I sincerely hope that this government office has an associated division (or function) that is not just responsible for developing/procuring/scoping the detailed technology solutions but also responsible for:

-- Removing the incentives / disincentives for agencies to stick with old technology or processes (for legitimate, or even stupid reasons)

-- Coming up with ways to motivate/enable government workers and leaders to want new technology tools and break out of resistance based on existing methods

-- Advocate for budgets to properly fund the development of such tech initiatives rather than a) ignore the growing problem, or b) prefer to fund the old outdated methods

-- Inform the policymakers why all of the above are important, and why (as appropriate) it is more cost-effective and real-outcome-beneficial in the long run

Because I think what you'll find is that it is rarely the tech that is the bottleneck constraint. Put a good tool in front of anyone as an individual and unless they're stupid, they'll generally want to do it. Put it in front of them as a worker who has other constraints and interests in the system created to date, and they display many other behaviors.

When you have a tool / method that is shown to be 10x greater in benefit, of course governments will start to adopt it. It's beyond objectionable when they see something that good. And citizens will put up with some temporary inconvenience to switch because it's nonsensical to stick to such blatantly inferior methods.

But when some new solution is only 1.5x better, then you get a lot of resistance (sometimes legitimate) that people need to be able to rely on their existing solutions or it costs too much to change, etc, etc. And you start losing out on significant, but insufficiently better, efficient solutions that are needed to keep us out of lagging place in the world.