Mandates create momentum, but they rarely create progress. House Resolution 8408 — the Legacy IT Reduction Act — correctly diagnoses federal IT’s visibility problem. But requiring agencies to inventory legacy systems without changing how they procure, build, and execute is like handing a driver a map without fixing the broken engine.
Agencies cannot modernize what they cannot see. A clear understanding of existing technology environments is essential.
But an inventory only answers one question: What do we have?
It doesn’t answer the more difficult questions: What should we replace? What should we simplify? How do we ensure modernization efforts improve mission outcomes rather than simply create newer versions of existing problems?
That is where H.R. 8408 will ultimately be tested. Without changes to how agencies execute modernization, the legislation risks producing a well-documented plan without solving the underlying challenges that have slowed progress for decades.
Inventory isn’t the hard part. Execution is.
Most agencies already have a strong understanding of their legacy technology footprint. The challenge has never been simply identifying outdated systems. The challenge has been translating awareness into action.
In 2019, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified 10 of the federal government’s most critical legacy systems, citing concerns around security, reliability and maintenance costs. Six years later, only three of those systems — at the Small Business Administration, Office of Personnel Management and Defense Department — have been modernized.
The lesson is clear: The federal government is well aware of its modernization needs; however, it struggles with execution.
GAO identified part of the issue when it noted that the Office of Management and Budget had not acted on a 2016 recommendation to provide agencies with additional direction on modernization planning. That gap ultimately led the GAO to recommend congressional action.
H.R. 8408 can help establish accountability around identifying and prioritizing legacy systems. But a plan alone does not create the processes, incentives, and resources needed to successfully execute modernization.
The system integrator incentive structure is a real obstacle
One of the biggest challenges facing federal modernization is not the technology itself. It’s how modernization projects are designed and delivered.
Federal agencies frequently rely on system integrators to implement large-scale technology initiatives. These organizations bring significant expertise, but traditional engagement models can sometimes create incentives that favor complexity over simplicity.
The result can be modernization efforts that replace old systems without fundamentally improving how work gets done.
The analogy I often use is a patient visiting a doctor with a headache and being recommended for an appendectomy. The procedure may be executed successfully, but it does not address the actual problem.
I have seen similar situations in technology environments, where agencies start with a business challenge but end up with highly customized solutions that require extensive development, ongoing maintenance and specialized resources. The agency receives a new system, but many of the same operational challenges remain — along with a larger technical footprint.
This is where procurement matters. When agencies buy for outcomes rather than hours, they create room for a more consultative approach. Instead of simply building to a predefined set of requirements, implementation partners can step back, evaluate the underlying problem, and recommend a solution that may require less customization or an entirely different technology approach. That approach may involve upfront labor or licensing costs, but it can reduce the technical debt, maintenance burden, and unnecessary complexity that agencies carry forward.
An inventory and a plan do not change who builds the solution or how success is measured.
Agencies need better technology owners, not bigger IT teams
One of the less obvious challenges facing modernization has little to do with technology itself. It has to do with who is making technology decisions.
Federal hiring constraints and budget realities make it unrealistic to expect agencies to rebuild large in-house engineering organizations. Fortunately, they don’t need to. Agencies will continue to rely on system integrators and implementation partners for specialized technical expertise.
What they do need are knowledgeable product owners and technology leaders who can act as informed buyers. People who understand the agency’s mission can evaluate architectural trade-offs, challenge unnecessary complexity, and distinguish between a solution that genuinely advances modernization and one that simply expands the scope of work.
Without that internal discipline, agencies are at a disadvantage. When vendors define both the problem and the solution, modernization efforts can become larger, more customized, and more expensive than necessary — not because of bad intent, but because no one within the agency is positioned to ask whether a simpler approach would better serve the mission.
H.R. 8408 can require agencies to produce modernization plans, but it cannot create the internal ownership needed to ensure those plans are executed wisely. Successful modernization depends on having leaders who can make informed technology decisions, hold implementation partners accountable, and keep projects focused on mission outcomes rather than unnecessary complexity.
What agencies should do instead
H.R. 8408 requires agencies to create modernization plans. But a plan is not the same as a modernization strategy.
To maximize the value of this effort, agencies should focus on four priorities:
- Choose configurable platforms over heavily customized solutions. Modernization should reduce complexity, not create new technical debt. Configurable platforms can help agencies adapt faster while avoiding the long-term burden of maintaining highly customized systems.
- Start with mission outcomes, not technology requirements. Successful modernization begins with understanding what employees, citizens, and mission stakeholders need to accomplish. Technology should enable those outcomes rather than dictate them.
- Invest in internal technical expertise. Agencies need to be able to evaluate vendor recommendations, understand tradeoffs, and ensure solutions align with mission needs.
- Treat the inventory as the beginning of modernization, not the end. The real work starts after agencies identify their systems and determine how they will modernize effectively.
None of these changes requires additional legislation. They require agencies to approach modernization differently and make better decisions with the plans they are already required to create.
Modernization depends on execution
H.R. 8408 addresses the visibility part of the federal modernization challenge. But visibility alone does not create progress.
The agencies that successfully modernize will be those that pair planning requirements with smarter procurement strategies, stronger internal capabilities, and a willingness to rethink how technology solutions are delivered.
A modernization plan is only as valuable as the execution behind it.
The legacy IT crisis won’t be solved by another spreadsheet or a five-year strategic binder. It will be solved by agencies that act as disciplined product owners, hold vendors accountable for outcomes rather than custom billable hours, and choose adaptable platforms over permanent complexity.
Tom Eaton is senior director and head of the strategic solutions group at S-Docs.
Copyright
© 2026 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.
