DOGE: Efficiency vs. Effectiveness

Abstract: The “E” in DOGE stands for Efficiency. I think that is the wrong “E”. It should be effectiveness. Efficiency means we do things with the lowest resources as possible to achieve the desired outcome. We can be hyper-efficient and still not be effective for a variety of reasons. The purpose of DOGE seems to preclude looking at MOS and MOE and instead seems to focus only on MOPs. The emphasis on technology and AI seems to reinforce that concept. DOGE does not seem to hire experts in functional areas. Technology can find potential issues, but it takes people familiar with the subject areas to determine whether what they find is relevant and to understand not only what they find but also what it means. I we listen to DOGE critics, many do not contest what DOGE finds but rather what it means and whether it is really fraud, waste, and abuse. Experience with data science shows that effective teams have a mix of technical and functional skills. Continuing on this path will limit the effectiveness of DOGE in both the long and the short term. Perhaps a broader team could also limit the effects of cognitive bias.

My previous BLOG on DOGE showed an empty page. Today (2/14/2025) it now has content. Under the Join tab we see:

“The DOGE Team is looking for world-class talent to work long hours identifying/eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse. These are full-time, salaried positions for software engineers, InfoSec engineers, and other technology professionals.”

The site also now includes the Executive Order, which establishes DOGE. The order states:

“Section 1. Purpose. This Executive Order establishes the Department of Government Efficiency to implement the President’s DOGE Agenda, by modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.”

Now what is the President’s DOGE Agenda? I have yet to find a clear, written statement that lays out this agenda. Yes, there is a lot of talk, but perhaps still no written policy statement and objectives. The best we have is the purpose statement section that says, “by modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.” So on first blush, it appears that DOGE is a technology organization, which is backed up by the technology focus in the Join tab.

The “E” in DOGE stands for Efficiency. I think that is the wrong “E”. It should be effectiveness. Efficiency means we do things with the lowest resources as possible to achieve the desired outcome. We can be hyper-efficient and still not be effective for a variety of reasons. To give an extreme example, consider an ammunition supply. Efficient operations would drive the services to a Just in Time (JIT) inventory system that provides units the right ammunition just as they need it. But that supposes combat follows normal supply and demand rules and we can anticipate combat. But in war, the enemy has a vote. Unless we have perfect information, we cannot be sure where and when our forces will engage in combat. Units need to be prepared for the unexpected, which flies in the face of efficiency. There are many examples in government, business, and even social interactions.

The figure provides another way to look at efficiency and effectiveness. Efficiency is based on process, like the archer handling the bow and drawing it. Effectiveness is based on outcomes, such as hitting the correct target at the right spot. The archer can efficiently draw and shoot the arrow, but if it hits the cow instead of the deer, it is not an effective outcome.

An example is the Great Society, a series of programs designed to reduce or eliminate poverty and eliminate racial disparities. But as I discussed in Creating the Monster: The American Bureaucracy and other blogs, these programs did not do that. They hit the cow instead of the deer and poverty and black families are worse off for the estimated $22 trillion we spent on them.

That is why the concept of MOPs and MOEs are so important. A MOP—Measure of Performance—measures whether we are doing what we planned to do. It does not tell us whether the actions lead to effective outcomes, just how well we perform them. A MOE—Measures of Efficiency—tells us whether we are achieving our desired outcomes. But even with a MOE, we need to be careful, because the desired outcomes may not achieve the desired effects and impacts. MOS—Measures of Success—do that.

Looking at MOS, MOE, MOP help to give us a complete picture and develop a better understanding of a department, agency, and program. When you look at the comments on DOGE now, they are all over the place, depending on the commentator’s political and social perspective. The Trump supporters think DOGE is doing great and uncovering fraud, waste, and abuse. Trump opponents think DOGE is fraud waste and abuse. Many of those in the middle are left wondering what is really going on and where it is heading.

The purpose of DOGE seems to preclude looking at MOS and MOE and instead seems to focus only on MOPs. The emphasis on technology and AI seems to reinforce that concept. DOGE does not seem to hire experts in functional areas. Technology can find potential issues, but it takes people familiar with the subject areas to determine whether what they find is relevant and to understand not only what they find but also what it means. I we listen to DOGE critics, many do not contest what DOGE finds but rather what it means and whether it is really fraud, waste, and abuse. Experience with data science shows that effective teams have a mix of technical and functional skills.

Continuing on this path will limit the effectiveness of DOGE in both the long and the short term. USAID is an example. Almost certainly, DOGE found fraud, waste, and abuse. But does that mean the Trump administration should shut it down? My experience as a senior officer in a combatant command tells me there is more to the picture and we do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Perhaps a broader team could also limit the effects of cognitive bias.