The National Audit Office's latest report on English devolution raises a question that extends well beyond Mayoral Strategic Authorities and Integrated Settlements. It's a question every council investing in digital transformation should be asking.
Ask your transformation director one question this week.
Not "Is the platform live?"
Ask:
"What measurable difference has it made for residents since go-live?"
Then notice how quickly the answer comes.
If it's immediate, you're ahead of the curve. If it takes a pause, a follow-up meeting or a promise to "pull something together", you've identified one of the biggest challenges facing digital transformation in local government: proving impact, not just delivery.
On 1 July, the National Audit Office published its review of English devolution funding and accountability. On the surface, it's a report about Mayoral Strategic Authorities, Integrated Settlements and combined authority governance. But one of its underlying themes will resonate with digital leaders across local government.
The NAO notes that the reporting burden on authorities to demonstrate what devolved funding has achieved is greater than originally envisaged. It also observes that the framework for addressing underperformance "has not yet been tested."
In other words, greater local freedom has arrived alongside increasing expectations for demonstrating outcomes and accountability.
That isn't just a devolution challenge. It's increasingly becoming the reality for digital transformation programmes across every tier of local government.
Whether you're a combined authority, county, unitary, borough or district council, every digital or AI business case makes the same promise: invest in change and we'll deliver measurable improvements. The challenge is that many organisations are still developing the governance, data and benefits management needed to evidence those improvements consistently.
The conversation has shifted.
For years, many transformation programmes have been judged primarily by successful implementation: systems delivered, projects completed, users migrated and milestones achieved. Those things remain important—but increasingly they're viewed as the starting point rather than the destination.
Senior leaders, finance directors and scrutiny committees are now asking a different question:
What has this investment actually delivered?
Has demand reduced?
Has productivity improved?
Has income increased?
Have residents had a better experience?
Can we demonstrate value for money?
These are outcome questions rather than implementation questions, and they require a different approach to both business case development and programme governance.
This shift isn't unique to local government. Across both the public and private sectors, organisations are placing greater emphasis on outcome-led transformation: starting with the change they want to achieve, selecting technology that enables it, and measuring success through tangible improvements rather than delivery milestones alone.
At TVI, we've long argued that successful transformation should ultimately be judged by outcomes rather than technology implementation. Not because platforms aren't important—they absolutely are—but because technology only creates value when it changes services, improves experiences and delivers measurable benefits.
One framework we've found particularly useful is to test every programme through three complementary lenses.
The Three-Lens Test
Outcomes
Has the investment changed what actually happens for residents, staff or services? Are the intended benefits measurable?
Experience
Is the service genuinely easier, quicker or more intuitive for residents and employees?
Efficiency
Has cost, effort or duplication reduced? Can the financial or productivity benefits be evidenced?
Many business cases answer one of these well.
Fewer can demonstrate all three with confidence.
The difference is often whether benefits were designed into the programme from the outset or retrospectively assembled once implementation had finished.
The councils we've worked alongside increasingly define success before procurement begins by agreeing the key outcome measures the programme must improve. That changes the conversation completely.
"Done" stops meaning a system has gone live.
It starts meaning a measurable outcome has improved.
That distinction becomes increasingly important when programme performance is scrutinised by elected members, audit committees or Section 151 Officers.
None of this diminishes the role of major platform vendors or systems integrators. Large, enterprise-scale transformation programmes remain essential in many authorities and those organisations deliver significant capability.
But many councils today face a different challenge.
They're not asking which technology to buy.
They're asking how to demonstrate that existing investment is delivering value, and how to prioritise future investment with confidence.
As councils prepare for Local Government Reorganisation, increased devolution and tighter financial pressures, those questions become even more significant. New organisations will inherit extensive digital estates, ongoing transformation programmes and competing investment priorities. Being able to evidence outcomes consistently across that portfolio will be critical.
A useful self-assessment is surprisingly simple.
Ask yourself three questions.
• Can you clearly name the three most important outcomes your current digital programme is intended to improve?
• Could you produce evidence of progress today without needing several follow-up meetings?
• If challenged by auditors or scrutiny members, could you explain how underperformance would be identified and addressed?
If those questions are difficult to answer today, you're certainly not alone. Many authorities are still developing the governance and measurement needed to evidence transformation outcomes consistently.
The NAO report isn't a criticism of digital transformation. If anything, it's a reminder that the next stage of maturity isn't implementing technology—it's demonstrating the value that technology delivers.
As expectations around accountability continue to grow, the authorities that can evidence outcomes confidently will be best placed to secure investment, build trust and demonstrate that digital transformation is improving services for the people who rely on them.
