Digital transformation in the public sector requires more than just raw materials and ambition. This process demands a careful “brick-by-brick” progression, often broken into smaller, iterative milestones monitored by rigorous assurance processes. In a recent webinar hosted by Civil Service World in partnership with Baringa, senior digital leaders from both the public and private sectors discussed how this architectural mindset translates into digital innovation in government. Drawing from their direct experience, the panel shared insights on building infrastructure that is both functional and resilient.
Karl Hoods, Group Chief Digital and Information Officer for DESNZ and DSIT, challenged the very notion of transformation, warning against conflating digitisation with genuine change, and emphasised that clarity of purpose must underpin any meaningful programme. “Without that North Star, it becomes incredibly difficult to plot a path to it,” he said.
But knowing your destination is not enough; it is also crucial to understand who you are serving. Dia Nag, Director of Digital at BetterGov and former Cabinet Office transformation lead, argued that successful digital programmes must be rooted in real user needs rather than simply top-down ambitions or technology hype. “People and users are at the heart of everything,” she stated.
Having experience in both government and as a supplier, Nag underscored the difference between what users ask for and what they actually need. “It’s about finding ways to support your government colleagues and the wider public sector through tangible experiences to move from funding to fulfilment,” she noted.
Grounding transformation in real experience
That focus on the user resonated throughout the discussion. Transformation, the panel agreed, must never begin with technology. As Nag put it, “technology is just an enabler” and system design must be anchored in how it improves experiences for citizens, staff or service users. For Hoods, it comes back to “clarity of objective” – being honest about the problem you’re solving and for whom. Without it, digital delivery risks becoming an exercise in form over function.
The need for alignment between purpose and method is particularly urgent regarding funding models. Adam Brocklesby, a partner at Baringa, argued that public sector funding structures often constrain innovation. “Technology is currently funded in the same way as a new hospital,” he explained – through a large, upfront capital investment followed by minimal support. However, this model, designed for fixed infrastructure, is unsuitable for the iterative nature of digital services. “Even if technology stood still today, we could completely transform digital government over the course of this Parliament,” he asserted, noting that the real barriers are systemic.
Brocklesby explained that the current system struggles to support truly user-centred redesigns. For instance, a genuinely modern housing benefit service could use existing data to pre-fill applications, assess eligibility through AI, and proactively notify citizens of outcomes. Yet, the existing system often only enables the "automation of broken processes." He welcomed signs of reform, such as Treasury pathfinder pilots and forthcoming changes to the Green Book, as encouraging steps toward better-aligned digital funding.
Building on this argument, Umbar Shakir, EMEA AI lead at Gartner Consulting, questioned whether existing governance structures are suitable for a digital age. Drawing on her experience across various sectors – from defence and national security to advertising and local government – she noted that slow governance has become a liability. “We’ve taken Victorian work practices, put them into ERP systems, digitised it all… but never really made the paradigm shift that some of this technology enables,” she said.
This paradigm shift, Shakir explained, begins with decision-making. She proposed a model of “minimum viable decision making,” where organisations assess three key factors before proceeding: Is the idea worth pursuing? Is there funding and capability? Is the necessary data and computational power available? Without this discipline, she said, speed – and leadership – will suffer. “The only way we can really compete is by being faster in decision-making and innovation,” she added.
Changing how decisions are made also requires a cultural shift. Nag spoke about the importance of psychological safety in fostering a culture of innovation, and the need to create teams that are confident enough to experiment, learn and, occasionally, fail. “It’s about creating an environment where people feel safe to try out new things and be wrong,” she explained. While risk aversion may be a natural response to public scrutiny, it should not hold back innovation. “Enabling teams with guardrails and tools allows them to experiment with new products or services and conduct the right research,” she added.
At the Cabinet Office, Nag saw first-hand how leadership across 43 business units could foster inclusive thinking and iterative learning. That kind of cultural shift, she said, is the foundation for sustainable innovation.
Standardise where you can, adapt where you must
Hoods – who also leads ICS Digital – the Integrated Corporate Services created last year as an innovative approach to delivering central functions within the civil service – echoed this sentiment and challenged the perception that risk aversion is an issue limited to government. “That’s no different, in my mind, from regulated industries,” he said, recalling the rapid rollout of six emergency energy schemes in just 12 weeks as evidence of what’s possible with the right mindset.
He described his department’s product-oriented approach, which is structured in three layers: utility services common to multiple organisations, shared platforms that consolidate similar needs, and bespoke solutions for unique contexts. “You’ve got to place your bets,” he said, emphasising the importance of applying lessons from bespoke work to shared capabilities.
That adaptability was also a recurring theme, particularly as audience questions turned to artificial intelligence. Both Shakir and Nag cautioned against letting hype dictate priorities. “Some leaders are saying, ‘get me some AI,’” said Shakir, comparing current excitement to earlier waves of enthusiasm around blockchain. “But what’s the outcome we’re trying to achieve?” she asked, warning that many AI solutions are costly and may duplicate existing functionality. Nag agreed. “It could be as simple as automation,” she said. “Not every problem needs AI.”
Whether exploring AI or legacy IT, panellists stressed the need to work within real organisational constraints. They noted that while outdated systems remain a challenge, there has been progress. “We’ve moved from shadow IT to a position where there is less of it,” said Nag, advocating for a more service-oriented approach that builds on reusable components and shared solutions.
From funding to fulfilment
The path from funding to fulfilment will also require government to shift from reactive transformation to continuous delivery. “Our ambition should be no transformation,” said Brocklesby. “Just really smart teams delivering better outcomes over time.”
For government to achieve the vision it has set out, it must move beyond transformation as a one-off project or departmental experiment. As discussed in this webinar, the most successful initiatives will be those that are grounded in user need, supported by flexible infrastructure and enabled by confident and collaborative teams. As Hoods put it, success will depend on how government organises itself to solve problems. “Everything else coalesces around that.”
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Adam Brocklesby is a partner in Baringa’s government team, focused on digital and AI. Connect Email: Adam.Brocklesby@Baringa.com | Connect on LinkedIn