Original Broadcast Date: 04/12/2026
Presented by Workday Government
The Office of Personnel Management is moving forward with plans to build a unified human resources system for the federal government, but the effort is already raising important questions about execution, scope, and OPM’s broader role.
Speaking with Francis Rose on Fed Gov Today, Jeff Neal, former Chief Human Capital Officer at the Department of Homeland Security and the Defense Logistics Agency, says the idea of a unified HR system is not new—but it is necessary.
Neal explains that the current federal HR landscape is highly fragmented and costly. Many agencies rely on legacy systems that have been in place for decades, often built on platforms like PeopleSoft or Oracle. Once agencies adopt these systems, they tend to remain locked in for years, limiting flexibility and increasing long-term costs. A unified system, he says, could help address these challenges by streamlining operations and reducing duplication.
At its core, Neal supports the concept of a single system for managing federal HR records. He notes that OPM ultimately owns these records, making it logical for the agency to oversee a centralized system that maintains them. Consolidation at this level could bring consistency and efficiency across government.
However, Neal draws a clear distinction between core HR systems and the broader ecosystem of HR tools. While he agrees that OPM should play a central role in managing core systems, he raises concerns about the agency expanding beyond that mission.
One of his primary concerns is what he sees as an inherent conflict of interest. OPM is not only responsible for setting HR policy, but also for providing services and oversight to the same agencies it regulates. Neal argues that this combination creates tension. When OPM sells services tied to the policies it writes—and oversees agencies that use those services—it blurs the lines between regulator and provider.
This dynamic becomes more complicated when it comes to software. Neal expresses concern about OPM’s involvement in developing and selling HR systems, particularly in areas like talent acquisition. He notes that OPM already holds a dominant position in parts of the federal HR technology market, which discourages private-sector competition.
In contrast, companies outside government must go through lengthy and complex procurement processes to sell their products. Agencies, however, can often obtain OPM services through simpler agreements. Neal suggests this creates an uneven playing field, where private-sector innovation struggles to compete with government-provided solutions.
He emphasizes that innovation in HR technology is happening primarily outside the government, especially in areas like talent management and AI-driven tools. By expanding too far into these spaces, Neal believes OPM risks limiting access to new and emerging capabilities that could benefit federal agencies.
For Neal, the key is balance. He sees value in standardizing core HR functions, but argues that agencies should retain flexibility when it comes to specialized tools. Different agencies have different missions and workforce needs, and their HR systems should reflect that diversity.
Beyond structural concerns, Neal also highlights the importance of focus. He points out that OPM has a unique responsibility that no other agency can fulfill: developing and modernizing federal HR policy. This includes updating the civil service system, an area he says has long needed attention.
However, Neal worries that OPM’s emphasis on selling services may distract from that core mission. Because the agency relies in part on revenue from those services, there is a natural incentive to expand them. In his view, this can shift attention away from policy work that is essential to long-term reform.
Funding is another factor in the discussion. Neal acknowledges that OPM and participating agencies already have funding set aside for the modernization effort, which is a positive sign. Having resources available upfront reduces the need to search for funding later.
At the same time, he cautions that large government technology projects often exceed initial budgets. Drawing on his own experience, Neal notes that modernization efforts can grow significantly in cost over time, meaning current funding may not be sufficient to carry the project through to completion.
As the effort moves forward, Neal outlines several areas he will be watching closely. These include the outcome of the contract protest, whether OPM maintains focus on the system itself rather than expanding its service offerings, and whether the agency invests more attention in its policy mission.
Ultimately, Neal defines success in practical terms. A successful system is one that meets operational needs, is usable by agencies, and enables them to retire outdated legacy systems. He points out that many agencies operate hundreds of HR systems, creating inefficiencies and unnecessary costs.
Reducing that complexity is a key goal. For Neal, every legacy system that can be turned off represents progress. Simplifying the HR technology landscape not only saves money, but also improves the ability of agencies to manage their workforce effectively.
As OPM advances its modernization plan, Neal’s perspective highlights both the opportunity and the challenge. A unified system has the potential to bring much-needed efficiency to federal HR, but achieving that outcome will require careful attention to roles, responsibilities, and the balance between standardization and innovation.