In an era where users expect public services to evolve rapidly, the way we govern digital delivery in government must also change. Governance should no longer be seen as a static compliance mechanism but as a dynamic service that enables empowered teams, accelerates delivery, and builds public trust. The challenge is: how do we ensure effective oversight without slowing teams down? This article explores how we can transform governance to a lean, modern enabler of better services.
Current challenges in government digital governance
Governance structures should enable teams to quickly and effectively deliver the right things whilst also operating within the standards set by the organisation. The structure should also evolve and adapt to changing conditions, allowing teams to stay agile and responsive to user or business needs.
Far too often, this isn’t the case. Some teams can find themselves drowning in reporting packs and waiting long periods for a decision. On the other end of the scale, some teams make progress but operate without any accountability, potentially making costly decisions in a vacuum. You have to find the balance between decision-making and accountability.
What governance should do (but often doesn’t)
- Help teams solve problems they can’t fix themselves. Supporting escalations.
- Looking forward and sideways for opportunities. Having environmental awareness.
- Address challenges with resources, skills and people.
- Strategic alignment and decision-making.
- Hold teams to account for delivery and quality.
Teams operate in an environment of constant change, where priorities evolve based on user needs and feedback rather than being fixed from the outset. Because of this, governance should be an enabler rather than a blocker, ensuring teams remain focused on delivering outcomes while receiving the right level of oversight and support.
Done well, governance fosters a culture of trust and empowerment, ensuring teams can respond effectively to real-world challenges while delivering high-quality services at pace.
Why traditional governance models fail in government
In previous roles during my time in government, I worked with people across projects, programmes and services. People in practitioner roles (i.e. PMOs, Delivery Managers, Programme Managers) and people in leadership roles (i.e., CDOs, Directors, and Heads of Professions). Almost universally, I would hear that governance processes are not helping teams deliver more effectively or helping stakeholders gain the confidence that things are okay.
Traditional governance in government typically follows the Portfolio, Programme, and Project (P3) model. This approach, rooted in high control and assurance, makes sense for large-scale, sequential programmes – such as large infrastructure programmes like drilling a new tunnel or building a row of houses. These programmes are sequential in nature; where outcomes, timelines, and costs are more predictable.
Why governance must be an enabler
Over the last 15 years, departments across government have made substantial investment and progress in digital transformation. Things like the Service Standard, UCD, Agile Delivery, DDaT, and spend controls have totally transformed how digital departments operate and provide the services. This progress should justify a different approach to governance (and funding) of digital change.
Governance should be simple and supportive. It should trust individuals and give decision-making authority to teams so they can focus on delivering.”
GDS Service Manual
Transforming digital delivery governance: key principles
Digital teams under traditional governance face challenges like slow decision-making, limited autonomy, communication bottlenecks, and excessive reporting. Here’s a sample list of meetings I’ve attended across delivery structures:
- Portfolio: Steering Groups, Change Control, Finance Reviews
- Programme: Stage Gates, Monthly Check-ins, Planning
- Team/Project: Stand-ups, Retros, Show & Tells, Design Crit
- Cross-Gov/Assurance: Spend Controls, Service Assessments, CAB, BDA, TDA
This illustrates how teams often sit under multiple layers of governance, spending significant time in meetings providing updates or seeking approval. Agile teams may still be wrapped in sequential processes. Large meetings can feel like high-stakes presentations, with unclear outcomes. Meanwhile, duplicated reporting and conflicting stakeholder requirements waste time and energy.
This isn’t just painful for teams; layers of governance and restrictive sequential phases can also frustrate stakeholders, meaning there isn’t a tangible outcome for a large period of time.
We often ask teams to be agile and respond to change, and there is no reason why governance shouldn’t be equally flexible.
Applying user-centred thinking in governance
By applying user-centred thinking to governance—where the “users” are delivery teams and stakeholders—we can focus on three core needs:
- Have all the tools the team needs to deliver the best outcomes.
- Being clear about what decisions a team can make and trusting them to make decisions without needing permission.
- Provide stakeholders with the minimum viable amount of information required so they have visibility of delivery, understand the wider landscape and can provide support when needed.
Rethink how we fund digital change
One of the most persistent barriers to transforming digital delivery is how funding is structured. Government business case processes typically require detailed plans, financial forecasts, and defined outcomes before a project begins. Funding models (e.g. the five-case model in The Green Book) require upfront predictions based on unvalidated assumptions. These often unravel at the first change.
However, digital delivery is inherently iterative. As priorities shift (as they inevitably do in user-centred development), these assumptions rapidly become outdated. Teams are then burdened with change requests, resubmissions, and governance delays just to remain aligned.
A new paper has been published following a government review looking at whether spending processes for digital spend maximise value for money. The review recognises the “need for a significant shift in how digital initiatives are funded”.
Modernising digital governance must include modernising digital funding. This shift means moving towards flexible, stage-gated funding, where teams are allocated resources based on progress, learning, and evolving value, not speculative upfront predictions. It also means funding long-lived multidisciplinary teams and services rather than time-boxed projects, creating space for continuous improvement, not just one-off delivery.
Practical steps to leaner, more effective governance
Whilst I don’t think there is a one-size-fits-all answer to governance, as each organisation will be unique, there are some steadfast principles. Communicating clearly and working in the open and trusting teams to make decisions locally are at the heart of this.
So what does leaner governance look like in practice? I’ve put together a short list below to get you started.
- Empowered multi-disciplinary teams
- Utilise regular team meetings
- Work in the open
- Clear guidance and joint ownership
- Proportional oversight
Overcoming traditional barriers
The first (and arguably the most important step) towards local decision-making is to ensure the core service team has all the skills and expertise needed to design, build, run and continuously improve the product or service they are responsible for.
I’ve always found that people building a service deeply care about it, so trust and empower them to make decisions regarding the delivery of digital services. Give them the authority, people and resources needed to execute their tasks effectively.
Define clear boundaries on what decisions teams can make independently and document them. Provide clarity on who is responsible for decisions outside of these boundaries.
Being multi-disciplinary shouldn’t stop there; stakeholder and support groups at all levels should also be multi-disciplinary and diverse.
Utilise regular team meetings
It’s everyone’s responsibility to stay informed on progress. This includes the team delivering and also key people supporting the team.
To make that process pain-free, integrate assurance into delivery rather than treating it as a separate activity by leveraging stand-ups, planning and review sessions. These are existing places the team use to govern delivery.
Reduce formal, static reporting and focus on meaningful discussions that drive action. Stakeholders should be actively engaged in delivery, not just reviewing reports.
If you have dependencies across teams, encourage direct communication between teams through small, focused meetings that bring the right people together at the right time (rather than relying on governance bodies to coordinate).
Work in the open
Dedicate time to set up open digital tools and information radiators so people can see how the team is doing when they want, rather than in a highly pressurised steering group meeting. Instead of waiting for formal reports, dashboards and real-time metrics can provide ongoing visibility, allowing teams to address issues before they escalate.
Embrace iterative delivery approaches. Delivering functionality in small increments allows teams to establish continuous feedback loops with users and stakeholders to validate assumptions quickly, gather insights, and prioritise features. This iterative approach ensures the digital service remains aligned with user needs and expectations.
Encourage everyone to ‘see the thing’, you’ll learn more than from reading a status report. They also give people the chance to hear different perspectives.
Good governance should not just provide oversight but also create an environment where different perspectives can be heard and constructively challenged. When teams and stakeholders only engage with like-minded voices, they risk operating in an echo chamber, reinforcing assumptions rather than testing them.
Clear objectives and measures
Real value for the user or organisation is based on achieving outcomes. So, measure success based on those, not process adherence.
Jointly define objectives and priorities aligned with user needs and/or organisational goals. Everyone should have a shared understanding of what ‘done’ looks like and how it contributes towards the bigger picture.
Value for teams (and their users) is rarely ever passing an assurance gate or meeting an arbitrary deadline. Give teams clear guidance on the end goal and wider context (why) but trust them on what, who and how.
Crucially, setting clear measures of success and using the appropriate data also helps governance be proactive rather than reactive. This includes setting clear, measurable objectives that reflect user needs, service performance, and overall impact. By using data to guide governance, teams can move away from anecdotal updates and focus on meaningful insights that drive better outcomes.
Proportional oversight
Governance should be proportionate to the size, complexity or sensitivity of the project or service. Tailor governance to the nature of the work; not all projects require the same level of oversight. Proportional oversight also means focusing scrutiny where it adds value.
Move away from a “one-size-fits-all” governance model. Provide guidance rather than imposing rigid rules, allowing teams to adapt their approach based on context. The key is to ensure that governance scales appropriately, adapting as a service evolves rather than being rigidly fixed from the outset.
This approach helps teams maintain momentum while still providing stakeholders with the necessary confidence that services are being delivered effectively.
For low-risk or well-established services, oversight can be minimal—focusing on transparency through open dashboards and lightweight check-ins (or any of the other recommendations above).
For higher-risk, strategic, or complex projects, where more structured oversight may be necessary, think about who needs to attend (cross-functional and small) and implement good meeting practices like setting a clear purpose, time-boxing discussions and having clear actions.
Rethinking governance to accelerate delivery and improve services
Good governance doesn’t slow teams down; it enables them to focus on what matters. Aligning governance with agile principles, embedding it within delivery, and trusting teams, shifts our mindset from control to enablement.
We can support teams to deliver faster, adapt sooner, and create more resilient, user-centred public services.
