Transforming Government: Embracing Agility and Efficiency

Anyone who has worked to assist government departments with a digital shift, or worked within a department on digital transformation, can talk to the challenge of getting things done within the bureaucratic structures and traditional working methods followed by several government departments.

Alongside political leadership cycles and the tendency to ‘outsource’ accountability, government bureaucracy must have to be one of the biggest blockers of innovation across federal, local and state governments.

The reason behind the bureaucracy is that government departments are deeply hierarchical. They have ingrained structures and processes, keep everyone working in siloes and are traditionally risk averse.

When it all collides, you’re met with a slow decision-making process and a focus on compliance rather than innovation. Project costs soar, deadlines are missed and those working on the deliverables not only lose their trust in the project but also lose any motivation for change.

This resistance to change is a real hurdle for a lot of government departments, and you can understand why.

Governments operate within a complex web of regulations, legislation and political considerations and to make a change to an internal process can require legislative amendments or approval from several stakeholders, including the public and media.

It’s time-consuming and challenging to navigate, meaning that if internal change is needed to get something done then the message has to come from the top down.

Resistance to change may also be down to a lack of incentive for employees to champion internal changes on their team. If performance evaluations and career progression are tied to the traditional measure of success — compliance and stability rather than innovation and agility — then why push for something else? If departments want to drive change, it has to be strategically beneficial for the people doing the work.

For any changes to stick and start to drive impact, there must also be support and guidance from people experienced in change management. Those guiding the process should also have the skills to work within a complex stakeholder landscape.

 

If it’s all sounding a bit dire, it’s not. Agile ways of working are popular and, most importantly, effective in most other sectors and there is a growing recognition within government agencies of the need for change and the benefits of becoming more agile, efficient and responsive.

Many government departments are actively working on overcoming bureaucratic barriers through strategic planning, cultural shifts, and investments in technology and workforce development.

For those local and state governments already working in a more Agile-friendly manner, they’ve been describing it to employees as not a software methodology as such — process, scrum, stand-ups, sprints, boards, post-its or sharpies — but as a collection of values, practices and behaviours to enable teams to build services and products iteratively.

The goal should always be to deliver minimum viable products (MVPs) early and often.

In a Harvard Business Review article on Agile versus Waterfall, they used the example of Melbourne’s original Myki ticketing system project to underscore how beneficial working in an agile way would’ve been for the project.

They noted in the article: ‘The myki ticketing system project in Melbourne, Australia, starkly underscores the Waterfall method’s rigidity.

‘With a budget exceeding AUD$1.5 billion, the project took four times more than the expected two years.

‘Yet, the system was riddled with issues due to its inability to adapt to evolving user requirements and technological advancements.’

Perhaps it was this project that encouraged other state governments and departments to start working in a more Agile way to deliver projects.

The Victorian Water Register Transform Project was delivered successfully thanks to a switch to Agile and the South Australia state government has developed a toolkit to guide government employees through the agile operating model for future projects.

The federal government are also shaping up to use Agile thinking, Government Services Minister Bill Shorten announced in October 2023 that the federal government was looking at the methodology as a way to decrease the potential for future “catastrophic” project failures.

“We need to perhaps look at small, innovative projects where the cost is in single digit millions rather than hundreds of millions, and these projects should align with government and citizens priorities,” Shorten said.

 

“Large IT projects have an unacceptably high rate of failure.* Agencies have a habit of chasing losses or reinforcing defeat. Ten $5 million projects, I think, are significantly less risky than one $50 million project.

“And if you think about it, you could have four or five of these projects in [a government] incubator tested to ensure their viability before being sent out into the world.”

When talking to the media, Shorten stated that the government wanted projects to be less reliant on other work being done before they could start, which is the description of a ‘waterfall’ way of working.

“The government should be able to negotiate the order in which the projects are delivered,” Shorten said. “We should be able to deliver it earlier or later than planned, or indeed cancel it without adverse effects on other projects.”

 

Shorten also stated that it should be government employees, and not consultants, who have the skills to run the delivery and execution of projects rather than them being consistently outsourced.

 

“I do not think the government should restrict itself to procurement and project management,” he said. “I believe that we have to invest in in-house digital competency, smaller teams conducting smaller projects.

“They allow us to make these nimble investments. It allows more junior members of a team to see all aspects of a project from the beginning to the end, to get that engagement and experience.”