The underlying issue is that large organizations have low trust (some worse than others!), and therefore large organizations tend to coarse numeric metrics, and game those metrics to look better, which makes even more low trust (and hence backstabbing, empire building, etc.) between divisions.
As a reaction, leadership also tends to err towards coarse, harder to game metrics (like ‘reduce breaches by xx%’ rather than relying on judgement and trust like ‘ensure we don’t have an unreasonable number of breaches, and work to reduce them in the ecosystem’.
Which of course provides strong incentives for chasing the number by throwing all the babies out with the bathwater, and often making the real problem worse.
It’s a size of the organization problem. Changing metrics/mission will shuffle up the specific babies being thrown out, and what is considered the bath water, but the underlying problem remains.
Solid, consistent leadership makes the problem better. That tends to be expensive and not want to deal with the political BS common in Gov’t, at least in the US.
If you think tech workers have office BS to complain about, gov’t workers are at least 10x higher on the scale.
Someone looks at it and goes ‘yeah, that might pay off’ or round files it somewhere.
Researchers who never end up finding anything notable also don’t tend to have long careers, correct?
The crazy amount of skepticism this always draws is simultaneously very funny and very saddening.
What percentage of the overall budget do you think it is?
Of course it does. Thinking about it in terms of ROI doesn't consider externalities. When the OPM gets hacked, nobody at the NSA worries about their budget.
Reason #7893 "run government like a business" is a self-describing category error.