Why True Public Sector Collaboration Still Eludes Us And What the Data Tells Us About Fixing It

For more than a decade, we’ve talked about “whole‑system working” as if it were a switch we could simply flip. The phrase appears everywhere in White Papers, strategy documents, transformation plans, conference keynotes and ministerial speeches. It has become part of the public sector’s shared vocabulary, a kind of shorthand for ambition, modernisation and joined‑up thinking. We use it confidently, sometimes casually, as though saying the words is the same as building the conditions that make them real.

But when a challenge genuinely cuts across the entire public sector climate resilience, workforce shortages, homelessness, digital inclusion, community safety, long‑term health inequalities we still default to siloed delivery. Not because leaders lack the appetite to collaborate, and not because frontline teams are unwilling to work differently, but because the system itself isn’t designed to let them. The architecture of the state rewards vertical performance, not horizontal problem‑solving. It measures organisations, not outcomes. It funds departments, not missions. It scrutinises individual performance, not collective impact.

So even when leaders want to work as one system, they are pulled back into organisational gravity. Even when teams try to collaborate, they hit the same structural walls: incompatible data, misaligned incentives, fragmented budgets, contradictory performance frameworks, and governance that reinforces autonomy rather than interdependence.

Recent research from the Office for National Statistics, PA Consulting and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority reinforces what many leaders feel instinctively: collaboration keeps failing not at the level of intent, but at the level of structure. The data paints a stark picture of a system that talks about collective action while being engineered for organisational independence. These studies highlight the same recurring pattern shared national missions being pursued through fragmented operational realities. Everyone is rowing hard, but not always in the same direction.

The result is a system that aspires to whole‑system working but is built for something else entirely. And until the architecture changes, the outcomes won’t.

The Collaboration Paradox: Shared Problems, Fragmented Systems

The UK public sector is being asked to deliver on five national missions: economic growth, clean energy, NHS improvement, justice reform and raising education standards. Every one of these missions cuts across organisational boundaries. None can be delivered by a single department, agency or tier of government. They rely on interdependencies between central and local government, between health and housing, between policing and prevention, between education and employment. These missions demand a system that behaves as one, not a collection of parts.

Yet the system we expect to deliver them remains structurally fragmented:

• Departments and agencies hold their own budgets, staff and priorities. Funding flows vertically, reinforcing organisational silos and making it difficult sometimes impossible to pool resources around shared outcomes. Money follows departmental lines, not mission‑level need.

• Data is locked in incompatible systems. Even when partners want to share insight, the technical, legal and cultural barriers make it slow, expensive or practically unworkable. The system cannot see itself clearly, let alone act collectively.

• Accountability flows vertically, not horizontally. Leaders are judged on departmental performance, not system performance. This creates a gravitational pull back to organisational interests, even when everyone agrees the challenge requires a whole‑system response.

• Collaboration is encouraged rhetorically but rarely funded. Teams are asked to “work together” without the time, capacity, incentives or infrastructure to do so meaningfully. Collaboration becomes an unfunded mandate expected, but unsupported.

The result? Even when leaders agree on the problem, they lack the levers to act collectively. Collaboration becomes dependent on goodwill, personal relationships and heroic effort rather than being embedded in the way the system works. And when pressure mounts, organisations retreat to what they control: their own budgets, their own staff, their own statutory responsibilities.

This is not a failure of leadership. It is a failure of architecture. A system designed for organisational autonomy cannot deliver mission‑level outcomes, no matter how committed its people are.

What the Data Shows: Collaboration Fails Because the System Isn’t Built for It

The latest 2025 Data Sharing and Collaboration Report makes something uncomfortably clear: collaboration isn’t failing because leaders lack vision, commitment or ambition. It’s failing because the machinery of government is structurally misaligned with the outcomes it is being asked to deliver. The report exposes a system designed for departmental autonomy trying and struggling to deliver missions that demand collective action. It highlights several systemic blockers that repeatedly undermine attempts to work across organisational boundaries.

1. Data is the biggest barrier and the biggest opportunity

For years, we’ve described data as the “beating heart” of a modern, effective public sector. But the reality on the ground is far more fragile, fragmented and inconsistent.

• The report found widespread inability to share data across departments, even when programmes explicitly depend on it.

• Several major cross‑government initiatives received Red delivery confidence ratings because they could not unlock the data required to operate collectively.

• The Integrated Data Programme once positioned as the backbone of cross‑government insight saw its budget reduced from £525m to £284.6m, signalling stalled progress, shifting priorities and deep structural uncertainty.

This isn’t just a technical issue. It’s a strategic one. Without shared data, there is no shared understanding. Without shared understanding, there is no shared action.

Data is both the system’s greatest constraint and its greatest unrealised asset.

2. Collaboration is undermined by siloed incentives

The research reinforces what public sector leaders experience daily: the system rewards organisations for looking inward, not outward. Collaboration is encouraged rhetorically but discouraged structurally.

• Budgets remain ring‑fenced, making it difficult to pool resources around shared outcomes.

• Staff are tied to departmental priorities, meaning collaboration often relies on goodwill rather than mandate.

• No one is formally accountable for cross‑government outcomes, so collaboration becomes optional and optional work always loses to statutory work.

In other words, the incentives point in the opposite direction of the ambition. Leaders are asked to deliver system‑level outcomes while being measured on organisational performance.

3. Fragmented infrastructure makes joint working slow and expensive

Even when partners want to collaborate, the infrastructure often makes it painfully difficult. The system is held together by workarounds, not by design. Legacy systems, inconsistent data standards, incompatible platforms and unclear governance structures mean that even basic interoperability becomes a heroic effort. Teams spend more time negotiating access, permissions and technical fixes than actually delivering outcomes. This fragmentation doesn’t just slow progress it increases cost, risk and duplication. It also reinforces the perception that collaboration is “too hard”, further entrenching siloed delivery and exhausting the very people trying to work differently.

Why This Matters Now

The public sector is being asked to do more with less, while tackling problems that no single organisation can solve. The data shows that without structural collaboration, we will continue to:

• duplicate effort

• waste resources

• miss opportunities for prevention

• deliver slower, less effective services

And ultimately, we will fall short of the ambitions set for the country.

The stakes are high. The challenges are shared. But unless the system evolves, collaboration will remain a rhetorical aspiration rather than a practical reality.

So How Do We Come Together Properly?

The research points to several practical, system‑level shifts that could finally unlock genuine collaboration. These aren’t tweaks, efficiency measures or “better partnership working”. They are structural changes the kind that reshape how the public sector works, decides and delivers. If we want collaboration to be more than a slogan, these are the levers that matter.

1. Treat data as a national asset, not a departmental possession

The report is unequivocal: data must be reimagined as a national good. At present, data is treated as something organisations own rather than something the system needs. This mindset creates barriers, delays and duplication and it prevents the public sector from seeing the full picture.

A collaborative system requires:

• shared data infrastructure A backbone that allows information to move securely and consistently across organisational boundaries.

• common standards So data is collected, stored and interpreted in ways that make it usable across the system.

• interoperable platforms Systems that talk to each other without endless workarounds, bespoke integrations or manual fixes.

• clear governance Rules that enable responsible sharing rather than defaulting to risk‑averse restriction.

• a cultural shift from “my data” to “our insight” A mindset that recognises data as a shared asset that improves outcomes when used collectively.

When data flows across the system, collaboration becomes faster, cheaper and more accurate. When it doesn’t, everything slows down decision‑making, prevention, innovation, and ultimately outcomes.

2. Fund collaboration explicitly

If collaboration is not funded, it will not happen. The research is blunt on this point: collaboration cannot be delivered through goodwill alone. It needs time, capacity, technology, programme management and shared capability all of which cost money.

Budgets must include:

• cross‑government allocations Funding that recognises missions, not departments.

• pooled funding pots Resources that can be deployed flexibly around shared priorities.

• investment in shared capability Data teams, programme offices, digital infrastructure, analytical capacity the things no single organisation can build alone.

• resources for joint delivery teams The people who actually make collaboration real on the ground.

Without financial backing, collaboration remains a voluntary activity squeezed between statutory pressures something people do “on top of the day job”, rather than the way the system actually works.

3. Create Joint Accountability

If collaboration is going to move from aspiration to reality, accountability has to move with it. Right now, accountability flows vertically: ministers, permanent secretaries, chief executives and directors are judged on the performance of their organisation, not the performance of the system. This creates a gravitational pull back to organisational priorities, even when everyone agrees the mission requires collective action.

Leaders need shared KPIs, shared risks and shared rewards. Without them, collaboration remains optional something people do when they have time, capacity or goodwill. To collaborate properly, the system needs:

• cross‑cutting outcome frameworks Shared goals that span departments and reflect the complexity of real‑world challenges.

• joint performance measures Metrics that assess how well the system works together, not just how individual organisations perform.

• shared risk registers A collective understanding of what could go wrong and a shared responsibility to manage it.

• collective reporting Transparent, system‑level reporting that reinforces shared accountability and reduces the temptation to retreat into silos.

When accountability is shared, collaboration becomes a necessity, not a favour. It becomes the only credible way to deliver the outcomes the public expects.

4. Build Cross‑Departmental Teams

Real collaboration requires more than secondments, working groups or advisory boards. Those structures can support coordination, but they rarely deliver transformation. What’s needed is something far more substantial: permanent, multi‑disciplinary teams with pooled resources, shared leadership and a mandate to deliver outcomes that sit between organisations.

These teams are the operational engine of collaboration. They turn strategy into delivery. They dissolve boundaries by working across them every day. These teams:

• blend skills from multiple departments Policy, operations, data, digital, finance, commissioning, community insight all working as one.

• work to shared objectives Not departmental targets, but system‑level outcomes that require joint effort.

• operate on shared budgets Funding that reflects the mission, not the organisational chart.

• build trust through delivery, not discussion Trust grows when teams solve problems together, not when they sit in meetings talking about collaboration.

This is how you turn collaboration from an event into a capability from something the system talks about to something the system does.

5. Strengthen the Centre’s Convening Power

The centre of government has a critical role not to control, but to enable. A collaborative system doesn’t need a command‑and‑control centre; it needs a stewarding centre. One that creates the conditions for alignment, coherence and collective action. A collaborative system needs a centre that can:

• set standards Clear, consistent expectations for data, governance, outcomes and delivery the foundations that allow the system to operate as one.

• enforce interoperability Ensuring systems, platforms and processes can connect without endless workarounds. Interoperability becomes a requirement, not an aspiration.

• provide shared platforms Digital infrastructure, data environments, analytics tools and collaboration spaces that reduce duplication and increase capability across the system.

• convene partners Bringing the right people together at the right time to align priorities, unblock issues and shape shared solutions. Convening becomes a strategic function, not an administrative one.

• remove barriers Using authority, visibility and reach to resolve legal, financial, technical or cultural obstacles that sit between organisations.

• hold departments to account for collaboration Not just for what they deliver individually, but for how they contribute to system‑level outcomes.

When the centre is strong, consistent and enabling, the system can move together. When it is fragmented or passive, departments drift back into silos not out of resistance, but because the system’s gravity pulls them there.

The Real Question

The data is clear: collaboration isn’t failing because leaders don’t want it. It’s failing because the system is designed for departmental autonomy, not collective action. We have built a structure that talks about shared missions but operates through isolated parts. So the real question becomes:

Because without structural change, we will continue to ask the public sector to solve shared problems with fragmented tools and we will continue to be surprised when the results fall short of the ambition. This isn’t a question of desire. It’s a question of design. And design is something we can change.