Organizational and functional model of digital transformation of regional public authorities

doi:10.26565/1992-2337-2026-1-30

Stanislav Anatolyevich Kolomiiets Education and Research Institute of Public Administration of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, 4 Svobody Sq., Kharkiv, 61022, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3315-9936

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26565/1992-2337-2026-1-30

Keywords: digital transformation, regional development, public authorities, public administration, digital governance, organizational and functional model, digital maturity, public value

Abstract

The article develops an organizational and functional model of the digital transformation of regional public authorities as a tool for activating regional development. It is substantiated that digitalization at the subnational level cannot be reduced to the automation of separate administrative procedures, but is a systemic reconfiguration of the organizational architecture, functions and management processes of regional authorities aimed at creating public value for the territorial community. The essence of the proposed model is revealed, integrating seven interconnected functional blocks: strategic-target, institutional-organizational, infrastructural-technological, service-functional, data-analytical, participatory and competence-personnel. The principles of building the model are defined: strategic alignment of regional digital priorities with national ones, orientation towards the needs of residents and business, interoperability and reuse of data, subsidiarity of decisions, measurability of results and resource efficiency. The institutional core of the model is substantiated – a regional digital transformation office headed by a chief digital transformation officer, which performs the functions of strategizing, coordination and change management. The channels through which the digital transformation of authorities influences regional development are identified and systematized: reduction of transaction costs of governance, increased investment attractiveness of the territory, accessibility of services and retention of human capital, growth of transparency and trust, transition to data-driven planning, support for small and medium-sized enterprises, and strengthening of legitimacy through participation. A roadmap for implementing the model is proposed, covering five stages: diagnostics of digital maturity, strategizing, piloting, scaling and institutionalization, as well as an assessment tool – the regional digital maturity index. The risks and limitations of implementation are revealed: the digital divide between territories, the shortage of human and financial resources of communities, the fragmentation of information systems, the resistance of organizational cultures, and issues of cybersecurity and data protection. Mechanisms for overcoming them are proposed, taking into account the specifics of Ukraine, in particular the potential of the national digital services infrastructure, donor support for recovery and the tasks of post-war reconstruction of regions. Prospects for further research related to the empirical verification of the model and the measurement of its impact on regional development indicators are formulated.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Stanislav Anatolyevich Kolomiiets, Education and Research Institute of Public Administration of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, 4 Svobody Sq., Kharkiv, 61022, Ukraine

PhD Student, Department of Public Policy

References

Andersen, K. V., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2006). E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 236–248.

Barca, F., McCann, P., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2012). The case for regional development intervention: place-based versus place-neutral approaches. Journal of Regional Science, 52(1), 134–152.

Cordella, A., & Bonina, C. M. (2012). A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 512–520.

Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead – long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494.

Foray, D. (2015). Smart specialisation: Opportunities and challenges for regional innovation policy. Abingdon: Routledge.

Gil-Garcia, J. R., Dawes, S. S., & Pardo, T. A. (2018). Digital government and public management research: Finding the crossroads. Public Management Review, 20(5), 633–646.

Gil-Garcia, J. R., Zhang, J., & Puron-Cid, G. (2016). Conceptualizing smartness in govern

/ment: An integrative and multi-dimensional view. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 524–534.

Janowski, T. (2015). Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 221–236.

Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122–136.

Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392–408.

Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385.

OECD. (2019). The Path to Becoming a Data-Driven Public Sector. OECD Digital Government Studies. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2018). The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it). Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(1), 189–209.

Twizeyimana, J. D., & Andersson, A. (2019). The public value of e-government –

A literature review. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 167–178.

Weerakkody, V., Janssen, M., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2011). Transformational change and business process reengineering (BPR): Lessons from the British and Dutch public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 28(3), 320–328.