The three steps to digital transformation: Provide support, remove obstacles and focus on impact rather than achievements

The global mission of digital transformation is as close as possible to the Theseus paradox that begs the following question: If we change all parts of a ship, Will it remain the same when it reaches its destination? In other words, If the end result of the digital government is another government will we be able to recognize it? We are all going through the most difficult phase of this transition to learn about the structure and nature of government in the future.

Traditionally, all digital government offices start with the standards of the digital services provided. These standards represent new principles to improve the mechanisms of government in the digital age and are of great importance because they constitute the message of change within the region. They are also the criteria by which all the activities you carry out will be measured. Mostly, These standards are accompanied by a methodology of virtual change that disrupts most transformation initiatives in the government sector. The methodology consists of three steps:

First step - Issuing an executive memorandum from senior management to officially announce the initiative.

Step two – organize roadshows led by an executive with his team, develop flowery publications and an expensive pilot project outside of all regulatory constraints.

Step Three - After a month, Requesting the various departments of the entity to fill out a follow-up form to know their compliance with the aforementioned initiative.

Herein lies the challenge, Every newly established digital entity, whether established as a body or unit inside or outside the government administration, tends to devalue government and bureaucracy in a clear way and present itself as the "savior of the government."

Bureaucracy is a feature of the government system and not a mistake in its composition

If we are looking for digital transformation to have an impact beyond being a private and temporary project, Teams working in the field of technology need to gain a clear understanding of the impression of digital transformation planners about the task at hand. If there is a discrepancy between the mission the Panel believes it is performing and the expectations of others, We will only have a lengthy and slow matter ahead of us. I don't mean that consensus between the two parties is impossible, Rather, the point is that a clear understanding and a high appreciation of the complexity and complexity of the entity you want to change is needed. This entails employing people who understand the nature of government, the difference between laws, inherited knowledge and the nuances inherent in the decision-making process. Therefore, we must conduct a sincere dialogue on governance at the highest levels, taking into account the following three dimensions:

Leadership: Is it really enough to appoint the head of digital affairs, allocate his own office, and assign him specific tasks?

Finance: What is the most appropriate way to invest in technology? How do we continue to achieve policy objectives without opening the door to new risks?

Orientation and expectations: To what degree should digital government services be of a directive nature? What tools are needed to manage and prepare policies?

Capacity building: How do we support government entities in implementing standards?

Interventions: How can we ensure that government entities and suppliers meet the minimum expectations required of them?

Measurement and evaluation: How do we evaluate services impartially? How do we measure digital transformation?

Reporting and reporting: How can reporting and reporting influence future actions and decisions?

Let's think about it another way at the level of reform that involves the entire region.

Institutional support activities are continuum

Most people assume that corporate support activities are training practices that are limited to sharing a standardized presentation with everyone involved or CEOs talking about "new ways" of working.

Whether training is about introducing a new thinking style, additional knowledge or skills, it should fall under a wider range of incentives to act differently. These incentives include:

1. Self-help tools and resources
2. Forming networks of experts
3. Learning and developing general and practical skills
4. Develop a competency management strategy and career paths
5. Reconsider the compatibility of government services with the purpose required of them.

Institutional obstacles may be removed, but only in crisis

There are many types and forms of institutional obstacles, but the most obvious and criticized is the way employees work (through isolated teams working in a hierarchical order under a narrower management level). In addition to the rules and tools that were developed before the age of the Internet and exceeded its basic purpose. Sometimes, Government employees have limited incentives to reconsider these systems, forcing digital entities to create parallel structures outside of existing government departments or come up with smart ways (or tricks) to fill gaps in existing structures.

Most government employees have two opportunities to remove institutional obstacles: either starting with new government responsibilities or with an urgent government priority in times of crisis. Government technical teams must record these obstacles so that they can all be dealt with at the right moment and prioritize them according to their impact.

Talk about impact, not just achievements

Digital offices within governments usually work openly so that others can complement their successes and understand how difficult the experience they have been. But it's easy for them to focus exclusively on the achievements of a technical team. which are of great importance and should not be overlooked, It is not about the impact that this group has made.

However, the impact of the Panel is equally important, if not greater, than its achievements. They are about changes that make a difference in people's lives. Questions such as, Has it become less difficult to apply for a program? Has our confused view of the government faded slightly and its decision-making processes become less ambiguous to us? The answers to these questions are more important than the culture adopted by the technical team, which often does not reflect the reality that government employees live on a daily basis. When talking about workplace culture or impact, It is also important to tell the story from a different point of view or from the impression of a person who has touched a change for the better in their daily life. - Honey Dakanay