Skip to main content
Meytal Dahan
Back to insights

Running a Government Project: Navigating Between Ministries, Committees, and Public-Sector IT Teams

Project managers leading a digital project in the public sector face a level of managerial complexity that simply doesn't exist in the private sector. Instead of a handful of stakeholders within a single organization, you have to work with different ministries, inter-ministerial committees, public-sector IT teams with their own working protocols, and sometimes the government's central digital agency, which sets cross-cutting standards. On the government project, the project-management strategy was built around a "stakeholder map" that we drew up at the very start. We identified everyone who needed to approve, to be consulted, or to be kept informed - and we built a structured communication process for each of them. The budget team gets a different update than the information-security team; an inter-ministerial committee gets a different presentation than the internal development team. We also adapted the pace to the public-sector pace. In the private sector, a decision can be made in 24 hours. In the public sector, that same decision might require two weeks of meetings. Instead of fighting that pace, we planned the project around it - with more flexible milestones and built-in buffer time. For project managers working with the public sector, the insight is this: adapt your methodology to public-sector reality. Forcing an "agile startup" methodology onto a government ministry won't work. Flexibility in pace, and structured communication with every stakeholder, are the key to success.

Get in touch

Have a project in mind?

Drop a line. Meytalyav@gmail.com

Related articles

Government & Public Sector
FoundersFrom MVP to Full Version

Why GovTech MVPs Don't Look Like Startup MVPs

Founders are taught to ship the scrappiest MVP and iterate in public. In govtech, that instinct can sink you. A citizen service that looks like a beta — or breaks for a screen reader user — loses trust you may never win back. So I redefine 'minimum': not a thin slice of everything, but one complete, accessible, end-to-end path a real person can finish with dignity. Narrow the use cases brutally. Never narrow the quality. Then grow in concentric circles — keep the simple core intact, layer depth around it. Your launch version should be something you'd defend in a public hearing. That's the bar.

Read
Government & Public Sector
CEOsPersonalization & Tailored Models

Personalization That Survives Public Scrutiny

When CEOs hear 'personalization' they picture a consumer feed that learns you. In a public service, that's a liability — citizens didn't opt into being profiled, and any hint of differential treatment invites fairness questions you don't want to answer in public. So I reframe it as relevance, not prediction. Not a model guessing what you want — a service showing each person only what actually applies to them, driven by their situation, not surveillance. A parent sees the parent path. Someone who already applied sees status, not a fresh form. That cuts confusion and call volume, and every tailoring decision stays explainable. The efficiency of personalization, without the consumer-playbook downside.

Read
Government & Public Sector
Project ManagersUsability Testing

Usability Testing as Schedule Insurance for Public Services

Usability testing isn't a threat to your timeline — it's insurance on it. The costly defects aren't the ones found in a session; they're the ones found after launch when the fix means re-planning everyone's quarter. Test early, test on the worst device, and label every finding by whether it blocks the core task. A PMO can schedule around that. It can't schedule around surprises.

Read
Meytal Dahan

About

Making complicated into easy for users.

Senior product designer with a decade of work across complex systems - financial risk platforms, legal operations, healthcare apps, manufacturing tooling and insurance portals. The common thread is depth: products where the data is rich, the users are expert, and the interface has to disappear into the work.