Public service reform: Some encouraging noises but the framing matters

On Monday, we learned of the UK Government's latest initiative to tackle some of the challenges currently faced by the public sector. Minister Pat McFadden has announced a £100 million fund to drive public service reform, with the aim of creating more agile working practices across departments, and to “make the state function more like a start-up”.

This approach will involve ‘crack teams’ of problem solvers, comprised of a mix of people with data and digital skills, policy officials, and frontline workers, all of whom will be granted the freedom to experiment and adapt through a “test and learn” culture.

Beyond the headlines (of which there are many), this new initiative represents a welcome and encouraging step towards reframing how the government approaches changes and delivers critical public services. Bringing fresh perspectives from tech professionals outside of government and frontline public service workers will provide a wider range of experiences and valuable insights. However, the success of these measures and reforms will hinge on how they are presented, implemented, and embedded.

While the language of “government as a start-up” and “Tours of Duty” grabs the headlines, it risks oversimplifying the complexities of public sector work. Start-ups and governments operate under fundamentally different drivers, motivations, and cultural frameworks. Instead, this initiative would benefit from revisiting and strengthening the principles that made the Government Digital Service (GDS) so effective: inclusion, sustainability, user-centred design, iterative development, and empowering multidisciplinary teams to focus on outcomes over outputs.

It’s also crucial to ensure that these reforms are built around user needs and inclusive design, engaging a representative and diverse range of voices in service delivery. Solutions need to reflect the lived experiences of the people they’re intended to serve. Simplifying recruitment processes is an excellent start, but we also need to prioritise creating an environment where civil servants feel empowered and trusted.

The language used in the framing of this effort also matters. It needs to avoid the pitfalls of oversimplification and misplaced blame. Instead, it should focus on creating a collaborative and supportive culture where innovation flourishes not because of “start-up energy” but because teams are trusted, empowered, and working towards meaningful outcomes. Public sector procurement, for example, is an area where we need urgent reform that values quality and impact over the lowest cost.

In conclusion, the government's new initiative is a promising step forward, but its success will depend in part on bringing public servants along on the journeys. The framing of this journey matters, and relies on government institutions falling on back core principles like user-centred design, inclusion and phased, iterative service delivery. By fostering a culture of trust and empowerment, and ensuring reforms are built around user needs, we can create a more effective and responsive public sector. This initiative offers an opportunity to rediscover a more empowering, user-centred way of working in government, with communities and public servants leading the way.