasing customers, the default response from vendors seems to be, “We can build anything you want!” We proudly pat ourselves on the back for our can-do, customer-centric attitude. But more often than not, this impulse does more long-term harm than good.

Intact takes a different approach, one rooted in discernment rather than reflex. We harness the power of “no”—not to be obstinate, but in the service of greater outcomes.

Saying “no” starts with empathy. Customers have limits on what they can reasonably envision. As Henry Ford allegedly quipped, “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” My job is expanding possibilities, not simply reinforcing the status quo. This manifests most clearly in design discussions, where it’s my responsibility to expand the aperture of the conversation.

If I walk into a room and openly ask, “What do you want?” it anchors expectations around replicating legacy processes that are already riddled with problems. Instead, I reframe: “Tell me the outcomes you need to achieve and the capabilities you need.” My team then prototypes solutions tailored to those goals. It’s a collaborative approach that lets customers discover the art of the possible beyond the mental models we’ve carried over from past systems.

But saying “no” is not an easy task. It requires the right approach and careful consideration. Here are three valuable lessons I have learned about effectively refusing requests.

A ‘N’ Demands an Alternative

When refusing a customer request, the conversation cannot end at “no.” Leadership means presenting better paths. If asked to implement risky proprietary architecture, I explain its downsides and suggest standardized frameworks that are designed to achieve the same aims.

Occasionally, customers still request modifications that could undercut ServiceNow platform stability, scalability, or even their own goals. I never reject those ideas outright. But I probe the underlying need: Is there a way to accomplish what you want through a less risky avenue? My team then suggests alternative paths. If the misalignment persists, I honestly explain why I cannot endorse the proposed approach. This refusal doesn’t come from a place of stubbornness, but from a place of wishing to mitigate potential harm. In my own life there have been countless moments where I’ve been grateful when someone prevents me from making a poor choice, even if it initially bothers me or feels invalidating. My goal is to pass on that same guidance to others.

Build Trust Through Saying No

Context determines how refusal lands. Without existing goodwill, “no” can come across as presumptuous instead of caring. Still, it is necessary to reject harmful ideas early on to avoid significant costs later on. It’s a balancing act. I believe that credible guidance, even if initially uncomfortable, builds trust over time. Saying “no” early on can sow the seeds for future endorsement. It’s similar to how doctors prescribe momentarily unpleasant interventions for long-term wellness. I follow this model, prioritizing quality advice over easy agreement.

No Ego: Putting Client Success First

When I turn down a request, I always consider my motives. Am I motivated by self-importance or a genuine desire to protect the client? I ground myself in first principles: What outcome will truly benefit this client? Arrogance has no place when advising those who have placed their faith in you. Having cultivated trust, I must honor it by providing honest feedback on the paths that will unlock their potential.

Creating this dynamic is not about boasting or superiority. One failed engagement can tarnish our culture and compromise the progress we’ve made with clients over the years. That’s why it’s crucial I assess whether our philosophies align and if they truly value the services we provide. Can we challenge each other in a safe and productive way? Can we commit to a culture of courageous candor? If the overall impression is one of trouble, I am willing to walk away. As important as the problems we solve are the ones we choose not to take on. Sometimes, saying “no” responsibly means parting ways with customers, even though it might be difficult. It is an expression of care for both parties—a relationship destined to be unsatisfying is one that should not persist.

Some argue that leaders should accommodate all reasonable requests to retain business. I see it differently: offering clear guidance with a spirit of service fosters deep loyalty and advocacy. Yes, this might narrow our addressable market in the short term. But the customers we do work with reward our candor with extraordinary loyalty. They become part of our Intact family, lending their voices to strengthen our collective message. Foregoing revenue today is more than compensated for by the compounding gains of aligning around worthy goals through periodic but wise refusals.

The traditional time and materials model, long a mainstay of our industry, is being challenged by a more results-focused approach: outcome-based agreements. As with any change, however, misconceptions abound. It’s time to set the record straight.

The myths surrounding outcome-based agreements range from concerns about cost and risk to misconceptions about flexibility and change management. Each one reflects a resistance to change, a clinging to the old ways of doing things. But in this piece, we’ll dismantle these myths, revealing how outcome-based agreements offer a clearer, more efficient path in IT consulting—a path that focuses on real results, not just hours spent.

Myth: “Outcome-Based Agreements Are More Expensive”

There is a common belief that outcome-based agreements are more expensive than time-and-materials agreements. Our experience at Intact over the past decade, however, suggests otherwise.

In fact, less than 1% of our revenue over the past decade has come from scope creep or project change requests. This figure stands in sharp contrast to the industry average, where over half of projects encounter uncontrolled scope changes. 

The industry’s standard time-and-materials contracts often seem like a bait-and-switch tactic. Clients are enticed with low estimates, only to discover that the costs keep increasing. Intact has a different approach that breaks this pattern with a simple idea: What we quote is what you pay. This model fosters a relationship built on trust and predictability, rather than uncertainty and last-minute adjustments. 

But what about the risk premium that often accompanies outcome-based contracts? Yes, there’s a small premium, usually 10 to 20%, to partially mitigate risk. But in the broader context—one in which traditional IT projects frequently overrun their budgets by as much as 45% and extend well beyond their deadlines—it seems worthwhile. The outcome-based model aligns our success with that of our clients. 

When you consider that 70% of all transformation projects fail and either get scrapped, restarted, or changed entirely, and then compare that to Intact’s 1.5% failure rate over the past decade, the value of an outcome based contract improves even more dramatically.

Initial cost is a misleading myth because, with T&M contracts, the initial cost rarely ends up being the final cost, which often clocks in much higher due to scope creep. Additionally, at the end of the day, cost is not the primary concern of Congress, your customers or your board if you are not successful. At Intact, we’ve turned this model into a win-win scenario by offering our clients a straightforward, transparent path to achieving their IT objectives without the usual surprise fees. 

Myth: “It’s Hard to Define Clear Outcomes for Complex Projects”

Defining these outcomes may be challenging (although it doesn’t have to be), but it is essential. Without clearly defined outcomes, a project is doomed from the start.

At Intact, we have to understand the ‘why’ behind every project. We start by sitting down with our clients and playing a little game of ’20 Questions’. Well, not quite 20, but you get the idea: “What do you want?”, “Why do you want it?”, “So what?”, “Who cares?”. We keep drilling down until we hit the core objective, that north star that guides the entire project. No why, no project. It’s that straightforward.

Now, you might ask, “But isn’t it really hard to define these outcomes?” Our perspective is that it’s not necessarily difficult; it’s more about asking the right questions of the right people. A typical RFP is often chock-full of requirements but fails to explicitly state the desired outcome of the project. What’s the ultimate goal behind all these requirements? 

There’s a cultural barrier at play. Somewhere along the line, we’ve been shamed out of asking ‘obvious’ questions. There’s this pressure in organizations to appear all-knowing. But at Intact, we abandon that notion entirely. We’re not afraid to ask, to probe, to really get to the heart of what our clients need and why they need it.

So, the myth that it’s hard to define clear outcomes for complex projects? Debunked. It’s all about asking the right questions, and that’s where we excel. Because ultimately, knowing the destination is the key to reaching it.

Myth: “Outcome-Based Models Limit Flexibility”

Another misconception is that once you opt for an outcome-based model in IT consulting, you’re locked in, with no room to maneuver. 

At first glance, it might seem like an outcome-based model is about rigidly sticking to the plan. But there’s a lot of nuance here: we’ve baked in a healthy dose of flexibility, equivalent to about 20% of the contract value and work. This ‘flex pool’ allows us to adapt and pivot as needed. While 80% of our focus is locked on securing the outcome, there’s still room to breathe and adjust.

For example, say we’re implementing an out-of-the-box (OOTB) workflow for a client. The core of this workflow remains standard—that’s our 80%, the foundation. But what about the unique considerations of a client’s specific needs, like compliance requirements, or regional nuances? That’s where our 20% flex pool comes into play. We can customize the OOTB workflow and incorporate client-specific elements without deviating from our primary goal.

The idea that outcome-based models are a contractual straightjacket couldn’t be further from the truth. At Intact, we believe in striking the perfect balance between meeting the outcome and ensuring that our clients are more than just satisfied—they’re delighted and able to adjust over the long haul. And that’s where true flexibility lies.

Myth: “Change Management is a ‘Nice to Have’”

Technology, no matter how advanced, only creates business outcomes when it’s used properly. And who’s using it? People. Without their engagement, the most cutting-edge systems become paperweights. For example, think about a self-service portal we deploy in a client’s environment. It’s designed to improve the productivity of their service desk, cutting down on call volume. But if only 25% of people are using it, then you’re only seeing 25% of the potential value. Bump that usage up to 75%, and suddenly, you’re seeing 75% of the potential value. See the pattern here? We need people to see the value of these investments.

Our competitors often put all their eggs in the tech basket. Why? Because it’s straightforward. There’s no pushback from a machine. But to truly realize an outcome, you can’t sidestep the human factor—the fears, the resistance, the need to adapt. That’s where change management shines. It bridges the gap between new technology and its users, ensuring that the tools we implement are embraced and effectively used.

To say that change management is just ‘nice to have’ is to misunderstand the essence of outcome-based agreements. Without it, you’re only skimming the surface of what’s possible. At Intact, we dive deeper, addressing the human side of the equation head-on. That’s how we unlock the full potential of our technological solution and reach our defined outcomes—by ensuring that they’re not just installed, but integrated, understood, and welcomed.

Myth: “Outcome-Based Agreements Are Too Risky”

It’s a common refrain that outcome-based agreements are a risky proposition, but at Intact, we try to make clear that, far from being a gamble, these agreements are actually the safest bet for our clients.

Think about Netflix. They take on the risk whether you binge-watch their entire catalog or don’t watch a single episode. Similarly, in an outcome-based agreement, the risk shifts from the customer to the vendor. The right contract, structured with financial penalties and clear deliverables, means that it’s us, the service provider, who’s on the hook. Not the client.

Why adopt this mode? Because ultimately we at Intact are in a much better position to mitigate these risks. Unlike a sprawling organization, where managing risk depends on various human factors, our incentives are aligned directly with successful outcomes. It contractually aligns us to our customers’ success. We have skin in the game and only succeed when our customers succeed.

There’s a perception that what’s risky for the customer is also risky for the vendor, but this isn’t necessarily true. If you’re changing a faucet at home, for example, you better have your insurance details handy for a potential flood. But when you call in a professional plumber, someone who’s done this hundreds of times, the risk is negligible. They know the ropes, they have the expertise, and they’ve got it covered. If you hired a plumber and they came and asked you how you would like them to go about changing the faucet, what would be the odds that the faucet would be installed according to best practices and in a manner where you weren’t left with a host of issues to deal with when they left?

At Intact, we’re like that plumber but in the IT consulting world. We’ve navigated these waters time and time again. We know what works, what doesn’t, and how to steer clear of pitfalls. While it might seem risky from the outside, for us, managing these risks is just part of our daily work.

In truth, outcome-based agreements offer significant advantages over traditional models. Rather than proving more expensive or limiting flexibility, they promote transparency and agility. Outcomes crystallize vision while change management and flexibility provisions enable fluid implementation. And by shifting risk to those most able to mitigate it, these agreements provide both parties the security to focus purely on shared success. When examined objectively, outcome-based approaches unlock efficiency, clarity, and results unavailable through outdated alternatives clinging to hourly billing and unchecked scope creep. The way forward is clear for those bold enough to debunk the myths.

When ordering food from a restaurant, you don’t pay your bill based on how many steps the chef took to cook your food or how many minutes the waiter spent serving you. You pay for the meal itself—its taste, presentation, and your overall experience at the restaurant. This outcome-focused model incentivizes the restaurant staff to provide quick, attentive, and high-quality service. After all, better service means happier customers who tip more generously.

Something different happens in the enterprise world, though. When contracting technology partners, many businesses and federal agencies still cling to an outdated inputs-based approach, where vendors get paid for the amount of time or resources spent rather than the value created for a client.

Increasingly, however, forward-looking service providers are challenging the status quo through a new paradigm: outcome-based agreements.

What exactly constitutes an ‘outcome’ in this context? It’s more than a technical achievement—it’s about meeting the core expectations of those footing the bill—be it a board, a capital committee, or Congress. Outcomes are tangible results like enhanced productivity, improved customer experience, or elevated profit margins. They are the true north stars guiding every decision and investment.

But despite how important they are, the focus on outcomes often gets lost in the traditional inputs-based model. McKinsey reports that about 70% of digital transformations falter when the end goal isn’t clear. At Intact, we understand this pitfall all too well. That’s why we insist on a clear definition of outcomes before embarking on any project. If the destination isn’t clear, we don’t start the journey.

The Burden of Today’s Inputs-Based Model

The dominant contracting models in IT essentially boil down to variations on an inputs-based theme. Whether labeled as time-and-materials (T&M) or fee-for-service (FFS), most arrangements involve paying vendors based on allocated resources, staff hours, or completing prescribed activities.

For example, under a standard T&M structure, clients pay an agreed hourly rate for labor and reimburse their vendors for any expenses they incur. The more hours logged or additional supplies the vendor uses, the more the client owes―regardless of whether those hours or supplies actually contributed to achieving the desired outcome. Assuming a desired outcome was even defined.

Similarly, FFS agreements specify set fees for particular services rendered, such as $X for completing Y task. The focus rests on delivering prescribed assignments rather than achieving real-world impacts.

This inputs fixation has become the default option, with both buyers and sellers accustoming themselves to the model. And because sector leaders continue operating this way, innovation stagnates as new players conform to compete. Without external pressure or crisis forcing reassessment, questioning the status quo rarely occurs to either party.

And What’s Wrong With That?

To understand the downsides of input-focused IT contracts, think of a taxi ride. In a standard metered cab, the fare is determined by time spent in transit and distance traveled. So essentially, the passenger pays the driver to perform an activity—to operate the vehicle.

This payment model contains no inherent incentive for the cab driver to take the most optimal route to the destination. Whether due to traffic, construction detours, or intentionally dragging your ride along a longer path, the meter ticks steadily regardless. And the longer the ride, the more the driver earns—achieving the actual outcome of arriving efficiently is secondary.

The IT equivalent are T&M agreements. Under T&M, service providers get compensated according to hours logged rather than results achieved. Just as the taxi driver earns more from a longer ride independent of progress to the destination, T&M actually incentivizes vendor inefficiency. The more hours dedicated, the greater the fees accumulated. Quick completion risks revenue loss even if the project satisfies objectives.

FFS contracts seem on their face to address this by tying pay to predefined assignments. But once a vendor checks the to-do list, they get paid regardless of whether adoption, user satisfaction or other tangible benefits actually materialized. 

In essence, charging for activity over outcomes undercuts the potential for larger shared success for short-sighted financial gain. Sellers focus on maximizing billable deliverables instead of optimizing end solutions. Limited accountability lets organizations continue operating inefficiently while still profiting. Ultimately everyone loses—buyers waste funds for minimal mission progress and vendors erode their trust by allocating resources in a self-serving way. Just as a taxi passenger stranded miles from their destination fumes at their driver’s nonchalance, clients stew (if they are aware it’s happening) as vendors milk contracts without advancing real needs.

There must be a better way—one that aligns interests around achieving results rather than rewarding mere activity.

What is an Outcome-Based Agreement?

An outcome-based agreement ties partner compensation directly to achieving specific, measurable results rather than just delivering a service. It fosters alignment by basing payment on success, not effort alone.

For example, a traditional software implementation company traditionally hired to build an app may charge an hourly rate for development work, paid incrementally regardless of whether the final product met the client’s expectations. But under an outcome-based agreement, the partner only receives full payment if the completed app hits mutually agreed performance metrics—like a certain number of downloads, user retention rate, or revenue target.

This approach marks a pivotal shift from paying for activity inputs to paying for impacts and effectiveness. Outcome-based agreements transform vendor relationships from mere service transactions to shared success partnerships.

Outcome-based agreements represent a significant departure from tradition, so overhauling entrenched norms won’t happen overnight. But the status quo is no match for the increasing wave of innovation. Savvy leaders in various sectors are aware of the inevitable change—one not solely focused on effort and activity, but on achieving tangible impacts that drive organizations forward. The future of partnerships is outcome-based.