✳flâneur — a map of the web's best reading

No (Process) Risk, No Reward

factorysettings.org · 2,633 words · saved by 1 readers

In our launch piece, we argued that government is far too risk-averse. Much of that risk aversion manifests in the way we design processes. Policymakers are often too preoccupied with designing procedures that are immune to criticism, leading to needless rigidity and bureaucratic torpor. Typically, this preoccupation centers on either oversight risk (What if an inspector general or congressional committee starts an investigation?) or litigation risk (What if we face legal challenges under the APA, NEPA, or other statutes?). In turn, initiatives fail because they underweight the ultimate risk: not delivering a result. CHIPS succeeded in large part because we recognized that delivering results required taking on some process risk. We gave ourselves more flexibility to evaluate and engage with applicants than a typical government program allows, while keeping the process consistent and fair. Although we took oversight and litigation risk seriously, we knew that the greatest danger lay in

No (Process) Risk, No Reward Design a process that lets you win Mike Schmidt Nov 18, 2025 33 2 9 Share In our launch piece, we argued that government is far too risk-averse. Much of that risk aversion manifests in the way we design processes. Policymakers are often too preoccupied with designing procedures that are immune to criticism, leading to needless rigidity and bureaucratic torpor. Typically, this preoccupation centers on either oversight risk (What if an inspector general or congressional committee starts an investigation?) or litigation risk (What if we face legal challenges under the

Explore this link on the map →

saved by

related reading