Digital Transformation of Local Authorities

Is there a standardized model for ensuring the digital transformation of a region?

To date, there is no modelable process. Digital transformation in local authorities is based on trends rather than models. The reason is simple: the corporate cultures of cities, their size, their digital maturity, and their institutional governance logics vary significantly from one region to another.

In terms of trends and corrective measures, we could emphasize two elements:

• First, the under-equipment of local authorities in digital project engineering often hinders the development of digital transformation projects. Many IT departments remain limited to technical network operations and maintenance functions.

• The undersizing of the "studies," "technology monitoring," and even "monitoring of project management assistance missions" components is hampering the transformations that could be required today, whether in terms of the digitization of administrative procedures or the modernization of urban networks.

Redesign of information systems

Local authorities still experience significant fragmentation in their tools: most of the software used today does not communicate with each other and does not provide an aggregated view of the city's major management functions. This situation also slows down the level of digital acculturation of officials and limits the perception of decision-makers. It is important for cities to refocus on this capacity, if only to maintain a high level of sovereignty and autonomy to prepare for future transformations.

Analyzing the local authority's IT project engineering capabilities and recruiting a high-level digital project manager capable of developing or assembling projects could be the first step in evolving its services.

Next, better structuring the local authority's information system around the production of relevant data; the development of business intelligence systems could be a second priority, providing decision-makers with greater visibility.

Data Governance
Data is becoming a strategic management tool for assessing the level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction of public service users, identifying internal dysfunctions, or simply optimizing spending.

Today, the fragmentation of tools prevents information from being shared, which often leads to malfunctions requiring duplicate and recopy information to cross-reference it with other data.

What is the volume of complaints about the community, how are they handled, and how quickly? What are the main areas of citizen dissatisfaction? Are there seasonal differences in this area? How can the paid parking policy be adapted to revitalize the city center without losing too much revenue?

Elected officials and administrations are asking themselves many questions, but often lack the capacity to answer them quickly and cost-effectively. It is becoming necessary to prioritize, audit, and analyze in order to precisely reorganize the community's information systems and use them to achieve a better vision.

The initiation of a virtuous process can involve the implementation of an open-data platform that will benefit citizens as well as internal agents, provided that automated production processes are implemented—the only possible way to industrialize the approach.

Examples of major structuring projects could be cited, but these remain the preserve of large cities such as Dijon and Angers for the digital transformation of urban services, or Lyon for user relationship management, but they would not be transposable to most local contexts.