Why Digital Transformation in Government Is So Hard

Why Digital Transformation in Government Is So Hard

In 2019, Ines Mergel, Noella Edelmann, and Nathalie Haug sat down with 30 public sector officials from across Europe and asked them a simple question: What does “digital transformation” actually mean to you?

The answers should terrify anyone who has ever tried to renew a driver’s license online.

The officials described a world where “digital transformation” meant everything from scanning paper documents into PDFs to rebuilding entire welfare systems from scratch. Some thought it was about installing new software. Others thought it was about changing the culture of their agencies. A few admitted they had no idea what their colleagues meant when they used the term (Mergel et al., 2019).

This is not a story about lazy bureaucrats. It is a story about a word that has become so bloated with meaning that it now means almost nothing. And that emptiness is why governments keep failing at something that private companies do routinely.

The Definition Problem No One Wants to Talk About

Mergel and her team conducted semi-structured interviews with public managers working on digital projects in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. They asked each person to define digital transformation in their own words. The results were all over the map.

Some officials defined it narrowly: “The digitization of analog processes.” Others defined it broadly: “A fundamental change in the way we interact with citizens.” One respondent said digital transformation was “a permanent process of adaptation to new technological possibilities” (Mergel et al., 2019). Another said it was “the end of paper-based administration.”

The authors found that these definitions fell into three rough categories. The first was about technology: replacing paper with digital files, automating workflows, building online portals. The second was about process: redesigning how work gets done, not just digitizing old workflows. The third was about culture: changing how employees think, how agencies collaborate, how citizens are treated.

Here is the problem. A government agency that defines digital transformation as “scanning forms” will invest in scanners and PDF software. An agency that defines it as “redesigning service delivery” will hire designers and run user research sessions. An agency that defines it as “cultural change” will hire change management consultants and run workshops.

All three agencies will claim they are doing digital transformation. None of them will be wrong, exactly. But they will also not be talking to each other. And when a citizen tries to apply for a permit that requires coordination across all three agencies, the system breaks.

The Three Speed Traps of Government Digital Work

Mergel and her coauthors built a conceptual framework from the interviews that explains why government digital projects stall. The framework has three parts: reasons for transformation, processes of transformation, and expected outcomes. Each part contains a trap.

Reason trap: Efficiency versus experience

The officials cited two main reasons for pursuing digital transformation. The first was internal efficiency: save money, reduce errors, speed up processes. The second was external experience: make it easier for citizens to interact with government (Mergel et al., 2019).

These two goals do not always align. A system optimized for efficiency might require citizens to fill out long forms with rigid fields. A system optimized for experience might allow free text and flexible submissions, which are harder to process automatically. Officials reported tension between these goals, with efficiency usually winning because it was easier to measure.

Process trap: Top down versus bottom up

Some agencies launched digital transformation as a top down mandate from senior leadership. Others let individual offices experiment with small projects. Both approaches failed in predictable ways.

Top down mandates produced compliance without commitment. Employees followed orders but did not believe in the changes. Bottom up experiments produced enthusiasm without scale. A successful pilot in one office could not be replicated elsewhere because nobody had authority to force adoption (Mergel et al., 2019).

Outcome trap: Tangible metrics versus intangible benefits

Officials could easily describe what they wanted from digital transformation: faster processing times, lower costs, fewer errors. But they struggled to articulate the harder to measure benefits: increased trust, better policy outcomes, more equitable access.

When outcomes are hard to measure, they get deprioritized. The authors found that most agencies focused on metrics they could report in quarterly reviews, even when those metrics did not capture the real value of the work (Mergel et al., 2019).

Why Private Sector Playbooks Do Not Work

A common refrain in government digital circles is that agencies should “be more like Amazon” or “learn from Apple.” The Mergel study suggests this advice is naive.

Private companies can define digital transformation in terms of competitive advantage and profit. Government agencies cannot. Their goals are contradictory by design. They must be efficient but also equitable. They must move fast but also be transparent. They must innovate but also follow procurement rules designed to prevent corruption.

One official told the researchers that the biggest barrier to digital transformation was not technology but “the legal framework.” Another said it was “the budget cycle.” A third said it was “the fear of making mistakes in public” (Mergel et al., 2019).

These are not excuses. They are structural constraints. A startup can pivot overnight. A government agency that pivots overnight violates procurement law, alienates stakeholders, and gets investigated by oversight bodies.

The Surprising Role of Supranational Pressure

The interviews revealed an unexpected driver of digital transformation: agreements from organizations like the European Union and the OECD. Several officials said their agencies only started digital projects because of external mandates, not internal motivation (Mergel et al., 2019).

This matters because it changes the incentive structure. When digital transformation is driven by external pressure, the goal becomes compliance, not improvement. Agencies do the minimum required to satisfy the mandate. They do not rethink their fundamental approach.

The authors found that externally driven projects were more likely to focus on narrow technical changes than on broader cultural or process changes. They were also more likely to fail after the mandate expired.

What the Research Does Not Prove

This study has limits. It interviewed 30 officials from three European countries. Those officials were self selected and likely more interested in digital transformation than their peers. The findings may not generalize to other regions or to lower level bureaucrats who actually do the work.

The study also does not prove that any particular approach to digital transformation works better than others. It describes how officials think about the problem. It does not test solutions.

Perhaps most importantly, the study captures a moment in time. Digital transformation is moving fast. The definitions and frameworks from 2019 may already be outdated. The researchers themselves note that the field is evolving and that their framework should be treated as a starting point, not a final answer (Mergel et al., 2019).

What This Actually Means

• ▸Stop pretending digital transformation is one thing. It is at least three things: technology change, process change, and culture change. Each requires different skills, different timelines, and different metrics. Trying to do all three at once with a single strategy is a recipe for failure. Break the work into its components and treat them separately.

• ▸Measure what matters, not what is easy. Most agencies track outputs: forms digitized, workflows automated, cost savings achieved. These metrics are easy to collect but miss the point. Track outcomes instead: time saved for citizens, error rates reduced, satisfaction improved. If you cannot measure the outcome, you do not understand the problem well enough to solve it.

• ▸Build bridges between top down and bottom up. Pure top down mandates create resistance. Pure bottom up experiments never scale. The winning approach combines both: leadership sets direction and removes barriers, while frontline teams design solutions. This is harder to manage but produces better results.

• ▸Expect external mandates to produce compliance, not transformation. If your digital project is driven by a European directive or a federal mandate, plan for the fact that people will do the minimum required. Build in internal motivation by connecting the project to real problems that employees and citizens care about.

• ▸Accept that government digital work will always be harder than private sector work. The constraints are real: legal frameworks, budget cycles, public scrutiny, conflicting goals. Stop comparing yourself to Amazon. Compare yourself to other governments that are solving similar problems and learn from what they actually did, not from what their press releases claimed.