Rescuing a Municipal Digital Permit Platform
The City of Larsson is a municipal authority with 4,000 employees that issues construction, event, and business permits. It is deploying a €9 million digital permit platform to replace paper forms across 12 districts. The vendor is ten weeks late, and only 22% of staff have completed training. In a pilot in one district, 340 permits were processed, but 31% contained data errors and average processing time rose from 14 to 19 days. Middle managers continue to route paper in parallel 'to be safe'. The union has raised concerns about role reductions and monitoring. Citizen complaints about unclear status updates increased by 18%. The programme board must decide whether to extend the pilot, pause, or roll out to three more districts next quarter. The mayor has publicly promised a go-live before the next election, 11 months away.
1. Diagnose the implementation problems at Larsson using an operating-model and change-readiness lens, distinguishing technical, process, and people causes.
Read the worked answer
The symptoms point to a failed operating-model transition rather than a single technical defect. The 31% data errors suggest that permit rules, validation, and data definitions were not standardized before configuration, so staff are entering inconsistent data or working around the system. The rise in processing time from 14 to 19 days is consistent with duplex work: paper and digital run in parallel, and reconciliation adds effort. The 22% training completion rate and middle-manager workarounds indicate low change readiness and unclear accountability; managers are protecting service continuity because they do not trust the new process. Union concerns about monitoring and role reduction are unresolved, which suppresses adoption. The vendor delay is real but secondary. A proper diagnosis should separate configuration defects, process gaps, capability gaps, and incentive gaps. If the board treats this as a vendor problem only, it will extend the pilot without fixing the parallel process, and the same errors will scale to three districts.
2. Propose a change-management and operating-model intervention plan for the next quarter, including how to address union concerns and middle-manager resistance.
Read the worked answer
The plan should make the new process the primary route and remove the safety net deliberately. First, freeze configuration changes for four weeks and run a joint process review with permit officers to standardize the top ten permit types, data fields, and validation rules; this addresses the error root cause. Second, publish a role-impact statement and open a formal consultation with the union covering monitoring rules, redeployment, and training rights; ambiguity is driving resistance. Third, convert middle managers from gatekeepers to process owners by giving them district-level performance data and a mandate to stop parallel paper after a defined cutover date, supported by a rapid-response team. Fourth, train by role and transaction, not by system module, and certify competence before cutover. Fifth, introduce a citizen status-update standard and measure it weekly. The mayor's election deadline should be reframed as a service milestone, not a technology go-live, because a premature rollout would damage public trust.
3. Recommend whether to extend the pilot, pause, or roll out to three more districts, with explicit decision criteria and risk mitigations.
Read the worked answer
The recommendation should be to extend the pilot in the current district for one quarter and not roll out to three districts yet. A pause would lose learning momentum and delay the service fix; a rollout would scale unresolved data and process defects. The extension should have exit criteria: data error rate below 5% for two consecutive weeks; average processing time at or below 14 days; at least 80% of active permit officers certified; parallel paper eliminated for the top five permit types; and citizen status complaints reduced. Governance should include a weekly programme board with the vendor, the district manager, and the union observer. Risks to mitigate include vendor dependency, election-related pressure, and loss of staff confidence. If the exit criteria are met, a phased rollout to one additional district is justified; if not, the board should consider renegotiating scope or replacing the vendor. The mayor should be briefed on the evidence-based decision and the service commitment.