Municipal governments increasingly rely on software to deliver essential public services, from utilities and public safety to financial management, planning, public works, and 311 systems. But the process of procuring new software to support these services is fraught with risk. One of the most vulnerable periods in any municipal IT project is the time between identifying the system requirements and actually launching the software. During this time, community needs, staff workflows, and regulatory requirements may shift. If the implementation takes too long, the system may already be outdated when it goes live. This can result in low adoption, high costs, or even project failure.

Unfortunately, these failures are common. Long-standing research such as the CHAOS Reports shows that large software projects often fail to meet their goals, with fewer than one-third delivered on time, on budget, and with expected features. Municipalities are especially vulnerable, as traditional procurement processes tend to be slow and rigid, and often isolate system design from the realities of frontline service delivery. Once deployed, these static systems are difficult to update, locking in outdated processes rather than enabling innovation.

A more effective approach is to adopt a proven process already in successful use by peer municipalities, along with the software and configurations that support it. This means starting with a well-tested workflow that reflects the lived experience of similar cities, rather than reinventing the system from scratch. While this may require adjusting some local practices at the outset, it gives the municipality a stable, working foundation in both process and technology. From there, local governments can adapt and optimize the system to their specific context.

Once the platform and process are live and stabilizing service delivery, municipal teams can then focus on iterative improvements based on real-world usage and community feedback. This shifts the model from pushing a fixed set of features at launch to enabling a "pull" for improvements over time. Staff and residents can identify inefficiencies or unmet needs, which then inform system updates. In this way, the software becomes a tool for continuous process improvement, supporting evolving workflows rather than constraining them.

This model of procurement, rapid deployment of proven process-platform pairs followed by iterative improvement, is already gaining traction in many local governments. It offers a balanced path forward: accelerating value delivery while ensuring the system remains flexible and responsive. Rather than waiting years for the “perfect” system, cities can start with something that works and then make it better, faster, and more tailored with each update.

In a time when constituents expect digital services that are as seamless and responsive as those in the private sector, municipalities must rethink how they procure technology. Adopting a process and platform from a successful peer and iterating from there is not just more efficient; it is a smarter, lower-risk way to deliver modern public services that keep pace with the people they serve.

When municipalities procure software to deliver public services, selecting the right licensing model is as critical as choosing the right technology. Licensing determines not only who can use the software and how, but also how adaptable, portable, and sustainable the system will be over time. The most common licensing categories include proprietary, open source, shared source, and hybrid models, each with its own advantages and limitations in the public sector context.

Proprietary licenses, often used by major vendors like Oracle or Microsoft, provide full-featured, polished solutions with vendor support and warranties. These licenses typically restrict access to source code and charge ongoing fees for updates or usage expansion. While proprietary software can offer stability and support, it often leads to vendor lock-in and limits the municipality’s ability to customize or evolve the system. Changes may require expensive vendor services or trigger new fees, which can undermine the city’s ability to iterate based on community feedback.

Open source licenses, such as those governed by the MIT or GNU General Public License (GPL), allow users to view, modify, and distribute the software freely. This model aligns well with the need for transparency, adaptability, and community-driven improvements. Open source can significantly lower long-term costs and reduce reliance on a single vendor. However, it also shifts the burden of support, security, and maintenance to the municipality or its partners. This may require in-house technical capacity or carefully structured service agreements with outside experts.

Shared source licenses offer a middle ground by granting access to source code under controlled conditions. These models are often used by larger software companies to provide visibility to government agencies without relinquishing full control. While this can help build trust and allow limited customization, shared source often imposes restrictions on redistribution or derivative works. This can create obstacles for municipalities that want to adapt software to changing local needs or share improvements with peer cities.

A hybrid licensing approach may combine elements of the above. For example, it might include proprietary core systems with open APIs or modular open-source components. This model supports flexibility, enabling municipalities to maintain a stable foundation while adapting specific workflows or interfaces over time. The drawback is that hybrid models can be complex to manage. They require careful contract language to ensure access to key components and avoid unexpected dependencies or hidden costs.

Ultimately, licensing should be aligned with the municipality’s contracting strategy and long-term goal. In early implementation phases, licensing terms should facilitate rapid deployment of a proven solution without unnecessary constraints. In the improvement phase, the license must support adaptability. It is crucial that the vendor remains a trusted partner throughout this period. If, during the course of ongoing refinement based on real-world usage, the vendor becomes unresponsive to the municipality’s needs, the municipality must retain options that do not disrupt service delivery. These options may include the ability to shift support to another vendor, bring services in-house, or access the necessary configuration tools and data for uninterrupted continuity. A well-chosen license not only safeguards public investment but also empowers local governments to deliver digital services that grow with the communities they serve.