How digitalisation in public administration is held up

Twelve patterns used to slow the digitalisation of public administration.

When the digitalisation of public administration is discussed, the arguments for why it cannot be done right now, right here and in this particular way are remarkably persistent. The Excuses Compass documents twelve recurring patterns which serve, alone or combined, to delay reform, to declare it failed or to recast it as a threat. Each figure is a type, not a caricature of a person.

The four axes

Some patterns push responsibility onto others, some end in resignation and defeatism, a third group plays down the need to act, and a fourth reads digitalisation itself as the source of harm.

“Let the others go first” · Pushing responsibility away

FIG. 1 · THE FEDERALISM EXCUSE The One Who Points Elsewhere “That is a matter for the states. Or the federal level. Or municipal self-government. In any case not mine.”

The federal division of competences is real, but it explains the problem rather than justifying the inaction.

German public administration is federal, and responsibilities really are distributed between the federal government, the states and the municipalities. The pattern uses this real complexity not to clarify but to relieve: where everyone is a little responsible, nobody is accountable in the end.

The figure is seductive because it argues formally correctly. It does point to a genuine structural problem, the diffusion of responsibility across levels. The error is in the conclusion: from “responsibility is shared” it does not follow that “therefore I can do nothing here”. The IT Planning Council and the federal cooperation structures were created for exactly this kind of cross-level coordination.

The evidenced counter-position: successful digital projects are marked precisely by one level taking the lead rather than waiting for the question of competence to be settled. The excuse conserves the standstill it describes.

Further reading
FIG. 2 · DELEGATING UPWARDS The One Waiting for the Standard “We are not doing anything of our own, we are waiting for the nationwide solution. We don't want to duplicate the work.”

Waiting for the shared standard is sensible, until the waiting itself becomes the permanent task.

The “one for all” principle makes sense: one municipality or one state develops a service and everyone else re-uses it. Avoiding duplicate development is a legitimate goal. The pattern inverts the logic, though: “we will re-use it as soon as it is available” becomes “we do nothing until somebody else is finished”.

The figure is seductive because it disguises itself as efficiency. Whoever waits appears to avoid waste. The error: if everyone waits, no standard emerges to be re-used. Re-use presupposes that somebody goes first, and that the waiting bodies stay able to connect.

The counter-position shows in the practice of federal IT cooperation: shared services only work where bodies create the preconditions in parallel, interfaces, processes, legal bases, rather than presenting the waiting as progress.

Further reading
FIG. 3 · BLAMING THE VENDOR The One Who Blames the Supplier “We would love to, but our IT provider cannot deliver it. Our hands are tied.”

Dependence on suppliers is real, but it is often the consequence of one's own procurement and architecture decisions.

Public bodies depend on external IT providers and software vendors, and delivery bottlenecks and technical limits are real. The pattern externalises responsibility completely, though: the provider is at fault, the authority is a victim of circumstance.

The figure is seductive because it creates a convenient asymmetry, the provider is absent and cannot answer back. The error lies in leaving out one's own role: vendor lock-in, missing open interfaces and proprietary dependencies are as a rule the result of earlier procurement decisions, not a natural event.

The counter-position: anyone wanting to avoid lock-in can build open standards, interoperability requirements and exit clauses into their tenders. The dependency can be shaped, and can therefore be answered for.

Further reading
FIG. 4 · DEFICIT PATERNALISM The One Who Says Citizens Are Not Ready “Our citizens want the local office. Digital only overwhelms people, the older ones especially.”

Digital participation is a real issue, but here it is invoked to protect analogue convenience.

Not everyone is equally equipped or skilled digitally, and protection against digital exclusion is a real task. The pattern instrumentalises that concern, though: “some people need analogue alternatives” becomes “therefore digitalisation is not worth it”.

The figure is seductive because it presents itself as caring. It speaks in the name of those supposedly overwhelmed, usually without having asked them. The error: digital indices have shown a growing willingness to use digital services among older groups for years; the barrier lies more often with badly designed services than with the people using them.

The counter-position: good digitalisation in administration does not replace analogue access but adds to it. The argument confuses the need for multiple channels with an argument against the digital channel as such.

Further reading

“It will never work here” · Resignation and defeatism

FIG. 5 · INSTITUTIONAL FATALISM The “We Have Always Done It This Way” Administrator “We have never done it that way, and it worked without. Administration is not a start-up.”

Administrative culture is slow, but slowness is a property, not a law of nature.

Public administration is built for continuity, legal certainty and equal treatment, properties that naturally slow change down. These forces of inertia are real and in part even functional. The pattern turns them into immutability, though: because it has always been this way, it must stay this way.

The figure is seductive because it radiates experience and solidity. It contrasts the sound authority with the flighty “start-up”. The error lies in confusing description with justification: that administrative culture makes change harder explains the difficulty; it does not justify giving up.

The counter-position comes from public administration research: administrative cultures can be changed where leadership, incentives and skills come together. The fatalism is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Further reading
FIG. 6 · PESSIMISM ABOUT THIS PLACE The Estonia Admirer “Estonia is wonderful, but that is 1.3 million people and no grown administration like ours. It will never work here.”

Structural differences are real, but here they are inflated into a blanket impossibility.

International front-runners such as Estonia have different starting conditions: a smaller population, younger administrative structures, a system rebuilt after 1991. Naming these differences is justified and guards against naive one-to-one transfer.

The figure is seductive because it seems differentiated, admiring the model and relativising it at the same time. The error is the generalisation: “not everything is transferable” becomes “nothing is transferable”. What transfers is not the size of the country but the principles: once-only, connected registers, end-to-end processes, a clear mandate.

European comparative studies supply the counter-position: large federal states also show measurable progress where political will and architecture are in place. Pessimism about one's own place declares every lag inevitable and blocks learning from examples.

Further reading

“It is not that urgent” · Playing down the need to act

FIG. 7 · PLAYING DOWN THE STATUS QUO The “It Works, Doesn't It” Preserver “Our citizens manage fine. Printing out a form never hurt anyone. It is not that bad.”

The status quo works on the surface, but it shifts the cost invisibly onto citizens.

A great deal in public administration works: applications are processed, benefits are paid, operations run. That basic functionality is real and should not be talked down. The pattern concludes from it, though, that there is no urgent need to act.

The figure is seductive because it radiates calm and avoids alarmism. The error lies in selective accounting: the costs of the analogue status quo, journeys, waiting times, media breaks, entering the same data repeatedly, paper, do not appear in the authority's books. They are borne by citizens and businesses.

The counter-position: implementation reports show considerable friction that disappears inside “it works, doesn't it”. What functions from the authority's point of view can be expensive and wearing from the user's.

Further reading
FIG. 8 · DIGITALISATION IN NAME ONLY The One Selling PDF as Progress “We have been digital for ages! The form is online as a PDF, download it, print it, fill it in, post it back.”

An online form is not the same thing as an end-to-end digital process.

Many bodies really have put forms, information and individual steps online. That is a beginning and not a lie. The pattern sells the beginning as completion, though: visibility on the web is equated with actual digitalisation.

The figure is seductive because it points to something you can show, there is something digital after all. The error lies in the level of maturity: a downloadable PDF that is printed and returned by post is a digitised media break, not an end-to-end process. Maturity models distinguish precisely for this reason between information, interaction and complete end-to-end handling.

The counter-position: real digitalisation in administration is measured by end-to-end handling, without applications where possible and at least without media breaks, not by the existence of a file. Digitalisation in name only claims the progress without delivering it.

Further reading

“It does more harm than good” · Digitalisation as the source of harm

FIG. 9 · INSTRUMENTALISING DATA PROTECTION The GDPR Conversation-Stopper “I am afraid that is not possible for data protection reasons. The GDPR forbids us to exchange data between offices.”

Data protection is a fundamental right, but here it is misused as a blanket reason to prevent.

Data protection is anchored in constitutional law and is not a tiresome obstacle but protection against state surveillance and misuse of data. Assessing it belongs to every serious digital project. The pattern uses data protection as a blank refusal, though: whatever is inconvenient is declared contrary to it without further examination.

The figure is seductive because it places itself behind a fundamental right and thereby appears morally unassailable. The error lies in the blanket nature of the claim: the GDPR does not forbid processing, it regulates it. For data exchange between authorities, laws such as register modernisation and the once-only principle create legal bases expressly.

The counter-position: frequently the obstacle is not data protection but an unwillingness to use the routes the law provides. “The GDPR forbids it” is often a supposition standing in for an assessment, not the result of one.

Further reading
FIG. 10 · SECURITY FUNDAMENTALISM The Cyber-Risk Warner “Anything online can be hacked. On paper our data is safe. Digital only creates attack surface.”

IT security is essential, but it is a design task, not an argument against digitalisation.

Cyberattacks on public bodies are real and increasing; IT security is a central and often underestimated task. Anyone naming security risks is right on the substance. The pattern draws the false conclusion, though, that analogue procedures are fundamentally safer and digitalisation therefore risky.

The figure is seductive because it signals a sense of responsibility and can point to concrete incidents. The error lies in the benchmark: paper files are also lost, burn, are read or manipulated, only less visibly. Security is not a property of paper but of well-designed processes, analogue as much as digital.

The counter-position: established security standards show that risks are manageable. “Analogue is safer” confuses the absence of headlines with the absence of risk and turns a design task into a reason to prevent.

Further reading
FIG. 11 · THE DEHUMANISATION TOPOS The Defender of Personal Contact “Administration lives on human conversation. Digitalise everything and you create a cold, dehumanised authority.”

Human contact matters, but here it is played off against the relief that would make it possible.

Personal advice is valuable for many matters, especially in complex or distressing circumstances. Protecting human accessibility in public administration is a serious concern. The pattern places that concern in a false opposition, though: digitalisation versus humanity.

The figure is seductive because it connects to real experience of anonymous, frustrating technology and defends warmth. The error lies in the either-or construction: when routine matters are handled digitally, time and staff are freed for exactly the cases that need human attention. Digitalisation can relieve personal contact rather than necessarily replace it.

The counter-position: well-designed digital administration widens accessibility, around the clock, without a journey, in several languages. The topos defends not people but the status quo in the name of people.

Further reading
FIG. 12 · PROTECTING WHAT IS HELD The Guardian of Jobs “First automation, then job cuts. Digitalisation is only a savings programme aimed at staff.”

The interests of staff are legitimate, but here they become a pretext against any change at all.

Concerns about jobs, qualification and co-determination are justified, and staff representation exists to voice them. Change processes that steamroller staff deserve to fail. The pattern generalises that legitimate interest into a blockade of every reform, though.

The figure is seductive because it claims social responsibility and connects to genuine insecurity. The error lies in assuming a zero-sum game: the public service faces a demographic wave of retirements and a severe shortage of skilled staff, and automating routine relieves rather than eliminates posts. The question is redistribution of tasks, not reduction.

The counter-position: studies of automation in the public sector show tasks shifting rather than disappearing. Defending what is held against every change protects, in the end, overburdening processes too, at the expense of the staff themselves.

Further reading

Related

Let us talk about what you have in mind.

A first conversation costs you half an hour.

Arrange a first conversationPrefer a call back?