Mission-focused collaboration in local government
Local government stands at a crossroads. Hugely diverse in its responsibilities to residents, it is confronted with the task of modernising for the AI era around changing administrative boundaries, increasing service demands, unworkable budgets and ageing digital infrastructure.
However, this moment also presents an opportunity to lay foundations for this seismic shift, starting with a reimagined relationship between central and local government. In this new model, the Centre needs to take responsibility for shaping technology markets that are currently failing local services. Good work has started, and MHCLG’s Digital Planning is starting to show exciting results. It’s time to apply our learning to our most critical social services.
For too long, a brand of ‘digital localism’ prevailed among central government decision-makers, particularly among the political class. Intervention into local technology markets, akin to those delivered by GDS for the centre, seemed to go against the (great) principle that local places should determine how local services are delivered.
The fallacy is that when hundreds of organisations all have to deliver the same services to a relatively small pool of people each, when teams have to design, produce and iterate their digital services in isolation, we end up with sub-par services: over-customised, over-priced, and hard for suppliers to provide for too. While many have shown remarkable innovation and adaptability, some systemic issues require collective solutions.
What’s urgently needed is deliberate market intervention from central government. Without standardised data practices, targeted regulation, and a strategy to scale the interventions needed to improve the market, local government simply can’t get the full value of digital transformation. This isn’t about top-down control, it’s about enabling the sector to thrive.
When different parts of government unite around a shared purpose, genuine transformation becomes possible. But collaboration requires direction, funding, and a clearly defined framework.
The digital planning reform is a prime example of what’s achievable. Central government has played a crucial role in diagnosing the biggest barriers to digitalising planning. Armed with a better understanding of the services’ biggest pain points, they have co-designed data standards with the sector, developing digital tools, and adjusting regulations, to allow councils to deliver planning services more efficiently and transparently.
There are likely things the programme would do differently if given a second chance. But as a pathfinder, it got a few things right that should be put in place for other critical local services:
This type of progress hinges on a new stewardship model from the centre. Relevant policy departments must lead mission-oriented teams equipped with a clear mandate and policy tools unique to central government. These teams should bring together everyone with a stake in a service, pinpoint why technology markets are failing, and identify what’s preventing digital adoption at scale.
From there, it’s about prioritising high-impact interventions, almost always including improved data standards and reusable tools, and allowing the space to iterate. Success often depends on testing various scaling methods until something sticks.
Sometimes, this means covering staffing gaps in councils to enable co-design participation. Other times, it involves directly funding suppliers or teams to adopt new standards. But at its heart, it’s about staying laser-focused on outcomes and giving mission teams the authority to adjust their strategies based on real-world feedback.
A fundamental roadblock is that no one currently “owns” this work. Local leaders are immersed in day-to-day operations. Central teams are divided between policymaking and service delivery. As a result, critical coordination often falls through the cracks.
It’s time to elevate market-shaping from a side task to a strategic imperative. That requires dedicated, cross-functional teams at the centre, with the power, funding, and longevity to lead missions effectively. It also calls for visible, empowered leadership at the director level. Too often, this work lacks senior visibility and buy-in, which undermines its success.
Fortunately, the expertise already exists. There are strong precedents to build from, and a growing community of practice both centrally and locally. The missing piece has been large-scale political commitment.
We’re at a pivotal moment. The market-shaping skills are there. The appetite for meaningful reform is growing. The timing is right. With genuine local-central collaboration, mission-led methods, and a relentless focus on service outcomes, real change is within reach.
Yes, the road ahead will be bumpy, and we won’t be offering cashable savings for a few years. But if we don’t get step up the ambition, these critical services will continue to be plagued by legacy costs and poor outcomes, and we’ll fail to unlock the potential of AI for social services any time soon.
