The Innovation Adoption Kit - A Data-Driven Playbook for Enterprise IT Modernization in Government

Blog Co-Author: Sara Sayyar, Consultant, Federal HR and Talent Transformation, IBM

That question anchored a recent roundtable  -- hosted by the Foundation for American Innovation and the IBM Center for The Business of Government -- that brought together senior technology, policy, and research leaders from across federal, state, and local government, alongside experts from academia and industry.

The roundtable discussion highlighted the U.S. Navy’s “Innovation Adoption Kit,” which outlines a structured approach to designing, piloting, and scaling emerging technologies. The formal framework was released by the Department of the Navy in November 2025 “to accelerate the integration of cutting-edge commercial technology into military applications.” Participants noted that the Kit’s structure is broadly applicable and increasingly relevant to other federal organizations—including the Department of Homeland Security and elements of the Intelligence Community—seeking to scale innovation more systematically. The roundtable conversation was wide‑ranging but tightly focused on a primary goal—how to modernize government IT in ways that deliver real outcomes, not just incremental upgrades.

The group explored the importance of outcome-driven performance metrics, particularly how to distinguish between metrics that enable growth and those that unintentionally hold agencies back. Several participants emphasized that when outcomes are clearly defined and comparable, successful solutions can be adopted and scaled more quickly across agencies operating in similar contexts. It was noted that thoughtful metrics allow government leaders to compare new systems against legacy systems and make informed tradeoffs about where to divest or where to prioritize. One participant shared that metrics such as user time saved, adaptability, cost per user, user experience, and operational resilience are helpful measurements to evaluate system trade-offs. When metrics become outdated or static, they enable a box-checking mentality rather than meaningful progress on technology initiates. The group agreed that metrics should serve as a tool to assess progress and ROI rather than dictate every decision.  

The roundtable also discussed how architecture emerged as a foundational requirement for scaling technology in the federal government. The group stressed that architecture should prioritize adaptability and interoperability, rather than reinforce existing ineffective workflows. Common missteps in modernization efforts stem from failing to map data dependencies and workflows within existing systems. The group cautioned that duplicative systems make meaningful scaling difficult. Leaders should develop a thorough understanding of current business processes and identify “dead weight” before attempting modernization. Without this baseline effort, modernization can lead to unnecessarily duplicative systems that strain agency’s budget, time, and resources.

The group also discussed budget and procurement challenges. The annual appropriations process, for example, does not often match the timing that long-term investments require for successful modernization. Also, funding generally aligns with to organizational silos rather than new, strategic priorities. The group noted how a risk-averse federal acquisition process (especially towards technological innovation like AI) can drive up costs, and disincentivize leaders from retiring or updating outdated systems. Together, these factors make it increasingly difficult to sustain modernization efforts. To address this, the group proposed several structural reforms, including shifting toward a portfolio-based acquisition model instead of funding isolated programs, and granting agencies greater autonomy to experiment and take calculated risks--all with a sharper focus on outcomes.

Underlying the technical discussion, participants recognized that culture and incentives ultimately determine success. The group highlighted the tension between speed and risk aversion, particularly in regulated environments. While prudent risk‑taking is essential, public‑sector incentives still tend to penalize failure without rewarding success. Several pointed to emerging models—such as shared savings, outcomes‑based contracts, and modern talent programs—as promising ways to rebalance this dynamic. Others emphasized the value of pairing deep institutional knowledge with newer technical expertise and creating environments where evidence and effectiveness outweigh hierarchy.

The conversation closed with a strong sense of opportunity. Advances in AI, growing cybersecurity threats, and mounting infrastructure risk have made technology modernization a mission‑critical issue rather than a back‑office concern.  The group concluded that true innovation requires clear outcomes, honest metrics, intentional divestment, modular architecture, and cultural permission to learn and adapt.

Stay tuned for a forthcoming report with more detail and recommendations from the session, by Kevin Hawickhorst with FAI.