To what if: Opportunities and recommendations
Introduction
As we’ve outlined in the first part of this report – the challenges that we see across local government are well known; even if they are not always consistently documented.
This section of the report tries to move us forward from these challenges. It is an attempt to explore what the future might look like for ‘digital’ in local government if we can work together and align ambition, ideas, resources, energy and the work already happening in pockets across the country.
The recommendations and ideas that follow are based on the opinions, thoughts and insights from those that work in and alongside local government. As best as it can, the recommendations try to bring together the views of the sector and offer a holistic set of solutions and route(s) forward. They are a mixture of more ‘tactical’ things that could be done with what already exists (money, structure, skills, political appetite); and other more ‘structural’ changes that will require much heavier political and financial backing from across the system.
We know that there is no silver bullet in fixing many of the deep rooted, systemic issues that we see and feel everyday across the sector. It will take a ‘whole portfolio’ of interventions. However, we have had a go at prioritising some of the recommendations based on things that we believe are ‘non-negotiable’ and must be done.
Finally, it goes without saying any of these recommendations will need to be developed further with and alongside the sector. Taking a ‘test and learn’ approach to build an evidence base of what might work for everyone across local government.
Reimagining a local digital ecosystem
A big takeaway from our research is that there is a ‘missing middle’ in our innovation, data and technology ecosystem across government. A gap in the infrastructure and governance between central government, local government, arms length bodies and the software market.
This ‘missing middle’ is leading to a number of issues including:
- An inability to effectively share risk in relation to service and organisational innovation; and the established or emerging technology used to enable it;
- A lack of joined up problem solving across the sector; with many individual councils trying to solve the same issues resulting in large amounts of duplication and fragmentation;
- A perpetual amount of individual ‘discovery’ into problems; rather than a focus on local ‘test & learn’ based on existing evidence and what works;
- A lack of coordination in how local government uses its collective power to influence central government;
- A lack of coordination in how local government uses its collective power to influence the software market and what is being built and sold;
- A lack of ability to share and connect relevant data at a more regional place; population and national level.
The ‘missing middle’ isn’t only an issue across England. From our research this is an international problem of governance. What we’ve found is that there are lots of examples of how ‘central government’ departments are finding ways to join up (including in England); but there are very few tangible examples of how countries are creating governance and infrastructure that connects and supports collaboration across all parts of a government ecosystem – locally, regionally and centrally. As we’ve heard from this research; this is resulting in a deep rooted lack of understanding from ‘the centre’ in the complexities of local government, democracy, service delivery, politics and the hugely piecemeal and fragmented digital and technology estate.
We believe that getting this right, and finding the right model and approach not only can help address some of the challenges we have in England; but become a model that others internationally could learn from and adopt.
We believe that the question to be answered in relation to the ‘missing middle’ is:
What is the right approach to building and sustaining the connective tissue that connects all parts of the whole government eco-system? What infrastructure and type of governance model can support the sector (and those adjacent to it) to more easily collaborate, standardise (the right things) and act collectively as a whole; whilst being able to adapt and flex to the specific make-up and needs of a place, region or footprint?
This is something that needs to be further explored, but we have made a proposal for what/ how this new infrastructure could look and work below.
In a nutshell this new ‘missing middle infrastructure’ would:
- Be co-owned (and developed) by local government
- Be brought together and sustained by a new ‘light touch’ Institute which would act as a coordinating body, representing and acting on behalf of local government
- Include a small number of regionally based ‘Centres for Service Innovation’. These ‘Centres’ would have a dual purpose:
- Focus on ‘place-based’ innovation and working to develop locally and regionally specific solutions
- Act as a representative practice body on behalf of the sector; working as a sandbox or What Works Centre in the development of an evidence and solution base for shared local government challenges and solutions
How might we determine ‘spread’ or ‘geography’ of a ‘Centre for Service Innovation’?
This would need further validation as devolution plans continue to emerge, but ‘Centres for Service Innovation’ would be spread out geographically. Given that the number of mayoral and county combined authorities is growing and will total 20 following the implementation of the Devolution Priority Programme with more to follow, we suggest a couple of options which could be based loosely on the former government office regions with a mind to the new boundaries following devolution and local government reorganisation:
- Wales, North East, North West, Yorkshire and Humberside, West Midlands, East Midlands, Eastern region, South East and the South West – totalling 9 centres in addition to London
- Larger footprints combining some of these regions to create 4 centres in addition to London across Wales; North East, North West and Yorkshire and Humberside; East Midlands, West Midlands and Eastern Region, South East, and the South West
What would need to be
further tested in this model?
This is not a perfect model or proposal and multiple areas of it would need further testing and evidencing. As a starting point some of the questions to explore would be:
Funding
- What are the appropriate models of funding that don’t require significant ‘new’ pots of money to get this started? For example, should we work with treasury to use the ‘savings’ projected from new strategic authorities to fund these centres?
- Is there a co-funding approach that is needed into each of the Strategic Centres of Service Innovation to make sure local authorities have a ‘stake in the game’?
- How do we make sure that funding is centred around the regional and local elements of this approach; not focused on the ‘coordinating’ and ‘institutional’ capacity within this model
Governance
- What’s the most appropriate type of governance to support a decentralised model that has multiple centres of authority and decision making? I.e. how might a polycentric model of governance work in practice for the UK local government system?
Roles and responsibilities
- Within this new model what are a new set of roles & responsibilities for all across the government eco system (i.e. Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Digital Centre, Local Government Association, regulators)? – see our proposal later in this report as a starting point.
Alignment with devolution plans
- What is the optimal number of ‘Centres for Service Innovation’ so that we can focus energy more locally without becoming chaotic and impossible to share learning?
- How do we rationalise appropriate placement and geography of ‘Centres for Service Innovation’ that creates both regional capacity AND makes use of existing pockets of good practice?
- What is the best alignment with existing or new footprints that doesn’t further complicate current devolution plans and proposals?
How to read the remainder of this report
The rest of this section is structured around 6 ‘opportunity areas’ that directly respond to some of the challenges we set out in the first part of this report. For each opportunity area we have set out a ‘vision for change’ that describes what we might be working towards by 2030. We have then included a number of recommendations that might help us work towards this vision.
Summary of opportunity areas
Opportunity Area 1: Infrastructure, learning and collaboration
This opportunity area is about exploring how we might develop a more formal infrastructure for local government that supports learning and collaboration both locally and as a sector. Supporting to reduce duplication and increase reuse and sharing of what works.
| From What is... | To What if... |
|---|---|
| A summary of current infrastructure, learning & collaboration challenges are: | Some questions our recommendations respond to: |
| Huge amount of duplication and fragmentation | What if… we took a national sandboxing approach to solving the most common shared challenges? |
| Little coordination around common challenges, missing opportunities to ‘solve a problem once | What if… we incentivised and rewarded individual councils for re-use of common components and ‘what works’? |
| Confusion around what the ‘offer’ is for local government and what is mandatory | What if… we had a more structured and coordinated way of learning, sharing and moving as a sector? |
| Lack of standardisation leading to inconsistency in services for residents | |
| Good practice isn’t being shared or replicated in a way that could benefit the whole sector | |
| Opportunities to move collectively as a ‘sector’ aren’t realised; as it’s too hard to align and collaborate at scale |
Infrastructure, learning & collaboration: A 2030 vision
By 2030… We have tested regional and place-based approaches to innovation and learning through the set-up of 5 Centres of Service Innovation aligned with current devolution plans. As well as establishing a single institution responsible for spreading learning, standards and practice across the sector.
Infrastructure, learning & collaboration: Recommendations
| A) Test out a regional place-based innovation model aligned with existing Combined Authorities or new Strategic Authority Footprints | |
|---|---|
| Non negotiable recommendation | Other recommendations |
| Set-up and test eight regional Centres of Strategic Innovation, geographically spread across England. Set-up to focus on both place-based innovation & data exchange and sector wide sandboxing across common local government challenges. | Offer secondments into Centres of Strategic Innovation for those in digital, service delivery and finance roles to drive development and spread of sector wide solutions. |
| Use new regional Centres of Strategic Innovation to not only explore ‘technical challenges’ but to test (and spread) new collaboration approaches and agreements - with a strong focus on data exchange & portability. | |
| B) Create a single, coordinating ‘institute’ to support sector wide collaboration, innovation and modernisation | |
|---|---|
| Non negotiable recommendation | Other recommendations |
Set up a light-touch, co-ordinating institute that is responsible for (but not limited to):
| Leadership of a new Institution should be made up of local government and central government secondments, with a focus on bridging the knowledge, information and learning gap between local and national government. |
| Work with councils to develop a set of approaches that provide ‘cover’ for councils innovating with emerging or exploratory technologies, solutions or ways of working. For example an Institute working on behalf of the sector to explore emerging technology implications and opportunities and that underwrites risk where appropriate. | |
| C) Building & growing a library of common components and develop the infrastructure for councils to adopt them | |
|---|---|
| Non negotiable recommendation | Other recommendations |
| Develop more local government common technology components and make them easily accessible and implementable in existing local government technology stacks. | Incentivise the adoption and reuse of common components and service patterns through training and strategic support. |
| Make GOV.UK components (i.e. PAY) more local government relevant and applicable to common services. | |
Opportunity Area 2: Data exchange and maturity
This opportunity looks to explore ways that we can improve data exchange & maturity both within and across organisations. In particular looking at how we might address not just the technical barriers to data interoperability but also the cultural and political barriers.
| From What is... | To What if... |
|---|---|
| A summary of current data exchange & maturity challengers are: | Some questions our recommendations respond to: |
| Public trust in data sharing is low | What if… we have a coordinated approach to increasing data trust and transparency? |
| Data capture and quality is hugely varied across different services/ professions | What if… local government took a more active role in the development of the national data library and national service data platform development? |
| Little way of making use of big data at a population level | What if… data standards were more heavily enforced across the sector? |
| Hugely risk averse attitude toward data sharing and exchange between services yet alone organisations or other parts of the sector | What if… we helped people better understand the art of the possible around data & data interoperability? |
| Lack of consistent or enforced data standards | What if… we offer data interoperability as a service into local councils? |
| Confusion across organisations of whose responsibility data is, with data capabilities often sitting outside of service delivery teams |
Data exchange & maturity: A 2030 vision
By 2030 our vision is… We have 15 successful examples of effective standards-enabled, cross-institutional data exchange/ sharing; with learning and process effectively turned into established practice for the wider sector to adopt; overseen by a sector-wide governance approach.
Data exchange and maturity: Recommendations
| A) Addressing issues of trust and transparency related to data sharing and exchange | |
|---|---|
| Non negotiable recommendation | Other recommendations |
| Data & trust training delivered ‘at scale’ across the sector to senior leaders and members. | Build and disseminate examples of successful data sharing that can be used by councils to build the case locally and regionally - both cross service and cross organisation. |
| Develop a trust and transparency data sharing playbook for local government. | |
| B) Support local government to move towards responsible data sharing using a test & learn approach | |
|---|---|
| Non negotiable recommendation | Other recommendations |
| Use current Test, Learn & Grow pilots to proactively address data sharing challenges; including issues with data asymmetry between organisations within a footprint, and how to assess trustworthiness of other parties. | Incentivise more data sharing by addressing the increased cost and capacity implications in cross organisational/ sector data sharing for individual councils. |
| Coordinated and consistent support to local government data teams to explain long-term benefits of data sharing investment with service teams, leadership and members. | |
| Training and support directly into service teams to test new ways of working; with a focus on increasing collaboration and reducing data hoarding. | |
| C) Support to increase overall data literacy and maturity across councils | |
|---|---|
| Non negotiable recommendation | Other recommendations |
| Develop a clear set of data standards for local government. | Help councils understand the art of the possible with emerging technology, including what is signal and what is noise; and support to derisk responsible adoption. |
| Develop an ONS Data Science Campus offer tailored and available to local government officers and members. | |
| Openly share (and make accessible) learning from Government Incubator for AI pilots and work. | |
| Use the national data library to develop national data platform (similar to planning); that brings together data across complex local service areas. | |
Opportunity Area 3: Political and organisational leadership
This opportunity area explores how we might support and strengthen digital leadership both across organisations and the wider political landscape. In particular focusing on increasing understanding across non-digital leaders, placing digital practitioners into leadership positions and addressing the significant diversity & inclusion challenges across the sector.
| From What is... | To What if... |
|---|---|
| A summary of current political and organisational leadership challenges are: | Some questions our recommendations respond to: |
| A stagnated digital and reform agenda with 'digital expertise' not prioritised in the same way as statutory services. | What if… we had a structured approach to helping those with digital backgrounds move into senior leadership roles within organisations or services? |
| Digital is still not thought of as a fundamental way of reforming how we do things in order to save money & improve experience for residents. | What if… we developed specific digital leadership programmes/ activity for leaders of critical or acute services? |
| Accountability for digital being ‘pushed down the chain’ in organisations | What if… we moved towards favouring multidisciplinary team leadership rather than individual and siloed services? |
| Not enough capacity or budget put around the ‘change work required’ around technology implementation, iteration and maintenance | What if… we helped leadership to reduce the risk associated with digital, as well as developing knowledge, skills & understanding? |
| Limited or lack of opportunities for people with a digital background to progress into influential leadership roles |
Political & organisational leadership: A vision for the future
By 2030… there are at least ten new individuals from ‘digital practitioner’ backgrounds in local government ‘Chief Executive’ positions AND there are at least ten individuals with direct local government experience placed into influential central government and arms length bodies roles (secondment or permanent).
Political & organisational leadership: Recommendations
| A) Coordinated leadership development activity and programmes for ‘non-digital’ leaders | |
|---|---|
| Non negotiable recommendation | Other recommendations |
| Consolidate existing leadership development offers into one single, cohort based programme and scale it across the sector so that non-digital leaders can learn collectively. | Develop ‘off the shelf’ learning modules that can be dropped into existing leadership and professional development initiatives within individual councils. |
| Use existing local government events and conferences to introduce more digitally-focused content & learning (via i.e. Solace, County Council Network and the Local Government Association). | |
| Embed ‘digital understanding’ as a core, demonstrable competency into council Senior Leadership Team recruitment processes & include digital expertise on a recruitment panel. | |
| Create two way secondment opportunities between, central and local government (as well as possibly into adjacent sectors such as health) to spread to build shared understanding. | |
| B) Structured learning and development routes for digital practitioners into leadership roles (with an explicit focus on equity & diversity) | |
|---|---|
| Non negotiable recommendation | Other recommendations |
| Convene existing chief executives or other senior leaders with a ‘digital’ background to co-develop a sector wide strategy for supporting the next generation of leaders of digital practitioners into service & organisational leadership roles. | Focused effort in developing a diverse pipeline of digital leaders from under-represented backgrounds including gender, ethnicity and disability. |
| Create a paired mentoring and matching service between digital and non-digital leaders to facilitate learning exchange and knowledge development. | |
| Develop & run a cohort based leadership development programme specifically to support digital practitioners into leadership roles. | |
| C) Grow understanding and awareness of digital amongst political leaders | |
|---|---|
| Non negotiable recommendation | Other recommendations |
| Create a named minister for local government innovation, data & technology within Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government. | Digital-focused learning sessions and opportunities to be created specifically for cabinet members - either standalone or integrated into existing political leadership development activity. |
| Develop & run a cohort based learning programme for political leaders across councils/ geographic boundaries. | |
Opportunity Area 4: Capacity, capability and skills
This opportunity area explores ways that we can boost the digital capacity across the sector. In particular it has a strong focus on how we address the significant diversity gap across the sector both in the short and long term; as well as how we might address the skills shortage we have around both established but also emergent technology.
| From What is... | To What if... |
|---|---|
| A summary of current capacity, capability & skills challenges are: | Some questions our recommendations respond to: |
| A lack of representation across all levels of digital roles and professions. | What if… we had a sector wide, longer-term strategy to address the systemic issues we have as a sector on the diversity of the digital workforce? |
| Challenges in developing people with digital backgrounds into leadership roles. | What if… we thought more collectively about workforce planning and how we develop talent & skills as a sector? |
| Limited routes of entry into the sector or opportunities to transition from within the sector into digital roles. | What if… we had different ways of pooling or crowding in talent regionally that isn’t a shared service? |
| Local government isn’t seen as an appealing career route for those earlier on in their career. | What if… we reintroduced apprenticeship programmes nationally as routes to enter the workforce or transition into ‘digital roles’? |
| Lack of equity in the geographic distribution of talent across local government. | |
| Difficulty retaining talent and skills over a longer-term period of time. |
Infrastructure, learning & collaboration: A 2030 vision
By 2030… we have a shared workforce plan for the sector which includes digital skills, an inclusive apprenticeship scheme; and have achieved a 20% increase of those from an underrepresented background in the ‘digital workforce’.
Capacity, capability & skills: Recommendations
| A) Address short-term and long term challenges of diversity of representation across the sector | |
|---|---|
| Non negotiable recommendation | Other recommendations |
| Collect data on the diversity of staff in digital roles to build a picture of the diversity of the digital workforce across the sector and monitor progress. | Create a ‘Whats Works’ style centre in one of the strategic centres of innovation to share and promote effective EDI practice for use across the sector. |
| Encourage mentoring for digital professionals from under-represented backgrounds in early career roles and sponsorship for digital professionals from under-represented backgrounds in mid-career roles. | |
| All councils should use inclusive recruitment practices across all digital, data & technology roles. | |
| B) Establish new routes into local government digital roles and professions | |
|---|---|
| Non negotiable recommendation | Other recommendations |
| Create a new national apprenticeship programme that supports those at differing career stages to develop skills and experience to transition in digital roles across local government. | Work closely with educational institutions and national careers services to promote local government as a rewarding place to develop a career. |
| Create structured opportunities for those in service delivery roles to develop digital knowledge, skills and expertise through multidisciplinary team ways of working. | |
| Explore routes for councils to provide training opportunities for digital careers, directly through their local communities. | |
| C) Develop a long term, strategic workforce plan for local government | |
|---|---|
| Non negotiable recommendation | Other recommendations |
| Develop a sector wide national workforce plan for local government (similar to the NHS) - with a strong focus on analysing the impact of established and emerging technologies on service delivery models, capabilities and skills. | Open up and make accessible any national workforce analysis or data for all councils to use and integrate into their current or future workforce plans locally |
| Work with regional footprints to jointly review and develop place-based digital skills and talent pipelines. | |
| Identify appropriate retraining opportunities for those in roles that may be impacted by current and emerging technologies in the next three to five years. | |
Opportunity Area 5: Standards
This opportunity area explores the role of standards and standardisation across our local public services. In particular it tries to look at the balance between consistency and autonomy in order to make sure we can reduce duplication and increase quality.
| From What is... | To What if... |
|---|---|
| A summary of current standards challenges are: | Some questions our recommendations respond to: |
| Hugely varied and fragmented service experiences for residents when they are interacting with different parts of a council or wider system. | What if… there was a mandated digital service standard for all council services? |
| Huge amounts of duplication in work across individual councils, despite tackling similar problems - particularly across more transactional services. | What if… exemplar councils collaboratively developed standards for others to adopt? |
| Services working individually to their own ways of working, standards, technology stacks and products - rather than towards end-to-end service transformation. | What if… digital service standards had to be embedded in procurement processes and contracting agreements? |
| Confusion for local government on what is mandatory outside of regulatory bodies and standard setting agencies for statutory services - in relation to digital. | What if… we rethought about the role of the regulator or they became a core part of any sector wide innovation work? |
Standards: A 2030 vision
By 2030… there are a set of established and trusted service standards & patterns that are being used and adopted by 70% of councils; with rewards and incentives offered to those who are actively adhering to them; with a suitable audit regime in place to assess levels of compliance.
Standards: Recommendations
| A) Codesign of service, technical and quality standards | |
|---|---|
| Non negotiable recommendation | Other recommendations |
| Bring together groups of multi-disciplinary teams, made up of representatives from across different parts of local government (i.e. finance, procurement, services, strategy, IT, digital) to co-develop digitally-focused local government service, technical and quality standards. | Develop specific standards to strengthen and possibly mandate multidisciplinary working across councils. |
| Use regional centres to test service standards in practice and consider the support required to implement and integrate them. | |
| B) A measuring function to check on progress against standards | |
|---|---|
| Non negotiable recommendation | Other recommendations |
| Suitable governance, guidance and process to support adherence with co-designed service, technical & quality standards. | Suitable governance that allows the sector to iterate standards as practice develops/ evolves. |
| Guidance that clearly outlines what is fundamental and mandatory, and what is nice to have. | |
| Create a peer review-type process (or integrate into existing) for councils to support and drive digital service delivery and change efforts. | |
| Give reserve power to the A Secretary of State for local government and digital to step in when standards aren’t being met. | |
| C) Align standards with other regulation regimes | |
|---|---|
| Non negotiable recommendation | Other recommendations |
| Guidance developed to help councils integrate new standards into existing regulation and standard setting - in particular across statutory services. | Review of existing standards and regulation around ‘less transactional services’ to be done by a more centralised body (i.e. a new institution) to make sure new service, technical and quality standards support existing service specific regulation. |
| Specifically work with regulators to integrate digital standards into the setting of new regulation for the sector. | |
Opportunity Area 6: Procurement, contracts and market shaping
This opportunity area explores how we might look to fix some of the issues between how the sector buys, and what is being sold. It looks at ways in which we might think differently and more collectively about how we influence and shape the market to meet better the needs of local government.
| From What is... | To What if... |
|---|---|
| A summary of current procurement, contracts and market shaping challenges are: | Some questions our recommendations respond to: |
| Opportunities around market shaping, collective buying / negotiating aren't realised. | What if… we thought more collectively about risk in relation to buying and procuring from the market? |
| Hard for SMEs to compete or ‘break’ into the market and over reliance on larger providers, piecemeal customisations to legacy tech and locked in contracts (as they appear less ‘risky' for local government buyers). | What if… we worked more closely with the market to shape common needs for customisation of existing software? |
| Procurement and budgeting processes aren’t aligned to more agile/ iterative ways of delivering solutions, meaning councils are creating specifications for the wrong things (and being locked in to them). | What if… we held more power and influence over the software market in relation to what gets brought? |
| The sector continues to buy based on technical ‘wish list’ rather than around service outcomes. | What if… we focused more heavily on improving buying behaviours amongst leaders across the sector? |
Procurement, contracts & market shaping: A 2030 vision
By 2030… we have best in class procurement and contract management capability and process in the sector, making it easier to invest in innovative solutions, encouraging more SME entrants to the market, and holding suppliers to account for delivering outcomes.
Procurement, contracts & market shaping: Recommendations
| A) Improving 'buyer' side behaviour, culture, processes and ways of working | |
|---|---|
| Non negotiable recommendation | Other recommendations |
| Either through regional bodies or one single body, create Centre(s) of Procurement and Contract Management excellence. | Develop shared procurement frameworks across sensible regional footprints to drive more aligned buying. |
| Develop open data tools that can help councils compare and contrast spending and quality of third party suppliers. | |
| Develop a sandbox specifically around procurement and finance to test new ways of budgeting within existing processes. | |
| Review spending processes to integrate ‘digital’ spend into service budgeting (i.e. revenue rather than capital expenditure). | |
| B) Supporting and shaping the 'right' supplier ecosystem to emerge | |
|---|---|
| Non negotiable recommendation | Other recommendations |
| Coordinate a shared pipeline of common issues and challenges across the sector, and openly publish to support more SMEs to align products and services. | Derisk SME procurement by using ‘regional or economic growth area footprints’ to collectively buy or procure more innovative products or services that may be deemed 'too risky' for individual councils. |
| Test and scale different procurement and budgeting approaches and processes to de risk SMEs entering the market (i.e. efficient payment contracts and incentives). | |
| C) Collectively influencing & shifting ‘legacy software suppliers’ behaviour | |
|---|---|
| Non negotiable recommendation | Other recommendations |
| Use regional bodies to aggregate common challenges with ‘legacy software suppliers’; and develop an influencing plan/ strategy for change the sector needs to see. | Develop a set of harder levers for central government intervention with ‘legacy software vendors’. |
| Central government to convene big supplier CEOs regularly for open conversation about how we make the current software market more fit for purpose. | |