top of page

When "We Can Do That" Isn't the Same as "We Already Do That"

paigerosemond
7 days ago
3 min read

Like many people, I watched the new You Can See Everything documentary last weekend.

As I listened to discussions about what Elizabeth Holmes meant when she claimed Theranos could perform certain functions, I found myself thinking less about Theranos and more about a dynamic I've observed throughout my career in government technology procurement.


The Theranos story is obviously an extreme case. But the pressures that contributed to it are not entirely unfamiliar.


Technology is competitive.


Government procurements are highly competitive.


Investors, executives, sales teams, procurement teams, and implementation teams all face pressure to win, innovate, differentiate, and deliver.


And in that environment, there can be a tendency to blur the line between:

✅ What works today

✅ What can be configured

✅ What can be built

✅ What is on the roadmap

✅ What is envisioned for the future


My perspective on this issue comes from having lived on both sides of the conversation.


I've led technology procurement and modernization efforts within state and local government, and I've also worked on the vendor side as a Project Executive supporting a CCWIS implementation. Earlier this year, I launched Rosemond HumanTech Solutions, where I continue helping organizations bridge the gap between procurement expectations and implementation realities.


That experience fundamentally changed my perspective.


A vendor says:

"We can do that."


An agency hears:

"That functionality exists today, has been proven in production, and is included in the proposed price."


Those are not always the same thing.


Sometimes a demonstration reflects a mature capability already supporting users in production.


Sometimes it reflects functionality heavily customized for another customer.


Sometimes it reflects a capability still under development.


Sometimes it reflects a vision that everyone genuinely believes will be available by the time it is needed.


The challenge is that procurement decisions are often made based on expectations, while implementation teams inherit reality.


Months later, the conversation shifts to:


  • Change requests

  • Contract amendments

  • Additional development costs

  • Use of discretionary funding

  • Schedule extensions

  • Scope interpretations


At that point, it doesn't really matter whether the misunderstanding originated with the buyer or the seller.


The trust has already started to erode.


And in human services, the consequences extend far beyond the contract.

Every dollar redirected to resolve technology disputes is a dollar unavailable for mission outcomes.


Every schedule delay means caseworkers wait longer for better tools.


Every implementation setback postpones benefits that children, families, providers, and communities were promised.


That is why the conversation sparked by the You Can See Everything documentary is worth having.


Not because government technology vendors are Theranos. Most are not.


But because we should be willing to ask a difficult question:


Has the technology industry become too comfortable selling what a system can do without clearly distinguishing it from what the system does do today?


The reality is that incentives matter.


The vendor that says:

"That requirement will require customization, additional funding, and a longer timeline"


may lose to the vendor that says:

"Yes, we can support that."


The pressure to win business is real.


The pressure to satisfy stakeholders is real.


The pressure to demonstrate innovation is real.


Those pressures do not excuse overrepresentation of functionality, but they help explain why expectation gaps continue to emerge across the industry.


Innovation matters.


Roadmaps matter.


The Art of the Possible matters.


But transparency matters too.


Maybe it's time for procurements to more clearly distinguish between:


🔹 Operational Capability (working in production today)

🔹 Configurable Capability

🔹 Developmental Capability

🔹 Roadmap Capability

🔹 Aspirational Capability


Would that improve outcomes? Would it reduce change orders and implementation disputes? Would it strengthen trust between agencies and vendors? I'm genuinely interested in hearing perspectives from both sides of the table.


Should sandbox environments become standard practice for technology procurements?


Should vendors be required to identify whether functionality is operational, configurable, developmental, or conceptual?


How can agencies better evaluate claims about future-state functionality?

Where is the line between innovation, optimism, and over-promising?


At Rosemond HumanTech Solutions, we believe successful modernization efforts begin with transparency, shared expectations, and a clear understanding of what exists today versus what is planned for tomorrow.


Because governments aren't buying technology for technology's sake.


They're investing in outcomes.


And the children, families, caseworkers, providers, and communities impacted by these systems deserve better than ambiguity.


 

 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page