From Whitehall ‘waste’ to public worth: Rethinking efficiency in government transformation

At recent roundtables hosted as part of the Government Transformation Summit, senior leaders from across departments and agencies came together to explore a deceptively simple question: what does "waste" really look like in government?

The answers were thoughtful, reflected real life challenge and opportunity, and resonated cross-department. Topics ranged from missed budgets and legacy technology to complex procurement and duplicated and siloed systems. However, one theme that surfaced repeatedly was that much of the waste in government is not all about time and money but misapplied effort. Capable and skilled Civil Servants doing the wrong work, really well, and not due to a lack of commitment or talent. 

Across the public sector, there is enormous drive to improve services and better meet the needs of citizens. But in many cases, transformation efforts are constrained by the systems meant to support them. Delivery teams find themselves blocked by governance structures, disconnected from one another, or burdened by outdated tools and processes. Here’s what our roundtable uncovered.

The hidden cost of misalignment

Participants shared examples of duplicated solutions being developed in parallel, due to siloed teams being unaware of each other's work. In some cases, entire services were being rebuilt from scratch whilst tools already existed elsewhere in government. Others described projects that met every milestone and passed every assurance gate but ultimately made little impact because the original need had shifted or had never been clearly defined in the first place.

It became clear that in many cases the delivery of ‘something’ or ‘anything’ is celebrated as an outcome in itself, with success measured by milestones rather than outcomes. Teams are incentivised to launch services quickly, even if those services do not solve the right problems, and whilst pace is important, without clear direction and benefits mapping/realisation, pace of delivery can easily become another form of inefficiency.

Governance that enables outcomes

A recurring frustration was the role of governance in slowing or stalling progress. Risk management remains a central focus, and adherence to policy and the wider Government agenda is an imperative, but too often this leads to processes that gatekeep rather than enable. Unnecessary layers of sign-off and approval create bottlenecks, particularly when, more often than not, decision-makers are removed from the day-to-day delivery.

There was a shared view that governance needs to evolve from being a control mechanism to being an enabler of change. One suggestion was to explore moving more accountability and decision-making closer to operational delivery teams enable delivery to respond quicker to user needs and changes.

The case for reuse

Reuse has been a core concept within Government for as long as I can remember, and there was no surprise that it came up again and again. Whether it was correspondence platforms, case management systems, or Finance and HR services, many departments were tackling the same challenges independently, each designing and developing their own version of a solution. 

In principle, reuse should be an obvious route to efficiency, but it is often hindered by a lack of visibility, human resistance, or the perception that externally built tools are not fit for purpose. As one attendee observed, it is not that people don’t want to reuse, it’s that the systems and processes required to achieve re-use rarely make it easy or rewarding to do so.

Empowering the right people

One of the most insightful outcomes from our discussion was the importance of enabling the right individuals, in the right roles, with the right authority and direction. Transformation success is not wholly reliant on the selection of the right technology, delivery partner or strategy, but the appointment of trusted and capable people who understand the context, the users, and the desired outcomes.

In many cases, these people are often not the most senior leaders, but those who have recent and relevant experience and credentials of delivering similar outcomes within a similar context. They understand the needs of users within relevant teams, and they most likely have some scars from previous experiences and knowledge to share, which means others don’t have to experience the same pain. When these people are given space to lead and influence, they can remove the complexity that traditional hierarchies can introduce.

There is a growing recognition of the need to professionalise roles that sit between policy and delivery, for example, outcome leads, service owners, and user researchers, and to ensure that their insight shapes decisions, not just advises them.

Innovation that sticks

It was no surprise that emerging technologies like Agentic AI were another recurring theme. Not that anyone was solutioning during the roundtable, but there were some interesting examples of promising pilots and POCs using AI, automation, and predictive analytics in areas such as fraud detection and customer service triage. 

Equally, there were stories of POCs that failed, which is okay, that’s the whole point. In many cases these failures were not because of the chosen tooling or proposed solution, but because they lacked a route to adoption and human involvement. Data quality, operational integration, and user trust remain critical factors in whether technology delivers real value, whether it’s traditional platforms like ERP and CRM, or newer technologies like Agents and Co-Pilots.

Innovation isn’t an isolated activity, it needs to be driven and underpinned by real problems, shaped and delivered by frontline experience, and supported with the infrastructure and governance required for it to scale and deliver outcomes.

Doing less, but better

Perhaps the most sobering reflection from the roundtables was the pressure on teams to do more, without being given the space or capacity to, and without stopping anything else. Transformation efforts are layered on top of existing services, legacy systems, and business-as-usual responsibilities. The result is a delivery model that is often stretched too thin to succeed.

Real efficiency doesn’t come from constant addition, but from sensible compromise and trade-offs. It requires a need to pause or retire services or programmes that no longer delivery value, and to focus on fewer things that deliver real impact.

A shift in metrics

To change what is delivered, we may need to change what is measured. Rather than counting transactions, outputs or milestones achieved, what if success was defined by time saved for civil servants, or the effectiveness of public services to serve the citizens of the UK? 

Progress is not just about delivering more features or story points; it is about making government work better for the people who use and deliver its services.

Looking ahead

Our investigation around ‘waste’ in government is only just beginning and a forthcoming Hitachi Solutions report, to be published in September, will build on the insights shared during these roundtables and others across the public sector. It will explore the persistent blockers to effective transformation, highlight where progress is already being made, and propose practical ways to unlock change at scale.

At Hitachi Solutions, we’re on a mission to explore how we can start turning ‘waste’ - not just of money, but of talent, trust, and time, into something of real public worth.