From bureaucratic silos to user-centred services: Rewiring government for real-world value

Digitisation has delivered efficiency gains and better experiences – but only up to a point. The truth is that even the most modernised services can still stagnate after launch. Technical debt accumulates, user needs shift, and outcomes drift. Why? Because of what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister recently described as the “constitutional problem” – that the traditional wiring of government runs on structures designed for policy silos, not end-to-end value creation.

PA brought together leaders from nine government departments and agencies, with remits ranging from delivery of citizen services to technical and safety-critical regulation. Although these organisations operate in different contexts and find themselves in different stages of the transformation journey, the challenges and themes we heard were similar. The discussion, held at PA’s London office, was co-hosted by Kate Tarling of The Service Org Group and author of “The Service Organization”.

The case for changing the current model

By default, central government departments and agencies manage complexity through vertical hierarchies and fragmented budgets. Accountability is split across policy, operations and the ‘enablers’ like technology or people. This makes it hard to join up around services and outcomes in ways that would maximise value for the users and therefore value for money for taxpayers. Without clear end-to-end ownership and funding, investment to improve services focuses on point-solutions, which are often poorly integrated with the whole and not adequately maintained.

To break this cycle, government needs to become service-centred – aligning structures, workflows and budgets to the value streams that matter most. A service is not just a website or a transaction, it is the entire pathway from policy intent to measurable outcome, spanning digital, operational and policy components.

Civil Service Reform already calls for greater agility, productivity, and openness to external expertise. Making services the organising principle for far more of the business of government is one of the most reliable ways to deliver on that ambition. We’ve seen proof points: departments that reorganise around services achieve faster delivery, lower cost per transaction, and higher user satisfaction. The challenge now is scaling what works.

What it takes: Features of a service-centred organisation

1. End-to-end service ownership

Appoint accountable Service Owners with clear decision rights and accountability for clearly defined ‘service lines’. Publish visuals like service maps, and track costs, demand, and outcomes aligned to these services.

For example: Various public bodies have implemented this model effectively, or are in the process of doing so, including the DVLA, the Department for Education and the Home Office. We have also worked with several prominent regulators of technical industries to help them adapt this model to their contexts.

2. Measurement and improvement

Define a clear performance framework that enables measurement of service outcomes such as user and organisational needs. Collect data from relevant points across the end-to-end user journey so that problems can be identified and diagnosed quickly. This supports better operational decisions and strategic investment choices.

For example: GOV.UK services are required to track their performance, as indicated by the service standard. This enables continuous improvement by service teams and better transparency through publication of mandatory KPIs (including cost to serve, digital uptake and user satisfaction).

3. Budgets to run and evolve services

Rather than relying on one-off ‘change’ projects to fund ongoing services with success defined narrowly in terms of project outcomes, align funding to the services and outcomes themselves. Allow a budget for continuous improvement to ensure services can address technical debt, cybersecurity and the evolving needs of users and organisations. This improves budget predictability, reduces delivery risk and makes impacts more visible.

For example: HMRC’s Personal Tax Account and Making Tax Digital have been developed as enduring services, with continuous investment in the core platforms and regular incremental releases rather than isolated “big bang” projects.

4. Stable, cross-functional teams

Form durable teams combining policy, design, engineering and operations. Plan capacity at the service level to address poor handoffs and siloed ways of working. Flexibility, if required, can come from suppliers or centralised teams, but not at the expense of service team consistency or ownership.

For example: DfE’s teacher services portfolio has moved to “single ownership” multidisciplinary teams that bring policy, digital, communications and operational expertise together, owning the service from concept through to live running and continuous improvement.

5. Shared platforms, standards, and datasets

Identify common service components – like identity, payments, data exchange – and consolidate the technology behind these. This avoids duplication and maintenance costs, and can improve security. If the service generates or uses data used by multiple services, then that data should be considered a kind of shared infrastructure, and be managed accordingly. Introduce spend controls and assurance forums to encourage reuse and interoperability.

For example: The GOV.UK design system and GOV.UK Pay are examples of this in the UK, supported by policies within organisations and the cross-Government GDS service standard; beyond this, many other countries are exploring the possibilities of shared platforms and data under the banner of Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI).

6. Policy-delivery integration

When policy theory meets implementation reality, delivery will get derailed unless the team can course-correct based on what they discover. Yet traditional approval processes are slow and inefficient: to enable agile delivery, therefore, policy officials need to be embedded in service teams, to provide guidance and empower rapid testing and iteration. This keeps the intended outcome in view, while enabling pragmatic, evidence‑based solutions.

For example: At DWP, Universal Credit delivery teams comprise policy professionals, designers and technologists. They have used working prototypes with claimants and work coaches to explore new tools and refine both service journeys and work‑search policy, with the wider programme explicitly organised around “test and learn” iterative delivery. Building on such practice, the cross‑government Policy‑to‑Delivery course now trains officials in multidisciplinary, hypothesis‑driven approaches that integrate policy, analysis and service design from the outset.

Making the case to overcome barriers

In practice, each of these sensible-sounding changes faces resistance: fragmented accountability, rigid funding rules, cultural attachment to outputs over outcomes and sometimes just the fear that doing something differently will involve giving up control. Yet it is possible to make the case for becoming a service-centred organisation in ways that connect to the agendas of key functions:

• For executive leaders: Service transformation aligns delivery with strategy, creating a clear line of sight from activity to mission outcomes and enabling faster adaptation to policy shifts.
• For finance leaders: Linking budgets to measurable service outcomes improves transparency, predictability, and value for money.
• For HR leaders: New career paths and cross‑functional roles boost engagement and morale by showing how individual contributions drive public value.
• For operations leaders: End‑to‑end ownership and integrated teams surface issues early, strengthen resilience, and deliver better experiences for citizens, businesses, and colleagues.

Scaling deliberately: Push and pull

If the history of Civil Service Reform shows anything it is that change cannot be imposed by top-down mandate and paradigm shifts don’t happen overnight. Departmental or agency leaders who are convinced of the opportunity can combine “push” (top-down restructuring) and “pull” (voluntary adoption) approaches. Start with two or three high-impact services as exemplars (like the teacher services portfolio at DfE, mentioned above). Give them the full operating model treatment: named owner, multiyear funding, stable teams, and platform reuse. Publish the playbook as you go. Central coordination can also expand over time, beginning to provide shared platforms, codify standards, strengthen assurance, and visibly sponsor a community of practice for service owners and their teams. This builds the momentum and can shift the authorising environment as leaders begin to model, then champion behaviours that prioritise outcomes over outputs, learning over certainty, and collaboration over turf protection. Then as the results emerge they can go further by celebrating the removal of waste, funding more of what works, and making the user-centred decisions more visible.

The prize on offer

If the department of the future is to be more productive and agile, it must rewire its operating model to nurture and sustain services that put the user at the centre. The prize is better outcomes for citizens, better experiences for users and better value for taxpayers – delivered reliably, at scale, and sustained beyond the fanfare of ‘go live’.