I haven't done a lot of work in government, but I have done a lot of work in orgs with distributed power structures, and this is 100% correct. Starting from the ground up means constructing a working group for every single workflow in which everyone who is even theoretically a stakeholder (and many people who aren't) is going to demand to be in the room and be heard. Once you get past 4-5 people, good luck holding a meeting more than once every few months, and if a single powerful stakeholder doesn't like what you are doing or perceives that you are stripping them of power, they will gum up the process until it fails. I've had 4-5 value adding initiatives crushed in this manner at past jobs.

IMO, the optimal strategy in such an environment is to get at least one powerful champion on your side who can give you political cover, and then to quietly construct a MVP while soliciting feedback from high performing rank and file in the departments of interest who you know (ie no other power brokers besides your champion(s)). If you can deploy a value adding MVP it becomes difficult for antagonists to intervene and kill the project without appearing petty, and then you can really get to work building the product you want.

In DC their in house 'innovation team' tried to overcome some of these issues and make them more useful to the people using the forms by having an annual formapalooza. Results were mixed but it is an interesting approach to digitization and human centered design.

https://thelabprojects.dc.gov/formapalooza

Great point. With the Federal Govt that often breaks down to "agencies that use GSA as a service provider" and "agencies that roll their own."

I sort of imagine some departments opting for a webform-to-fax gateway :)