That shift in thinking is driving a new report, Digital Service Teams 101: A Guide for State and Local Governments, from the Beeck Center for Social Impact + Innovation, which argues that digital service teams (DSTs) are becoming critical infrastructure for governments trying to modernize services, improve resident experiences, and navigate tightening operational constraints.
The report arrives as governments across the country continue wrestling with modernization, AI experimentation, cybersecurity threats and rising resident expectations. But rather than focusing primarily on software procurement or emerging tech, the guide suggests that the real differentiator may be organizational structure, staffing and operational design.
It’s intended to be “the definitive resource on what digital service teams are, why they exist, and how to start one,” report co-author and Beeck Center Senior Research and Engagement Manager Colleen Pulawski said.
Pulawski said the authors have seen “a steady increase in the emergence of digital service teams at the state and local level,” a trend she said was “inspired by federal-level digital service teams.”
More governments have shown interest in new approaches to service delivery but often, she said, “they're not quite sure where to start.” That uncertainty — particularly among entities trying to modernize under mounting fiscal and operational pressure — became a driving force behind the report.
“Resources at this political moment are becoming more and more strapped,” Pulawski said, explaining that digital service teams can help governments “do more with less while still keeping people centered.”
The guide frames DSTs as in-house multidisciplinary groups focused on improving public-facing government services through “agile user-centered digital practices.” Rather than treating modernization as a one-time technology deployment, the model emphasizes continuous iteration, user feedback, and smaller phases of work that evolve over time. There is, Pulawski said, “no one-size-fits-all approach” to structuring a successful DST.
In the report, the Beeck Center identified five recurring characteristics among sustainable and effective teams: “a clear mandate,” “strategic organizational placement,” “experienced leadership,” “a multidisciplinary team,” and “sustainable resources.”
But Pulawski said the report intentionally avoids promoting a single organizational blueprint “because we know that there are really successful digital service teams operating in a number of ways.”
Some teams operate within IT departments. Others are inside governors’ offices or work at the agency level, but “the most important thing is to design a team that responds to an individual locality's political, operational and budgetary context,” she said.
That flexibility, she noted, became increasingly clear as more governments experimented with the model over time. In earlier years, there were assumptions about which structures would or would not work. But over time, as more governments launched teams and sustained them, “we've really just seen that a lot of things work.”
Colorado’s Digital Service and Pennsylvania’s CODE PA are frequently cited as early examples of how these teams are taking shape. In Colorado, the team helped launch tools like the MyColorado mobile wallet and digital COVID-19 vaccination credentials. Pennsylvania’s CODE PA has focused on improving access to services, through online health insurance appeal tools and a redesign of pa.gov built around the user experience.
The report also spends significant time on a challenge that has complicated modernization efforts for years: how to prevent innovation teams from becoming siloed or disconnected from the rest of operations. Executive sponsorship, Pulawski said, plays a major role.
Leaders who can “provide air cover,” reduce friction and build organizational buy-in help DSTs navigate environments where longstanding processes and institutional norms are deeply embedded. Executive support, she said, helps newer digital teams integrate into the larger organization instead of becoming isolated “innovation islands.”
Placement matters too. Governments may centralize DSTs across the enterprise or embed them directly inside large agencies such as transportation or health and human services. The report notes that both models can succeed depending on the operating environment and the intended mission.
The staffing model outlined in the guide also reflects a broader shift away from viewing government modernization as solely a technical exercise. The Beeck Center recommends that new DSTs begin with lean teams of four to six roles, including product managers, user experience researchers, service designers, analysts and software engineers. The idea is to combine technical expertise with policy, program and resident-experience perspectives.
Funding, however, remains one of the biggest hurdles. For this reason, the report outlines multiple funding approaches, including general fund appropriations, chargeback models and hybrid structures. But staffing challenges continue surfacing across governments attempting to build multidisciplinary teams capable of competing with private-sector hiring markets.
“Teams struggle to get adequate funding to pay competitive salaries for the kinds of roles that they're hiring,” Pulawski said.
Despite those obstacles, the Beeck Center expects the model to continue expanding, as more state and local DSTs emerge, Pulawski said. And for governments considering whether to form one, Pulawski’s advice is less technical than might be expected. Before hiring developers or standing up new offices, she said, leaders first need clarity around purpose.
“What services or problems is the DST going to focus on?” she said. “Getting laser clear on that proposed use case and value for their specific organization is the most important first step they can take.”
