Written by: Zsolt Czimbalmos, PMP, PBA, ACP, DASSM
Agility in the Public Sector – Naive Utopia or a Missed Opportunity?
Every change of government begins with the same promise: this time, the state will finally become more efficient. New ministries, new priorities, and new slogans emerge — yet all too often, what follows is the same sluggish machinery, administrative procedures dragging on for months, and the same rigid bureaucracy carved in stone.
Naturally, our intention is neither to prejudge current initiatives nor to question the willingness to change. Quite the opposite: we approach every effort aimed at creating a more efficient and adaptable public administration with optimism. The real question, however, is whether a fundamentally hierarchical and heavily regulated system is truly capable of flexibility and rapid learning — or whether the very concept of an “agile state” is inherently contradictory.
This article explores whether agile ways of working can realistically have a place in the public sector, or whether agility in this context remains little more than a fashionable slogan. Using the education sector as an example, it demonstrates the risks associated with large-scale reforms introduced all at once, and how lessons learned from the private sector may help reduce these risks through iterative approaches.
The Burden of Continuous Change in a Regulated Environment
New political initiatives bring not only personnel changes, but operational transformations as well. In such periods, new ministerial structures, new priorities, and new organisational cultures often emerge. The objective is frequently not merely the renaming or restructuring of institutions, but the creation of a more efficient and more responsive public administration.
In such an environment, a critical question arises: how can the public sector operate effectively amid continuously changing social, economic, and technological conditions?
In recent years, a growing number of global challenges have required organisations to adapt more rapidly, including:
- digitisation,
- labour market shifts,
- Artificial intelligence and automation,
- economic uncertainty,
- energy market and geopolitical pressures,
- as well as rapidly changing societal expectations.
In this kind of environment, traditional operating models built around long planning cycles are becoming increasingly incapable of providing adequate responses. This represents a major challenge not only for the private sector, but for the public sector as well.
It is precisely in this context that the question of agility arises more and more frequently. But does agility truly have a place in the public sector? Is a more adaptive, faster-learning operating model even possible within a heavily regulated and fundamentally hierarchical system — or does agility in this context remain little more than a fashionable buzzword?
Can the State Learn — or Does It Simply Not Want To?
The way the public sector operates differs fundamentally from the private sector. A ministry or public institution does not function purely according to economic logic, but within a complex system of legal, social, and political considerations.
Decisions are often made with the involvement of multiple stakeholders, including:
- policy leaders,
- legal departments,
- background institutions and agencies,
- governing bodies,
- professional organisations,
- suppliers,
- and ideally, various groups within society itself.
This is further compounded by high levels of regulation, strong administrative control, and the accountability requirements associated with the use of public funds. Unsurprisingly, all of this results in slower and more cautious operations.
One of the public sector’s greatest challenges is its extremely low tolerance for failure.
In the private sector, an unsuccessful pilot programme or failed product development initiative may be considered a natural part of the learning process. In contrast, within a public system, a flawed decision often triggers immediate political or societal criticism. As a consequence, organisations frequently become excessively cautious, leading to:
- lengthy preparation cycles,
- overplanning,
- excessive documentation,
- cumbersome and centralised decision-making mechanisms,
- and slow response times.
At the same time, today’s environment increasingly rewards the ability to learn quickly and adapt continuously.
The core problem in the public sector is often not a lack of competence, but rather the system’s limited ability to adjust its operations rapidly based on feedback and real-world experience.
Scrum meetings and post-it walls – is this really what agility means in the public sector?
I still remember, with a smile, a professional event I attended around seven years ago, where I had the opportunity to participate in a roundtable discussion. When the question arose about what kind of approach should be applied to projects and development initiatives, the non-market participants all gave the same answer: anything but agile. The discussion quickly became quite lively. Personally, I argued in favour of tailoring operating models to the actual environment and context. Yet it became obvious that, in that moment, we all meant very different things by “agile”. Most participants formed their opinions based on misconceptions, partial information, or previous negative experiences.
This example illustrates well that when the word “agility” comes up, many people still think exclusively about IT development, Scrum meetings, or colourful post-it walls. In reality, this interpretation no longer holds true even in the private sector — and in the public sector, the meaning of agility can be far broader still.
Contrary to popular belief, agility does not mean the absence of rules. That would simply lead to chaos, loss of control, and constant improvisation. In our interpretation, agility is much more about an organisation’s ability to:
- learn faster,
- operate in shorter feedback cycles,
- identify problems earlier,
- become more citizen- and customer-centric,
- deliver value more rapidly, even through incremental results,
- and adapt in smaller, controlled steps.
In a ministerial or public administration environment, this could mean:
- launching pilot programmes instead of immediate nationwide rollouts,
- collecting regular stakeholder feedback,
- making more data-driven decisions,
- creating cross-functional expert teams,
- or even conducting quarterly strategic reviews.
Ultimately, the key question is this: can the organisation learn and adapt more quickly within a complex environment?
By the Time a Reform Reaches the Classroom, Nobody Remembers Why It Started
Education provides an excellent example of why adaptive ways of working can be valuable in the public sector.
Educational systems are extremely complex, shaped by:
- differing local needs,
- varying institutional conditions,
- teacher shortage,
- digitalisation challenges,
- generational differences,
- and rapidly changing labour market expectations.
In such an environment, operating solely through centrally designed reforms with long preparation cycles can become particularly risky.
Imagine, for example, a nationwide digital education reform. In the traditional model, after defining the initial objectives, the process often unfolds as follows:
- a lengthy preparation phase lasting several years,
- centralised concept development,
- years of implementation and development,
- nationwide rollout,
- followed by delayed feedback.
The problem is that by the time meaningful feedback reaches the system, the environment itself may already have changed:
- new technologies emerge,
- user expectations evolve,
- new problems appear,
- or users simply do not interact with the system in the way it was originally designed.
A more agile approach, by contrast, could be far more incremental:
- pilot programmes launched first in selected institutions or regions,
- short measurement and feedback cycles,
- regular input from teachers and students,
- continuous adjustments,
- followed by gradual scaling based on lessons learned.
This approach would not only accelerate learning, but could also significantly reduce the risks associated with large-scale reforms.
As a father of two, I regularly experience similar issues firsthand through the quality of school meal services. Although occasional inspections do take place, the combination of long-term supplier contracts and centrally defined expectations has created a situation where parents have been fighting for change through civil initiatives for the past four years. Children refuse to eat overly sweet vegetable stews, and because of long school days, many of them end up eating almost nothing until dinner. A supplier may call a basic rice-and-meat dish “risotto”, but without involving children and parents in menu design, without continuous satisfaction measurement, and without the ability to adapt quickly, the system is unlikely to produce meaningful results.
In complex systems, it is often far more dangerous to discover too late that a nationwide change was built on flawed assumptions than to have a pilot programme fail early.
What Agile Operating Elements Could Appear in the Public Sector?
In the public sector, agility would most likely not mean the mechanical introduction of a complete framework. Instead, it would more realistically involve smaller, gradual operational changes that improve collaboration, transparency, and responsiveness.
Cross-functional expert teams
One of the most common problems in ministerial environments is organisational siloing. A single reform initiative may simultaneously affect:
- policy,
- legal,
- financial,
- digital,
- HR,
- and communications functions.
In traditional operating models, these areas often become involved sequentially, significantly slowing down decision-making and increasing the risk of information loss.
In a cross-functional working group, however, these competencies collaborate from the very beginning. This can not only accelerate operations, but also reduce the need for later redesign and rework.
Prioritisation
Another common challenge in the public sector is the overwhelming number of parallel initiatives. Many organisations attempt to simultaneously:
- manage regulatory changes,
- launch digitalisation projects,
- produce reports,
- respond to political priorities,
- while also maintaining day-to-day operations.
A visual prioritisation system could help make the following far more transparent:
- what the organisation is currently working on,
- where bottlenecks exist,
- which tasks are stalled,
- and where the system is overloaded.
This can be particularly valuable at leadership level.
Shorter OKR-Based Strategic Cycles and Incentive Alignment
Traditionally, the public sector operates through long planning cycles. In a rapidly changing environment, however, it can become problematic when strategies are only meaningfully reviewed once a year.
A more agile operating model could include:
- quarterly strategic reviews,
- identification and continuous measurement of key results,
- shorter prioritisation cycles,
- faster replanning,
- and regular performance evaluations.
This is primarily about continuously refining long-term strategy rather than replacing it entirely.
At the same time, it is worth considering what might happen if the compensation or bonus structures of senior leaders were partially linked to measurable outcomes, tangible value delivered to citizens, and more transparent performance-based incentive systems.
Pilot programmes and iterative rollouts
In the public sector, many initiatives are introduced simultaneously on a nationwide scale. This can create extremely high levels of risk.
In a more agile approach, a reform would:
- begin as a smaller pilot initiative,
- measure outcomes continuously,
- collect feedback,
- adjust operations accordingly,
- and then scale gradually based on the lessons learned.
This can be particularly valuable in the case of:
- digital services,
- public sector reforms,
- citizen experience improvements,
- or AI-driven initiatives.
Stakeholder engagement, continuous feedback, and customer centricity
One of the greatest challenges in the public sector is that decision-making often becomes disconnected from the actual users of public services. In many cases, public institutions do not truly view citizens as customers or end users. Similar problems can also be observed in the private sector, for example within internal shared service organisations of large corporate groups.
One of the most important mindset shifts within agile organisations can be observed precisely in this area: operations are designed around value delivery and the maximisation of user needs and expectations. Naturally, this requires a much closer relationship with users. Organisations must understand expectations, needs, and even how different stakeholder groups define value itself.
In highly heterogeneous user environments, persona-based segmentation and needs management can provide an effective solution — supported by continuous feedback mechanisms.
This may include:
- surveys,
- targeted workshops,
- focus group sessions,
- pilot evaluations,
- or continuous measurement and monitoring systems.
Retrospective and organisational learning
A conscious culture of organisational learning appears less frequently in the public sector, despite the fact that after a major project or reform, it is critically important to review:
- what worked well,
- what caused problems,
- which decisions proved ineffective,
- and what should be changed moving forward.
Over time, this mindset can significantly improve the adaptability of public institutions. It is important that this kind of self-reflection exists at multiple organisational levels, including both operational execution and strategic planning.
The Greatest Enemies of Agile Operations Are Not Bureaucrats — but the System Itself
The greatest obstacle to agile ways of working is often rooted in organisational culture.
Within the public sector, it is common to encounter:
- strong hierarchies,
- slow decision-making processes,
- siloed organisational structures,
- and a deep fear of failure.
In many cases, these characteristics exist to support stability and accountability. However, in a rapidly changing environment, they can easily lead to excessive rigidity.
Additional challenges may include:
- short political cycles,
- constantly shifting priorities,
- limited resources,
- and the need for public institutions to be both stable and flexible at the same time — a balance that can be extraordinarily difficult to achieve.
At the same time, these challenges are not unique to the public sector. Large multinational corporations have faced very similar struggles in recent years, with some succeeding and others failing in their attempts to transform organisational culture. Based on successful transformations I have observed — and in some cases personally experienced — several recurring patterns emerge:
- Clear values and communication – Organisations need clearly defined goals and shared definitions of value that are understood and embraced by employees at every level. Continuous communication and visible leadership commitment are essential for strengthening motivation and long-term engagement with change.
- Leaders must change as well - Strong direction and leadership remain important, but involving experts and employees in decision-making — while reducing micromanagement — is equally critical.
- The importance of developing individual skills and competencies - Changes in organisational behaviour ultimately happen through everyday interactions. However, when someone has worked within the same system for twenty years, certain capabilities may enter a kind of “dormant state,” weakening both the willingness and the ability to adapt.
- The importance of radical transparency - Organisations must be willing to speak openly not only about successes, but also about failures. No meaningful transformation is ever completely failure-free. The key lies in recognising problems early, learning from them, and using those lessons to move closer to strategic objectives.
The State Will Never Be a Startup — But Is That Really an Excuse?
The public sector will most likely never become “fully agile,” because a government institution will always operate according to fundamentally different principles than a technology company.
The real question, however, is whether the organisation is capable of:
- learning faster,
- reacting sooner,
- delivering continuous value instead of relying solely on project-based initiatives,
- implementing change with lower levels of risk,
- and involving stakeholders more effectively in its operations.
Today, one of the greatest challenges of modern public administration is not only maintaining stability, but also developing the ability to adapt. In this context, agile thinking — when properly interpreted and adapted to the realities of the public sector — may represent far more opportunity than risk.
The current shifts in the domestic environment create a rare opportunity not only for the emergence of new organisational structures, but also for the emergence of new ways of thinking and operating.
Do you have any questions? Get in touch with us.
If you feel your organisation could benefit from support, request a free consultation HERE, explore our training programmes or gain insight into the agile maturity of your team, or your organisational agile maturity!
