In this segment of Fed Gov Today, Ann Dunkin, former Chief Information Officer at the Department of Energy, joins Francis Rose to explore what “doing more with less” really means for federal agencies after the government shutdown. Dunkin takes a thoughtful, candid look at the state of government operations, budgets, and staffing, and she challenges leaders to rethink how they approach efficiency and reform.
She begins by noting that the idea of “doing more with less” is not new. Federal leaders have repeated it through many administrations, but it often becomes an empty phrase rather than a strategy. Dunkin hopes that after such a significant shutdown, this moment can be different—a time for reflection and recalibration. She suggests that the administration should pause to consider what has worked and what has not in previous efforts to streamline operations. The goal, she says, should be to focus on areas where real, sustainable change is possible, instead of trying to overhaul everything at once.
Dunkin believes the current administration has an opportunity to make meaningful improvements precisely because it has shown a willingness to challenge norms and embrace new ideas. That flexibility could allow leaders to identify reforms that genuinely help agencies function better under tighter resources. For example, she highlights the ongoing conversation about consolidating contracts and centralizing services across government. While she supports the principle behind those efforts, she cautions that they must be targeted and realistic.
She uses the General Services Administration (GSA) as an example. The idea of shifting more procurement work to GSA under the “One Gov” concept sounds promising, but Dunkin warns that GSA has also seen staffing reductions and may not have the capacity to take on significantly more work. Simply moving complexity from one agency to another, she says, won’t solve the underlying problem. Instead, she recommends focusing on areas where centralized procurement truly makes sense—such as commodities that are used across government.
Email systems, file sharing, and telecommunications are examples she cites as logical candidates for consolidation. Agencies already rely on similar technology in these areas, so letting GSA or another experienced organization manage those contracts could save time and money. But Dunkin stresses that not every acquisition should be handled at the governmentwide level. Many programs depend on local knowledge and specialized expertise that centralized buying can’t replace. A balanced approach, she argues, is the only way to make “doing more with less” actually work.
Francis asks about how to motivate agencies to participate in these shared efforts—whether through incentives (“carrots”) or requirements (“sticks”). Dunkin responds that a mix of both is probably necessary. She points out that in 2014, the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) and the federal CIO at the time tried to standardize computer configurations under a policy called the Federal Desktop Core Configuration. The goal was to simplify and save money by limiting desktop options to four standardized models. However, it quickly failed because it ignored the diverse needs of agencies. Scientists, field workers, and specialized staff simply couldn’t use the same machines as office employees. The lesson, Dunkin says, is that top-down mandates rarely succeed unless they account for real operational differences.
Still, she believes some level of enforcement may be needed. There are always people in government who resist shared approaches simply to preserve autonomy. The best motivator, she says, is evidence of tangible benefits. If an agency CIO can clearly see that a shared service or contract will save 20 percent or more, they will usually get on board. For smaller agencies, the savings from joining a governmentwide contract can be even more compelling. For larger ones, the benefits need to be concrete and measurable to overcome the instinct to stay independent.
Turning to technology, Dunkin discusses how agencies might regain momentum after the shutdown. She acknowledges that progress may be slow at first because teams are smaller, budgets are tight, and morale may be low. Many federal offices are significantly understaffed compared to past years—she mentions that her former team at the Department of Energy is now only about 42 percent of the size it was when she left. Given that reality, agencies must find ways to work smarter, not just harder.
For her, that starts with smarter contracting. She says agencies need to stop issuing broad, unfocused procurements and instead take the time to understand specific program requirements. Quick fixes and sweeping changes often fail because they’re based on assumptions rather than analysis. Leaders should encourage their teams to think deeply about what outcomes they actually want and design contracts that reflect those goals.
When Francis asks what success will look like six months or a year from now, Dunkin says she’ll be watching whether agencies are truly issuing and renegotiating contracts—or simply extending old ones. If she sees active, thoughtful acquisition work happening again, especially with fewer staff, it will signal that agencies have found smarter ways to operate. She also hopes to see agencies using acquisition vehicles that allow them to move faster and collaborate more, rather than getting stuck in cycles of delay and extension.
Dunkin maintains a pragmatic and encouraging tone. She acknowledges the difficulties of rebuilding after the shutdown but sees opportunities hidden within the challenges. By focusing on realistic priorities, empowering smaller teams, and pursuing targeted reforms instead of sweeping mandates, agencies can turn “doing more with less” into meaningful progress.