2.2 A workforce for digital transformation: analysis of the UK

Estimated read time: 18 minutes

Digital skills as a core competency

Over the past decade, the UK’s digital agenda has sought to establish digital capability as a fundamental attribute of public service. While early strides under the Government Digital Service (GDS) demonstrated the value of digital skills, progress toward embedding these competencies universally across the public sector has been uneven. There are increasing pockets of excellence and a greater presence of digital capability in government than a decade ago, but in too many cases digital, data, and technology (DDaT) skills remain confined to specialist roles, rather than embraced as a core expectation for everyone shaping or delivering public services.

The evolution of the Digital, Data and Technology profession

At the outset of the GDS era, there was no dedicated DDaT Profession. Many departments had been hollowed out, with IT functions limited to hardware management or contract oversight rather than strategic transformation. GDS disrupted this dynamic by attracting individuals drawn by mission and impact rather than financial reward. This influx of expertise laid the groundwork for creating the DDaT Profession, a critical step in formally recognising and retaining digital expertise within government.

However, what began as a well-intentioned move to secure and safeguard digital expertise has, in some cases, unintentionally reinforced silos. Instead of fostering the cross-cutting integration of digital skills envisioned by GDS, decision-makers defer to DDaT professionals to “do digital” perpetuating a separation between “digital” roles and everyone else, reinforcing the idea that digital expertise is only ever a specialism rather than a core competence. This risks replicating the traditional IT model GDS set out to dismantle – where a small cohort holds the keys to digital knowledge, rather than letting it permeate all functions and levels of government.

The Risk of Regressive Steps

During my time at GDS I understood the vision to extend beyond building a cadre of specialists. For me the intent was to democratise a more ambitious digital literacy that made user-centred design, data-informed decision-making, and iterative delivery methods intrinsic to all policy, operational and service design efforts. Government, in this vision, would be inherently digital, not partially analogue or reliant on a designated “digital group” to fill in the gaps.

Today, there are signs of backsliding. The integration of design, policy and operations that was imagined have not universally materialised. In some cases user-centred practices remain guarded by specialists who worry about diluting their expertise or damaging the perceived value of those professions. Similarly, the expectation that digital and data understanding would spread across all roles, as modelled in the original Digital Leaders network, has, in places, hardened into a box labelled DDaT. These patterns undermine the idea of continuous and universal upskilling.

This regression sets the stage for the next challenge: scaling digital skills beyond a niche group. Without a genuine move toward making digital competency universal, the UK risks entrenching precisely the kind of specialist-versus-generalist divide GDS sought to overcome. This links directly to the promises and shortcomings of Mission Five, where scale is claimed but not fully delivered.

Mission Five: Digital Skills at Scale—Promises and Gaps

Mission Five of the government’s digital strategy focuses on deepening expertise in the digital and data profession, hiring more technologists, and upskilling senior leaders. As headlines these are commendable as it ensures strategic decisions are informed by digital know-how. Setting the ambition for at least 6% of the civil service to belong the digital, data or technology professions also signals an important commitment to grow capacity.

Yet, having 6% of staff within DDaT leaves 94% of the workforce outside that orbit. Real transformation demands that digital capability becomes a baseline skill for all, not the domain of a small, specialised group. If the UK is truly aiming to operate as a 21st century government, then scaling digital capability must go beyond hiring more technologists or certifying a limited number of senior professionals. It requires equipping all staff with a baseline of digital understanding—so that digital transformation, user-centred design, and data-driven decision-making inform the very DNA of government. The ongoing effort to replace the Digital Academy and other learning initiatives must, therefore, focus on ensuring widespread, continuous skill development rather than producing more digital specialists.

Toward a revised universal baseline for digital literacy?

The challenge is to redefine the standard of digital literacy for all public servants. The OECD’s Five Digital Government User Skills are as good a place to start as any. By ensuring that frontline staff, policy advisors, and everyone in between are equipped with the capability and confidence to engage meaningfully with technology, data, and user needs the UK can create an environment where digital is not an add-on, but embedded in every task and decision.

Equally, improving digital literacy in the public sector is inseparable from raising these capabilities across society. Citizens who understand digital platforms, trust data-driven services, and can navigate online environments will not only benefit personally but also reinforce the public sector’s transformation. If citizens lag behind, the benefits of government digital services may not be fully realised. By aligning the baseline expectations for both public servants and the general population, the UK can ensure digital, data, and technology are not barriers but tools of empowerment in the 21st century.

Agile and flexible ways of working

While universal digital literacy is foundational, it must be accompanied by modern delivery methods. GDS initially championed agile methodologies—iterative cycles, user feedback loops, and cross-functional teams—and for a time, it appeared these methods would become government’s default operating system.

Progress has been mixed. Some parts of government successfully apply agile principles, delivering services responsive to evolving user needs. Yet established departmental hierarchies, longstanding procurement and project management traditions, and entrenched governance structures continue to exert a gravitational pull toward more rigid, process-heavy approaches. In some cases, traditional “big bang” IT procurement and delivery models are still to be found. Agile delivery, which depends on flatter decision-making structures and rapid feedback, struggles to thrive where top-down hierarchies and lengthy sign-off processes remain the norm.

The UK’s political volatility, frequent ministerial reshuffles, and the absence of a stable, long-term digital transformation champion have undermined the steady diffusion of agile methods. Without consistent, senior-level advocacy, agile methods often falter, reverting to more traditional processes.

This situation highlights an important interplay between structural and cultural factors. Agile relies not only on appropriate funding and procurement models but also on trust, delegation, and a willingness to accept iterative change. When these cultural conditions are missing—when leaders don’t reinforce iterative delivery or when risk aversion reigns—agile practices lose their momentum.

Compounding this problem is a general lack of broad-based digital literacy and the retreat of central support for Communities of Practice (CoPs). Without these support structures and forums, agile risk becoming misunderstood as tactical project management techniques rather than strategic enablers of user-focused services. Procurement and funding models also need reforms to accommodate iterative, user-driven processes. Until these conditions are addressed, agile will remain an unfinished agenda rather than the universally adopted norm.

Cultural transformation and an innovation mindset

The UK’s early digital reforms were about more than adopting new tools—they represented a profound shift in mindset. The establishment of GDS and the introduction of agile methodologies encouraged public servants to experiment, embrace failure as a learning opportunity, and openly share knowledge. As someone who was lucky enough to work on GOV.UK before its launch and on into the years that followed there was a tangible feeling of being empowered to challenge entrenched norms, try new approaches, and help shape a more user-centric, data-informed state.

However, over time, the cultural environment this innovative spirit has grown less fertile. Political instability, frequent ministerial reshuffles, and inconsistent leadership in digital policy have created an atmosphere of uncertainty. Successive crises, from Brexit to COVID-19 and other global disruptions, have compounded these pressures, making it harder for teams to sustain a culture of experimentation. Public servants, aware of the potential for criticism or negative media coverage, often fall back on safer, more familiar approaches. Without stable, long-term political backing, initiatives that embrace “safe-to-fail” experimentation can easily be side-lined by short-term pressures, performance targets, or sudden policy pivots.

The trust between political leaders and officials—critical for candid discussions and creative problem-solving—has been under strain. Over the past decade, periodic public criticism of the civil service, from both political figures and external commentators, has contributed to an atmosphere of defensiveness. When public servants feel scrutinised or under siege, the incentive to propose bold solutions diminishes. Instead of fostering open communication channels that celebrate diverse ideas and problem-solving approaches, fear of political backlash or departmental blame can push conversations behind closed doors or into risk-averse patterns. The result is a reduction in the flow of candid feedback and a reluctance to surface potential innovations that might fail before they succeed.

This shift has been accompanied by the decline of once-thriving Communities of Practice (CoPs), which previously served as a vital engine for cross-departmental learning and collaboration. These forums allowed public servants to share insights, exchange best practices, and collectively refine approaches to digital transformation. As central support for such communities has diminished, so too have opportunities for mutual learning and the organic spread of user-centered values. Teams that once felt part of a larger movement now often operate in isolation, losing access to the collective momentum that characterised earlier successes.

The cultural challenges facing digital government today are not new, nor are they unique to the UK. Yet the distance between the pioneering optimism of the early 2010s and the present-day environment highlights the urgency of revitalising the spirit that drove early progress. The UK’s ability to foster openness, agility, and iterative improvement has always been a hallmark of its success in digital government. The question now is whether it can reconnect with those principles in a way that is fit for the challenges ahead.

Cultural transformation is rarely linear, and sustaining it requires consistent reinforcement over time. While early reforms demonstrated what is possible when trust and collaboration are prioritised, the current environment underscores how fragile those gains can be without stability and long-term commitment. Understanding the root causes of this shift is the first step toward rebuilding an environment where innovation can once again thrive.

Attracting and retaining digital talent

In the early stages of digital government reforms, leaders deployed mission-driven rhetoric to attract digitally skilled individuals keen to ‘do a tour of service’ in pursuit of modernising public services. Many were drawn by the prospect of making a tangible impact on society—a unique selling point the public sector continues to hold. Over time, however, sustaining and growing this talent pool has become increasingly difficult.

Attracting digital professionals often demands more competitive compensation than the public sector is traditionally accustomed to paying. The UK has recognised this with initiatives like the Government Digital and Data Pay Framework, which aims to standardise pay scales and offer more market-aligned salaries. Although this marks progress, disparities remain, and adoption of the framework is not yet universal. Some departments still struggle to secure funds or approval for salary enhancements, leaving them unable to compete with private sector firms, or even other departments, that can more readily reward in-demand skillsets. Over time, this creates a patchwork of pay conditions that makes it harder to convey a cohesive, appealing offer to prospective hires.

A salary alone will not secure long-term commitment from digital professionals. Without a transparent and well-structured career progression framework, talented individuals may quickly seek new challenges elsewhere. The UK’s civil service environment, with its sometimes opaque promotion practices, can feel inconsistent to those used to more clearly defined career ladders. Ensuring that digital talent sees a future in the public sector—through mentorship, professional development budgets, leadership training, and the ability to move laterally across policy, delivery, and operational domains—will help the government retain specialists and generalists alike. Career pathways should not confine people to narrow technical silos but recognise the breadth of digital-era skills, from product management to user research, cybersecurity, and data science.

It is the role of government to serve all citizens and to do that effectively, it must employ people who reflect the nation’s demographic diversity and lived experiences. Recruiting from different regions, educational backgrounds, ethnic groups, genders, and abilities enriches the government’s talent pool and enhances its ability to design inclusive services. Recruitment efforts over recent years have moved in a positive direction to not only facilitate remote or hybrid options but to relocate the physical locations of government offices across the country with those working on digital now nationwide. This has successfully widened the talent pipeline beyond London, tapping into pools of skilled individuals who may have previously been deterred by location or cost-of-living issues. Equally, clearer commitments to promoting diversity and inclusion—backed by data-driven targets and transparent reporting—signal to prospective candidates that the government values them for their unique perspectives.

Beyond pay and promotion, people gravitate to employers where they can thrive and make an impact. The earlier sections of this chapter highlight the importance of agile methodologies and an innovation mindset. If the government can re-establish robust Communities of Practice and encourage risk-taking, creativity, and problem-solving across all functions, it will create a positive feedback loop: engaged professionals attract more talent, further enriching the collective expertise. Ensuring that digital professionals are not isolated, overburdened, or forced to adhere to outdated processes helps sustain morale and reduces churn. Moreover, offering flexible working arrangements and demonstrating trust in employees to manage their workload fosters a healthier work-life balance, addressing a key factor in many digital workers’ employment decisions.

Supporting professional development and Communities of Practice

The UK’s digital transformation was underpinned by a strong focus on professional development and collaborative learning. Training initiatives like the Digital Academy and cross-departmental Communities of Practice (CoPs) provided public servants with the skills and networks to tackle complex challenges. These programmes fostered a shared understanding of good digital government, enabling rapid dissemination of best practices and lessons learned.

Over time, this ecosystem has weakened. The closure of the Digital Academy and reduced support for CoPs have left public servants with fewer structured opportunities for learning. While the Government Campus and other platforms offer training resources, they lack the strategic coherence and focus that once characterised the Academy. This has created gaps in skill development, particularly in emerging areas like AI, data ethics, and service design.

In February 2020 the National Archives indicates that the Academy was offering courses that spanned digital transformation basics, agile, AI, service ownership, user-centred design, product management, business analysis and digital management as well as tailored courses for policymakers. Regrettably, the old URL does not redirect to a useful destination.

Looking at the offerings of the Government Campus in 2024 does not offer hugely encouragement evidence that the quality, calibre and relevance of training has been maintained:

There are courses available that touch on some of the fundamentals, for example Digital Transformation in the Public Sector, Building a Digital Government Service and Digital and Agile for Local Government but they are not easy to find and have not had the same investment of understanding how to achieve the considered aims and outcomes of developing the capabilities of the UK public sector in the way that was evident from the Academy.

This does not give confidence that learning and development are being considered on the basis that digital transformation is something that needs to be available for everyone. While it is good to see local government recognised with a dedicated course the diminished focus overall suggests that there is little consideration being given to a strategic approach to these needs, despite one of the Missions claiming to do so.

CoPs, which previously provided a fertile ground for peer-to-peer learning, mentorship, and shared problem-solving, have been particularly affected by the withdrawal of central support. Once supported by dedicated Heads of Community who curated knowledge exchange and championed their development, many CoPs now rely on the informal goodwill of participants juggling other responsibilities. As a result, the vibrancy, regularity, and impact of these networks have diminished. What were once world-leading exemplars—studied by other countries eager to replicate the UK’s cross-government learning networks—now struggle to maintain momentum. The loss of these communities has practical consequences: teams become more isolated, lessons learned in one department fail to inform work in another, and the collective intelligence that once underpinned innovative approaches to digital government risks atrophying.

Addressing these gaps is critical to restoring a culture of continuous improvement. Ensuring that professional development is inclusive and accessible to all public servants—not just digital specialists—is essential to embedding digital literacy and fostering cross-departmental collaboration.

Cross-functional, multi-disciplinary and adaptive teams

From the outset of the UK’s digital transformation journey, the notion of cross-functional, multi-disciplinary teams working iteratively and in close collaboration was presented as a key ingredient in delivering modern, user-focused public services. Early GDS work showcased the benefits of blending expertise from policy, technology, design, user research, and operations into a single empowered unit. In theory, this approach not only enhances the quality and responsiveness of government services but also moves beyond the dated “handoff” model—where each function works in isolation and only comes together at defined milestones.

However, despite the widespread acceptance of these principles, practice has proven more challenging. While pockets of genuinely integrated teams exist and have produced significant successes, these arrangements are not the norm across the UK public sector.

Deep-rooted departmental boundaries, hierarchical decision-making structures, and rigid governance frameworks often limit the autonomy and adaptability of cross-functional teams. In many cases, even when a multi-disciplinary unit is formed, it remains beholden to lengthy approval chains or must operate within procurement and funding models designed for linear, siloed delivery. This friction curbs the team’s ability to pivot in response to user feedback or shifting policy imperatives.

Although the concept of multi-disciplinary teams was intended to ensure that diverse perspectives—policy specialists, service designers, user researchers, technologists, operational staff—collaborated closely, in practice, some teams gravitate toward a narrower definition. There can be a tendency to focus on multiple disciplines within the digital sphere alone (e.g., developers, data analysts, user researchers), rather than pulling in policy advisors, frontline service staff, commercial experts, or legal counsel who influence how services are designed, funded, and regulated. This narrower scope dilutes the original intention of blending truly different backgrounds and skill sets, thereby limiting the range of solutions teams can explore.

For multi-disciplinary teams to operate effectively, they must have the autonomy to make decisions rapidly and iterate based on real-time insights. Too often, teams remain dependent on external sign-offs or must justify agile changes to senior leaders unfamiliar with iterative delivery models. This dynamic fosters risk aversion and slows down the potential responsiveness and creativity that a team of mixed talents can offer. Without genuine delegation of authority and a trust-based relationship with leadership, the full potential of cross-functional collaboration cannot be realised.

As previously discussed, uneven distributions of digital literacy and the decline of CoPs have deprived these teams of the broader support ecosystem that underpins adaptive ways of working. Without strong professional development pipelines, accessible learning resources, and vibrant peer networks, it can be difficult for teams to maintain the breadth of understanding and capabilities needed to break down silos and shift away from traditional delivery methods. In some cases, a nominally multi-disciplinary team struggles to function as intended simply because not all members share a baseline understanding of digital principles, user-centric methodologies, or data ethics.

Where multi-disciplinary approaches are fully embraced—supported by stable leadership, coherent funding models, and strong guidance from the centre—teams have demonstrated remarkable capabilities. They have delivered services more attuned to user needs, iterated faster, and navigated complexities with agility. Such successes offer a blueprint for the rest of the government, highlighting the impact of structural reforms that grant teams greater autonomy, create clearer digital career paths, restore supportive CoPs, and embed digital literacy across the workforce.

Ultimately, making cross-functional, multi-disciplinary, and adaptive teams the default rather than the exception requires concerted effort to dismantle long-standing organisational barriers. By ensuring that “multi-disciplinary” truly means drawing on all relevant professions, by empowering teams with the authority and flexibility to respond to changing user needs, and by investing in both the skills and the culture that support continuous learning, the UK can rekindle the transformative promise these teams hold. In doing so, government stands a better chance of building services that genuinely meet diverse user needs and fulfil the digital ambition laid out over a decade ago.

« Back to: 2.1 A workforce for digital transformation: what does good look like? (5 minutes read)
Next up: 2.3 A workforce for digital transformation: recommendations for the UK (3 minutes read) »