I would argue they sound self aware and that's better than many orgs, large and small. Many companies have no idea what the number of tasks are required to bring a person onboard and would underestimate the tasks required by 50% or more.

While I don't doubt bureaucracy plays a role, I think comments in this thread insinuating that there is something wrong with having an organized and thorough onboarding process are wrong-headed.

Many, many mature organizations probably have more than 60 tasks to complete to fully onboard a new employee. If you really want to see what inefficiency looks like, put your head in the sand on those 60 items and wait to perform each of them when they become urgent.

No, they're pointing out the exact problem they're seeking to address. That's a step that many developers and founders never bother to take.

Furthermore, 18F doesn't control the onboarding process of (other) government agencies.

A worse alternative is having an inconsistent and lacking onboarding procedure, where there is no checklist in any form. I've seen that happen, very talented people coming on board and having nothing to do for weeks, not even having a computer ordered for them before they started.

Sixty tasks might not be that onerous, particularly if they're very finely grained. For example, 1. Fill out form to request ID card. 2. [+1 hr] Get picture taken for card. 3. [+2 day] Pick up new ID card at front desk.

1. Ask employee to bring in a blank check. 2. [+1 day] Use check to complete direct deposit form. 3. [+2 weeks] Check with employee to make sure direct deposit went through.

We're 10% of the way there and we haven't done any sort of actual orientation, set up any accounts, or done any training.