By Ségolène Blondel, Business Analyst at Ivy Partners | February, 2026
In public organisations, Digital Workplace projects are rarely led by a single entity. Depending on the context, they may be driven by the digital services department, by human resources (particularly when linked to remote work and working conditions) or jointly led by several departments.
This plurality of sponsors reflects a structural reality: the Digital Workplace quickly extends beyond a simple tooling project. It cuts across mandates, responsibilities, and operational boundaries. What may start as a digital initiative rapidly becomes an organisational transformation. And that is where governance begins to matter.
Much More Than a Change in Digital Tools
In recent years, picking the best model seemed crucial. There were big differences in performance, so benchmarks were When reduced to its technological components, the Digital Workplace is often described as a set of collaborative tools. In practice, it frequently triggers broader changes: new working methods, evolving collaborative practices, and even the physical reorganisation of office spaces.
Non-assigned workstations, shared equipment, redesigned collaboration areas, or informal meeting zones, these are not marginal adjustments. They profoundly reshape employees’ daily experience of work.
The Digital Workplace therefore operates simultaneously on three dimensions:
- Digital
- Physical
- Human
Ignoring any one of them creates imbalance.
Physical Transformations With Very Concrete Effects
Changes in workspaces are not neutral. They influence how employees relate to their environment: their sense of responsibility toward shared areas, their appropriation of space, and their reflexes when reporting incidents or maintenance needs.
When spaces become shared, or perceived as “nobody’s”, accountability can become diffuse.
The situation becomes even more complex when reference systems for space management (e.g. floor plans, allocations, occupancy data) are not updated at the same pace as physical transformations. The result is not merely administrative inconsistency. It directly impacts maintenance, logistics, and service delivery. What appears as a facilities issue often reveals a governance gap.
A Proliferation of Actors With Distinct Responsibilities
The Digital Workplace simultaneously mobilises multiple stakeholders:
- Digital services (tools, platforms, access rights)
- Infrastructure teams (buildings and facilities)
- Logistics or general services (maintenance and operational support)
- Human resources (guidelines, working models, behavioural frameworks)
In public administrations, these actors often belong to different directorates or departments, each operating under distinct priorities, constraints, and decision-making processes.
Without a clear governance model, coordination depends on informal arrangements rather than structured accountability.
When Responsibilities Overlap
In the absence of an explicit governance framework, responsibilities tend to overlap or remain ambiguous.
- Who is accountable for a malfunction observed in a shared space?
- Who arbitrates between collaborative intent, technical constraints, and physical layout limitations?
- Who ensures that digital, physical, and organisational changes remain aligned over time?
When these questions are not formally addressed, decisions are made case by case. Informal balances replace explicit rules. Explanations become context-specific and difficult to reproduce.
The organisation continues to function, but coherence becomes fragile.
The Digital Workplace as a Governance Indicator
The Digital Workplace is not the cause of these difficulties. It reveals them.
It acts as a stress test for an organisation’s ability to coordinate multiple stakeholders, clarify decision rights, and manage cross-functional interdependencies.
In that sense, it becomes a governance indicator.
This is where the business analyst plays a critical role, not by making decisions on behalf of leadership, but by:
- Making responsibilities visible
- Clarifying interfaces between stakeholders
- Mapping decision rights
- Transforming implicit practices into a shared and durable framework
The objective is not control. It is clarity.
A Lever For Organisational Maturity
In complex public environments, governing the Digital Workplace is not about managing tools. It is about managing a work system that is digital, physical, and human at the same time.
Organisations that derive real value from their Digital Workplace initiatives are often those that recognise this early. They treat it not as a technological modernisation programme, but as an opportunity to strengthen cross-functional governance and organisational maturity.
The Digital Workplace becomes, in that sense, a lever for structural clarification rather than a source of operational friction.
What about you? Is your Digital Workplace governed as a set of tools, or as a true work system? The answer says far more about your governance model than about your technological stack.
About the Author
Ségolène Blondel supports organisations in structuring complex operational topics and strengthening decision-making in regulated and institutional environments.
With nearly 20 years of experience across finance, insurance, and public administration, she operates at the intersection of business needs, regulatory constraints, and organisational change. Her work focuses on decision support for cross-functional issues, process structuring and improvement, and coordination between business teams, support functions, and external stakeholders.
Ségolène brings a strong understanding of governance, compliance, and control frameworks in Swiss and public-sector contexts, combined with a pragmatic and reliable approach that helps organisations translate complexity into clear, actionable outcomes.