[Iftheshoefits]

I'm perpetually amused at the naive optimism and latent arrogance that infuses the notion that government technology is outdated because of (in)competence or bureaucracy. The root of the problems with government technology, at basically any level, is that government technology is procured by a system run by politicians (or bureaucrats who are appointed by politicians, many of whom have their own political ambitions or agenda). It has almost nothing to do with a lack of competence or supply of capable and otherwise willing companies to tackle the problems.

The nightmarish process of getting government contracts is a feature of this system; not a bug that politicians are going to willingly or easily part with. It's part and parcel of the machinery that allows them to bring home the bacon, as it were.

Contracting for government, at any level, is almost always more about who you know, how long you've known them, and (or) how much money you already have to throw at officials' bank accounts/campaigns. So, I hope the fund investors understand that the problems to be solved in this space are more about lobbying and networking than about doing anything that's actually IT related.

[mtbcoder]

I agree with you completely, however the article does say:

"Bouganim says that he and his investors are looking to pour funds into companies that demonstrated that they know how to work with government, whether that's understanding how to slide under the procurement limits that trigger mounds of paperwork or make use of cloud computing in a way that works within government's often-strict security requirements.

So it seems as if they are looking to invest in companies that have already made it into the walled garden of government contracting.