Pioneering Public Sector Innovation: The Case of Greece’s e-Government Team

Abstract

This study offers the first systematic exploration of the Greek e-Government team, a public sector innovation unit that operated within the Office of the Prime Minister of Greece from 2009 to 2012—the sole example of such a unit in the country. It illustrates how strategically positioned innovation units can function as change agents within government bureaucracies. The purpose of this work was to analyze how this distinctive unit functioned by bridging policy formulation, legislative drafting, and technological implementation at the highest government levels. The research involved thematic analysis of original interviews conducted with most core members of the team. The findings highlight successes, notably the Diavgeia transparency platform, which markedly improved administrative transparency, accountability, and citizen access to government decisions. Important challenges were also identified, particularly regarding the sustainability of the unit, issues of institutionalization, and meaningful citizen engagement. The experience of the Greek e-Government team suggests that public sector innovation (PSI) units are most effective when they combine high-level political access with multidisciplinary expertise and operational flexibility. The analysis also reveals inherent tensions between the need for centralized coordination and the benefits of decentralized implementation, as well as challenges in maintaining citizen participation throughout the policy development process.

1. Introduction

Public sector innovation can address complex governance challenges. It can also improve administrative efficiency and responsiveness (Bason, 2010; De Vries et al., 2016). Despite the growing body of literature on innovation labs and public sector innovation units globally (McGann et al., 2018; Tõnurist et al., 2017), there remains a notable gap concerning historical examples. This is true particularly on countries undergoing significant governance transformations, such as Greece (Markellos et al., 2007; Spinellis et al., 2018; Attaloglou, 2022).

The examination of public sector innovation (PSI) units has intensified in recent years, because of the perceived growing importance in governmental innovation ecosystems (Mazzucato, 2018; Kattel et al., 2020; Kattel, 2024). Typically organized as laboratories, observatories, innovation units or networks, these entities provide spaces, physical or notional, for experimentation and knowledge exchange.

An innovation unit can be viewed as a facility that is designed to encourage creative behavior and support innovative projects (M. Lewis & Moultrie, 2005). It can also represent a distinctive approach to the use of new techniques, tools, and methods of educational leadership (Williamson, 2015). A common aim of such units is to enhance public sector efficiency and responsiveness (Bazalgette & Craig, 2017). At the same time, they attempt to inject innovation within public organizations by increasing political awareness about how innovation boosts competitiveness, fixing problems in the innovation system, and including users in the process (Monteiro, 2023).

Public sector innovation labs represent dedicated spaces. These can be either physical or notional. At their core they are collaborative environments designed to systematically foster innovative solutions to complex societal challenges (Tõnurist et al., 2017). These entities—they can be described by their proponents as innovation units, policy labs, digital transformation teams—employ collaborative, user-centered, and data-driven methodologies to tackle these challenges. Co-creation, co-production, co-evaluation, and cross-sectoral partnerships are frequently used methods to affect organizational change (Voorberg et al., 2015). They attempt to engage diverse stakeholders from academia, industry, and civil society to prototype, co-create, and refine solutions prior to widespread adoption. They apply creative, design-oriented perspectives to policy issues and conduct controlled experiments to evaluate proposed interventions. Such labs usually operate within or alongside public policy, shaping government structures (McGann et al., 2021).

Government innovation labs can act as critical intermediaries. They create links between bureaucratic structures and agile innovation processes. By facilitating knowledge exchange, mitigating policy failure risks, and increasing public sector adaptability, these labs enhance governance effectiveness (Tõnurist et al., 2017). Their role in cultivating open-innovation ecosystems underscores a paradigm shift from hierarchical governance toward participatory, networked policymaking models. Their embrace of multi-stakeholder engagement methods fosters more transparent and citizen-centric public services. This characterizes a paradigm shift from hierarchical governance to participatory, distributed, and networked policymaking modes since multi-stakeholder engagement enables the co-design, co-production, and co-evaluation of more transparent and citizen-centric public services (Routzouni et al., 2019).

This emphasis placed by labs on digital tool integration and user-centered design additionally epitomizes the broader transition toward transparent, efficient, and responsive governance—principles that are seen as central to open-government initiatives (Dunleavy et al., 2006; Janssen & Estevez, 2013). This transformation aims beyond technological adoption, fundamentally reimagining citizen--state interactions while prioritizing accessibility and participatory service delivery (Chesbrough & Di Minin, 2014).

Physical labs serve as dedicated spaces for addressing specific challenges. They achieve this via the incubation and testing of digital pilot projects, frequently incorporating end-users in prototyping to ensure solution relevance and efficacy (Tõnurist et al., 2017). Innovation units acting as supporting entities, on the other hand, concentrate on reforming internal processes, skills, and organizational culture within public sector institutions. They attempt to enhance adaptability and innovation, promoting a more responsive public administration (Christensen & Lægreid, 2011). Such units can also operate as connecting entities, networks, or centralized platforms that integrate innovation labs across geographical or thematic domains and can be instrumental in building innovation ecosystems, strengthening collaboration and knowledge exchange among governmental bodies (Janssen & Estevez, 2013; McGann et al., 2018).

PSI labs play a pivotal role in advancing public sector digital transformation and enhancing service delivery. They help reduce institutional inertia by creating a structurally defined space for experimentation and collaboration. The resulting solutions are in effect more innovative and effective solutions (Osborne & Brown, 2011; Tõnurist et al., 2017). These entities also achieve organizational and cultural change by cultivating networks, scaling successful initiatives, and disseminating best practices while ensuring sustainability and alignment with broader governmental goals (Mazzucato, 2018). This dual function as knowledge hubs and brokers of best practices further solidifies their important role in the digital transformation of government institutions (McGann et al., 2018).

In many cases, PSI labs operate as boundary organizations that connect bureaucratic, sectoral and citizen knowledge bases (Leoni, 2025; Levac & Chan, 2025). Two main strands emerge. The “labs-as-infrastructure” wherein the routines, artefacts, and rules created during the labs’ experimentation survive beyond ad hoc projects. In successful cases, they manage to gradually embed experimental capacity within the administrative core of an organization (Litowtschenko, 2024; Krüger et al., 2025). A more familiar “labs-as-policy and service-venue” strand reveals PSI labs as temporary, politically ensconced spaces that protect experimentation from established routines and bureaucracies. When these are successful, they simultaneously expose prototypes to democratic scrutiny and citizen participation (Vigoda-Gadot & Mizrahi, 2024; Favoreu et al., 2024).

For PSI labs, dual anchoring—high-level political sponsorship combined with arm’s-length operational steering—offers an effective institutional balance between risk-taking and accountability (Favoreu et al., 2024). Labs that are embedded solely within line ministries face a serious risk of being turned into classic departments. Even if they avoid that fate, they often struggle to scale prototypes since they cannot override legacy procurement or human-resource rules (Zuñiga et al., 2021).

Recent academic literature (Torvinen & Jansson, 2023) also identifies a common “pilot-to-scale gap” rooted once more in procurement constraints and sometimes risk-averse leadership within an organization. The sustainability of lab governance arrangements is treated as an ongoing process of renegotiation rather than an end-state (Litowtschenko, 2024), with life-cycle evaluation frameworks that blend cost–benefit analysis with qualitative stakeholder narratives proving beneficial for the longevity of the labs’ efforts (Brilhante & Romero, 2025).

In terms of methods, design-thinking workshops and co-creation sprints remain the core tools used. They prove useful in negotiating shared problem frameworks but sometimes fall into “workshop fatigue” when participation does not meaningfully empower those investing time in their processes (Gago & Rubalcaba, 2024). Recently, mobile or pop-up labs—involving ad hoc maker spaces, even including travelling caravans—have broadened geographic reach and inclusivity, often at the price of logistical complexity (Chekkouri & Jara, 2024), while digital-governance labs target interoperability and privacy barriers across agency platforms (Vigoda-Gadot & Mizrahi, 2024).

In late 2009, Greece entered a deep sovereign-debt crisis. It exposed entrenched governance weaknesses—opaque decision making, corruption at multiple government levels, very limited fact-based decision making, and widespread mistrust in public institutions (Featherstone & Papadimitriou, 2024, 2025). The then newly elected PASOK government responded by commissioning a Digital Commitment blueprint, largely following on the footsteps of work carried out within the PASOK party (Avgerou et al., 2009). It called for “radical transparency” mainly via an extensive digital service redesign as a pillar of the recovery strategy. Acting on this, PM George Papandreou created a small e-Government team inside the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). It was given an explicit—and unprecedented—mandate to prototype and legislate digital reforms that would curb corruption, increase citizen participation, and improve efficiency, thereby rebuilding public trust. Locating the unit at the center of political power was thought to ensure direct access to the Cabinet and accelerate the passage of any needed regulation change—a critical advantage during the 2009–2012 bailout negotiations (Spanou, 2021).

Between 2009 and 2012, the team delivered a portfolio of nationally significant platforms: The Diavgeia platform (mandatory online publication of every public sector decision), OpenGov (crowdsourced consultations on draft laws and transparent public hiring), e-Prescription, the Public Sector Employee Census, and the diadikasies.gr platform that would evolve to become the Mitos central state registry of administrative procedures.

The team, organized in a loose matrix that cut across ministerial silos, had a unique at the time and since never repeated triadic capability (policy, legal, technical) that allowed it to act as an embedded mission-oriented lab, leveraging its PMO proximity to mobilize resources and overcome bureaucratic inertia.

The projects mentioned introduced open-data practices, digitized critical workflows, and demonstrated lean, minimum-viable-product development inside a traditionally paper-bound administration. Academic work has since linked such “move-fast” tactics to higher innovation throughput, while also warning about sustainability risks once political sponsorship fades (De Vries et al., 2016; Meijer & Thaens, 2021). No other in-depth exploration of Greece’s e-Government team has yet been undertaken, making this the first comprehensive reconstruction of its formation, operations, and legacy. Its flagship outputs such as the Diavgeia, e-Prescription, and consultation platforms are still legally mandatory in 2025, offering a rare longitudinal view of how experimental solutions become institutional fixtures1. Additionally, the unit predates—and could enrich—recent frameworks on mission-oriented innovation labs (Mazzucato, 2018) by illustrating how legal-drafting authority, participatory service design, and technical capacity can coexist in a single organization. This case also offers the chance to reflect on lessons from an early crisis-born digital team in a Southern European context that can complement dominant narratives (e.g., UK GDS, US 18F) and offers insight into PSI units operating under fiscal austerity and volatile politics (Attaloglou, 2022).

This study is driven by three interconnected questions:

How did an PSI unit inside the Greek Prime Minister’s Office originate, gain legitimacy, and evolve during the 2010–2012 sovereign-debt crisis? Through what organizational design features and day-to-day practices was the unit able to perform the triadic role of policymaker, legal drafter, and in-house system builder? What are the main successes and failures of this PSI unit and what lessons does this hold for contemporary public sector innovation labs?

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 offers a theoretical framework describing the strands used to inform the research design and analysis of the results. Section 3 details the research design, data sources, and coding methods. Section 4 examines the identified themes gleaned from the interviews. Section 5 analyses the findings against the three research questions, developing key items for examining PSI units and discussing their connection to prior theoretical findings. Section 6 concludes by summarizing contributions, outlining policy recommendations for governments experimenting with PSI units, examining some limitations of the study, and suggesting avenues for future research.

2. Theoretical Framework

This study attempts to draw together institutional theory, collaborative governance, design-centered public management, and mission-oriented innovation as its theoretical grounding. These perspectives can help illuminate how public sector innovation units such as the Greek e-Government team are created, legitimized, and sustained, and how they translate policy targets into concrete digital services.

Institutional theory emphasizes how institutional environments, rules, norms, and cognitive frameworks shape organizational behavior and innovation outcomes (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Innovation labs represent attempts to institutionalize innovation within public administrations, reflecting a strategic response to both external pressures and internal aspirations for reform (Bekkers et al., 2011).

In the e Greek e-Government team case, this aspect anchors the unit’s pursuit of formal legal mandates—most notably the legislation preceding the introduction of the Diavgeia transparency platform—and sheds light on the bureaucratic routines that can constrain experimentation. With this perspective in mind, the study asked how laws and established norms shape what team members could do, prompting interviewees to share examples of legal procedures that either helped or hindered innovation.

The collaborative-governance literature (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Klijn & Koppenjan, 2012) brings relational dynamics in focus. It highlights boundary-spanning, joint ownership and trust-building as pivotal mechanisms for cross-sector coordination. PSI labs strive for the collective pursuit of innovation and problem-solving (Bommert, 2010) as well as placing significant importance on establishing and utilizing partnerships among diverse stakeholders (e.g., government entities, citizens, academia, and the private sector). They also aim to facilitate enhanced innovation capacity and sustainability by acting as facilitators using diverse knowledge bases and resources that help partners within an innovation ecosystem (Emerson et al., 2012).

Design thinking emphasizes user-centric solutions and iterative prototyping, placing increased importance on user need in the effort to create innovative public services (T. Brown & Wyatt, 2015). Using design thinking purportedly achieves two goals: it enhances public service responsiveness and citizen satisfaction but also increases efficiency, since this way solutions are closer to actual needs (Bason, 2016). Additionally, design-centered public management highlights the importance of problem-solving practices (Bason, 2018; Mintrom & Luetjens, 2016) Concepts such as empathic inquiry, rapid prototyping, and iterative learning account for the team’s reliance on minimum viable products and short feedback loops. Interviews therefore explored how design routines influenced work cycles by inviting, for example, participants to reflect on the types of feedback that most frequently triggered revisions.

Mission-oriented innovation (Mazzucato, 2018; Foray, 2018) adds another dimension to the analysis by clarifying how PSI unit activities align with broad societal challenges. Mission-oriented innovation emphasizes clearly defined, ambitious, and cross-disciplinary goals aimed at addressing societal challenges and persistent problems. For such a goal, PSI labs can help operationalize the grand mission goals. Innovation units can, for example, take the lead or assist in aligning strategic objectives with experimental and innovative approaches, mobilizing resources effectively, and promoting collaboration across multiple sectors and stakeholders (Mazzucato, 2018). In the case of the Greek e-Government team, this perspective explains why initiatives such as e-Prescription or the Diavgeia Platform were justified not merely as technical upgrades but as contributions to the overarching mission of transparency and service quality.

The theoretical strands, their core concepts, and how they were used to informed research design and are outlined in

Table 1. Theoretical strands and core concepts used.

Strand	Main Reference Source	Core Concepts	Aim of Using the Concepts in the Greek e-Gov Team Case
Institutional Theory	DiMaggio and Powell (1983)	Coercive, normative and cognitive pressures;	Why the team sought formal legal backing (e.g., Diavgeia) and why routine bureaucracy sometimes slowed change.
Collaborative Governance	Ansell and Gash (2008); Klijn and Koppenjan (2012)	Boundary-spanning, joint ownership, trust-building	How the team negotiated across ministries and built coalitions of supporters.
Design-Centered Public Management	Bason (2018); Mintrom and Luetjens (2016)	Empathic inquiry, rapid prototyping, iterative learning	Why the team relied on “minimum viable products” and quick feedback loops.
Mission-Oriented Innovation	Mazzucato (2018); Foray (2018)	Clear direction, challenge focus, results monitoring	How projects such as e-Prescription were tied to the larger goal of transparency and better services.

. These four strands shaped an interview guide that translated the theoretical constructs into interview prompts, as is highlighted in

Table 2. Links between theoretical strands and interview prompts.

Strand	Thematic Enquiry	Example Interview Prompt
Institutional Theory	How do formal mandates and informal norms shape the unit’s authority and room to maneuver?	“Describe an instance where legal approval sped up or delayed your work.”
Collaborative Governance	How are partners recruited, motivated, and retained over time?	“Who were the key allies for Project X and how did you secure their commitment?”
Design-Centered Public Management	How do design practices influence the pace and quality of problem-solving?	“What did the first prototype look like, and what kind of feedback changed it?”
Mission-Oriented Innovation	How is progress assessed against the unit’s overarching mission?	“Which metric best signals that a project aligns with the stated mission, and how do you track it?”

. The perspectives also guided a two-step coding process: first, themes were identified from the data, then grouped into theory-based categories. This approach helped connect new insights to the overall framework.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Participants

This study employed a purposive sampling strategy (Suri, 2011), targeting the full population of core members of the Greek e-Government team that operated between 2009 and 2012 (N = 15). Eleven out of fifteen members agreed to participate in in-depth interviews, representing a high response rate and capturing the diverse perspectives of those directly involved in the team’s formation, implementation, and legacy. Respondents (nine identified as males and two as females) ranged in age from 40 to 75 years old and represented various academic and professional backgrounds as illustrated in

Table 3. Educational and professional background of interviewees.

Educational and Professional Background
Physicist, Technologist
Political Scientist, Communications Expert
Technology Infrastructure Expert, Technologist
Legal Expert
Sociologist, Technologist
Professor of Software Engineering
Software Developer
Designer
Political Scientist, Technologist
Computer Engineer, Data Scientist
Business Management

. The sample included all three of the teams’ coordinators. The request for participation in the research went out to the total population of 15 team members, of which 11 accepted, 2 declined, and 1 did not respond.

One member of the original team is also a co-author of this study but was not included among the interviewees to preserve analytical distance and minimize bias.

3.2. Study Design

This study is based on analyzing qualitative data and aligns with qualitative research best practices by emphasizing trustworthiness, dependability, and confirmability as central to methodological rigor (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Nowell et al., 2017). An audit trail of coding decisions and thematic development was maintained to support transparency and reproducibility.

A thematic analysis design was employed to examine the operational dynamics of the team, enabling an exploration of participants’ experiences within the unit (Braun & Clarke, 2006; V. Clarke & Braun, 2017). This approach is widely recognized for its utility in identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns within qualitative data (Vaismoradi et al., 2013). It facilitates an understanding of themes in relation to participants’ lived experiences, perspectives, behaviors, and the natural context in which these occur (V. Clarke & Braun, 2017). Thematic analysis is particularly suited to exploratory research where pre-existing theoretical models are limited or absent (Braun & Clarke, 2006; V. Clarke & Braun, 2017). A semantic and inductive approach was adopted to allow themes to emerge directly from participants’ views, meanings, and behaviors, aligning with the principles of exploratory qualitative inquiry (Braun & Clarke, 2006; V. Clarke & Braun, 2017).

To address bias concerns, several steps additional were taken. The researchers adopted a reflexive stance throughout the research process. The one author’s role was explicitly acknowledged, together with any assumptions, and relationships within the field (Berger, 2015; Finlay, 2002). This reflexive stance enabled us to critically examine how our positioning might shape the data and its interpretation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Tracy, 2010). Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, allowing participants to express their own narratives in their own terms, preserving the authenticity of voices (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015). All transcripts were anonymized and coded independently by both authors, followed by iterative discussions to resolve discrepancies and hermeneutic conflicts—a form of triangulation designed to reduce single-researcher bias (Patton, 2014; Carter & McCullough, 2014).

3.3. Interview Guide

The interview began with a brief discussion regarding participants’ current roles and achievements within the Greek e-Government team. This was in an effort to build rapport and encourage openness. The conversation on public sector innovation was initiated with exploratory questions regarding the participants’ understanding and experiences of open innovation in the e-Government context.

The interview revolved around six areas:

(1)

Introduction and Backgrounds: Participants introduced themselves, described their roles in the Greek e-Government team, and explained what motivated them to join.

(2)

Projects and Innovation: They discussed key projects they worked on, their roles, the challenges faced, and how innovation was implemented.

(3)

Teamwork and Collaboration: This part focused on how the team works together and with external partners like private companies, universities, and NGOs, including how decisions are made.

(4)

Impact and Achievements: Participants reflected on the team’s successes and how they measure the impact of their work.

(5)

Challenges and Limitations: Where the main obstacles they face, such as technical issues or cultural resistance to innovation, were addressed.

(6)

Future Outlook and Recommendations: Participants shared views on emerging technologies, suggested improvements, and gave advice for similar e-Government teams.

The interview ended with an open question inviting any final thoughts or insights. The following data in

Table 4. Interviewee areas, focus, and questions.

Area	Focus	Example Questions
Personal Background and Role	Professional trajectory, role in the team	“Can you briefly introduce yourself and describe your role within the e-Government team?”
Motivation to Join	Reasons for participating, personal and political motivations	“What motivated you to join this team?”
Projects and Experiences	Key projects, innovation approaches, challenges faced	“Could you describe one or two key projects you contributed to?”
Innovation Process	Methods used, adaptability, formal or informal practices	“How did you approach problem-solving and project development?”
Team Dynamics and Collaboration	Internal collaboration, cross-sector partnerships, coordination	“How did your team collaborate internally and with external stakeholders?”
Decision Making	Authority structures, decision processes	“How were decisions made within the team, especially in cases of disagreement?”
Impact and Achievements	Outcomes of work, perceived impact, sustainability	“What do you consider your team’s major successes?”
Challenges and Limitations	Barriers encountered, sustainability issues	“What were the most significant challenges faced by your team?”
Reflections and Future Outlook	Lessons learned, advice for similar initiatives, technological foresight	“What improvements would you recommend for future teams or digital government initiatives?”

illustrates the focus of each interview area while giving examples of the types of questions used.

3.4. Procedure

Participants were explicitly informed of their rights, including voluntary participation, the ability to withdraw from the study at any time and the assurance of anonymity and data confidentiality. Informed consent was secured from all participants prior to their involvement in semi-structured interviews. The interviews were carried out between September 2023 and July 2024, lasting approximately 60–90 min each. They were conducted individually via teleconferencing in the participants’ native language (Greek) and were both audio- and video-recorded. To reduce social desirability bias, participants were thoroughly briefed on the study’s objectives, reassured again of their anonymity, and encouraged to speak openly and candidly.

During the interviews, techniques such as open-ended questioning and empathetic listening were employed, as well as contextually relevant references to facilitate inductive exploration and encourage spontaneous dialogue. Additional probing or follow-up questions were posed to elicit authentic, insightful responses (Hopf, 2004). Conversational deviations were deliberately allowed, embracing silence and fostering dialogue even when it seemed tangential to the original questions or themes.

All interviews were transcribed verbatim. A first version of transcribed text was created using the Descript (v.93.0.0) auto-transcription software. A follow-up version was produced by the researchers, confirming and correcting the automatically generated transcripts.

3.5. Data Analysis

Thematic analysis was conducted following the six-phase process outlined by Braun & Clarke (2006) and V. Clarke & Braun (2017), comprising: (a) data familiarization, (b) initial code generation, (c) theme identification, (d) theme review, (e) theme definition and naming, and (f) final reporting.

Informed by the exploratory nature of the study, modified categories from the Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010)—adapted for public sector innovation contexts (e.g., Desmarchelier et al., 2020)—were considered as potential sensitizing concepts to guide initial coding while maintaining analytical openness. Preliminary themes were shared with the co-author (Hopf, 2004). Through this collaborative process, overlapping themes were consolidated, divergences discussed, and categorizations refined. Final theme selection was guided by relevance to the research focus (e.g., team dynamics and collaboration; the implicit or explicit innovation model used by the team), contribution to conceptual understanding (e.g., the role of citizen participation in designing services), peer validation, alignment with research objectives, and potential for practical application. The data collection and analysis flow are illustrated in

Table 5. Data collection and analysis flow.

Step	Description
1. Participant Recruitment	Full population (15 members); 11 interviews conducted; informed consent secured
2. Interview Execution	Semi-structured format; 60–90 min; conducted via teleconference; audio- and video-recorded
3. Transcription	Automated transcription (Descript); manually corrected for accuracy
4. Data Familiarization	Researchers reviewed transcripts for initial insights and context
5. Initial Coding	Inductive, semantic coding based on participants’ language and meaning
6. Theme Development	Codes grouped into candidate themes aligned with analytical aims (e.g., innovation process, team culture)
7. Peer Review and Refinement	Themes reviewed by second researcher; discrepancies discussed and consolidated
8. Final Reporting	Themes selected for conceptual relevance; supported with verbatim quotes; structured into results tables

.

4. Results

The findings presented below emerged from the thematic analysis of detailed qualitative data gathered through the interviews with members of Greece’s e-Government team. The data reveals insights into the team’s multidisciplinary composition, personal motivations, practical experiences with specific projects, innovation processes, internal collaboration dynamics, decision-making mechanisms, perceived impact and achievements, as well as key challenges and limitations (see

Table 6. Main themes identified during interviews.

Category	Interview Main Themes
Personal Background and Role	Diverse educational and professional backgrounds (e.g., IT, law, public policy, journalism); hybrid competencies; non-political selection; roles aligned with previous experience (e.g., data science, software dev, legal expertise, UX/UI, project management).
Motivation to Join	Voluntary/open calls; civic activism; desire for transparency, impact, reform; political context alignment; passion for data and digital transformation; personal dedication to modernization.
Experiences and Projects	Involvement in Diavgeia, OpenGov, labs.opengov.gr, e-Prescription, Public Sector Employee Census, Mitos; seen as transformational; emphasis on citizen engagement, modern infrastructure; varying impact and uptake of different projects.
Innovation Process	Informal, agile, politically responsive; no structured framework; rapid prototyping; adaptation over invention; flexibility valued over methodology.
Team Dynamics and Collaboration	Multidisciplinary and trust-based; informal structure; “Ninja team” metaphor; matrixed teams; internal support from early adopters; bureaucratic structures posed collaboration challenges.
Decision Making	Mix of top-down goals and grassroots execution; agenda set by PM Office + team leaders, implementation left to team; emphasis on consensus and persuasion; flexibility in execution.
Impact and Achievements	Diavgeia as flagship legacy; culture shift in transparency; increased accountability and public trust; open data portal use; electronic signatures seen as efficiency driver; emotional and symbolic value of work emphasized.
Impact Measurement	Few formal metrics; success inferred from longevity and adoption; cultural change and usage stats highlighted; concerns about citizen usability and real-world impact; emphasis on transparency as a behavioral modifier in administration.
Challenges and Limitations	Legal-technical gaps; institutional resistance; political fragility; lack of sustainability and citizen engagement; projects treated as short-term initiatives; cultural resistance to openness; difficulty scaling innovation; lack of institutionalization and records consolidation.

).

Each thematic category is elaborated through direct quotations from participants, providing a more detailed understanding of the operational and dynamics of this distinctive public sector innovation initiative.

4.1. Personal Background and Role

The composition of the Greek e-Government team reflected a deliberate attempt to select a group of collaborators with diverse professional backgrounds and expertise from multiple domains. Interviewee A gave an example of this: “I finished my degree in Physics… then did a Master’s degree in Computer Science in England… worked in software houses in Greece for about 10 years… then joined the public sector as an IT supervisor.” This career path is a typical example of the team’s personnel strategic combination of, in many cases, advanced academic training and extensive private sector experience. Similarly, Interviewee C’s recounted a transition from merchant Marine Engineering to applied mathematics and systems administration: “In 2009 I accepted an invitation… to staff a team that would develop applications centrally for the Prime Minister’s office… it was really a challenge at the time… it would be a chance to work at the highest possible level.”

Technical implementation capabilities were exemplified by Interviewee G, who noted, “I practically built almost all of the prototype of the Diavgeia Transparency portal… on my own!” This hands-on technical proficiency was complimented by legal expertise. Team member Interviewee D stated: “I was a legal associate at the Ministry of Administrative Reconstruction… also an associate faculty member at the Hellenic Open University.” and added “my legal expertise became particularly crucial when navigating the legislative dimensions of digital transformation as well as helped in ushering in administrative reform”.

The team’s user-centered design philosophy emerges in Interviewee H’s account: “My field of interest is mostly business administration… but I’m very interested in the design and implementation of digital products… starting from user needs.” An evidence-based approach is described by Interviewee E: “My academic background in information systems and e-Government research gave me the tools to approach these projects with a focus on evidence-based innovation.” Similarly, Interviewee J highlighted how his data-science background translated well to public sector innovation: “Working with large datasets in the private sector gave me the skills needed to manage the massive amounts of data involved in our open data projects.”

A noteworthy aspect of the team’s was its meritocratic practices. Interviewee F recounted: “people were selected for the team not on the basis of political affiliation but on the basis of usefulness, a practice that would really be useful if it were institutionalized”. This principle of professional rather than political selection criteria appear to have been instrumental in the team’s effectiveness for many of its members. It helped create and sustain an environment where diverse forms of expertise could productively intersect to address complex challenges.

4.2. Motivation to Join

The Greek e-Government team brought together professionals who shared a strong belief in transparency, digital reform, and public service. Many joined through open calls, drawn by the chance to make a real impact. Interviewee A explains: “I joined after an open call through the opengov.gr website, something almost unheard of at that time, for public servants who would like to get involved with the team.” Others, like Interviewee D, were excited by the team’s mission and especially the involvement with the Diavgeia transparency portal. Interviewee A stated “It was an initiative to bring about greater transparency… the Diavgeia Initiative would be something truly novel.” Diavgeia is still the official, main, Greek government transparency portal in 2025. Launched in 2010, it mandates that all public sector decisions (e.g., administrative and financial decisions, budgets, procurements, hiring decisions, circulars) be published online for public access. Each document has a unique ID, and no decision is legally valid unless posted on the portal beforehand (Karamagioli et al., 2014a).

For some team members, this work was a natural extension of their activism. Interviewee B saw it as being part of a larger movement: “We had created a group of volunteers for transparency and open government… A broader social transformation.” Personal conviction also played a key role. Interviewee F said, “I believed in this effort that had begun, for the digital modernization of the country”. Interviewee H focused on real-world impact: “Because I’m very interested in impact… not just financial incentives but creating services that contribute to better quality of life and better democracy for citizens.”

The team attracted professionals eager to push boundaries. Interviewee K found the overall challenge inspiring: “The prospect of being part of a team that was pushing the boundaries of what government could do with technology was very appealing to me.” Interviewee C saw it as “a unique opportunity to drive change and improve the efficiency of government services through digital transformation.” For data experts, like Interviewee G, the work aligned with deeper values: “I’ve always believed in the power of data to drive transparency and accountability, and this role allowed me to apply that belief on a national scale.”

4.3. Experience and Projects

All interviewees were deeply involved in cornerstone projects such as the Diavgeia (transparency portal), OpenGov (an online platform by the Greek government for public consultation on draft laws and policies where citizens, experts, and organizations can submit comments and suggestions before legislation is finalized), labs.opengov.gr (a platform that brought together public servants, citizens, and experts to co-design solutions and share good practices and supports experimentation, idea exchange, and participatory governance.), the e-Prescription Portal (the national electronic prescription system that enables doctors to issue prescriptions and referrals digitally, which patients can receive via SMS or email.), the Public Sector Employee Census (containing detailed data on all public sector employees and tracking information such as employee numbers, job positions, personnel changes, and statistics per agency), and the Mitos portal (the official digital database of the Greek public sector for recording, standardizing, and continuously updating all administrative procedures.).

Diavgeia stood out as the most transformative initiative for all team members. Interviewee D called it “the biggest defining project… [that] brought change in public administration.” OpenGov provided channels for citizen engagement: Interviewee G, who led its development, said, “It was my child… it had a clear vision to star with, but eventually, became just a meaningless formality in public administration.” Others contributed to the e-Prescription project, digital Public Sector Employee Census systems, and the Mitos platform. Interviewee H praised the early version of Mitos (the administrative procedure platform, initially known as diadikasies.gr): “It was very cleverly built, very modern architecture… built by a small team… and had major impact.”

4.4. Innovation Process

The team’s innovation process was characterized by informality, adaptability, and rapid execution rather than rigid methodologies. As Interviewee B noted, “We never said, ‘Let’s go innovate.’ It was informal and unstructured.” This approach prioritized practical problem-solving over theoretical frameworks, enabling quick responses to political opportunities and administrative needs.

Key features of their methodology included:

• Rapid prototyping and deployment—Solutions moved very quickly from development to roll-out, shortening testing cycles. Interviewee G highlighted this method: “Everything we made went straight into production without the usual pitching cycle, without having to persuade all the executives”. The Greek e-Government team departed from the traditional waterfall model by working in short, iterative cycles. Steps such as requirement gathering, design, implementation, and testing were not skipped entirely but were often compressed or conducted simultaneously. For example, user needs were identified informally or through direct collaboration with stakeholders, with design and development happening in parallel. Proofs of Concept (PoCs) and pilot projects were key tools in this approach.
• Contextual adaptation over novelty—The team focused on reusing and tailoring any existing solutions to Greece’s specific challenges. As Interviewee H explained, “It’s not about discovering something new, but adapting solutions from elsewhere to Greek reality.”
• Flexibility in problem-solving—The absence of formal constraints allowed for agile adjustments. Interviewee J emphasized this as a crucial advantage: “We didn’t follow a rigid methodology, which gave us the flexibility to adapt quickly to new circumstances.”

Most team members thought that this agile, production-focused approach enabled the team to deliver functional tools under tight timelines. They do recognize however that it occasionally came at the expense of long-term scalability or even the viability of the projects. As Interviewee E elaborated: “Diavgeia was a hit with the public and press and managed to survive despite the e-Government teams’ demise. Other initiatives such as the open call for political appointments (part of the opengov.gr website—it offered, for the first time, open calls for the staffing of high-level government positions that were traditionally handed out to party members and supporters) did not fare so well”.

4.5. Team Dynamics and Collaboraton

The team operated through a flexible model that prioritized trust and rapid execution over formal hierarchies. As Interviewee A described, “We built teams that were matrixed within the organization… with the profile that we wanted,” highlighting their intentional composition of diverse skill sets. This approach fostered organic collaboration, with Interviewee B noting how “early adopters from within the public administration became trusted supporters and partners of this group.” The team made efforts to identify key administrators in ministries and other public authorities and invite them to become adjunct team members or points of contact for the team.

The informal structure enabled the requisite agility, as Interviewee I mentioned: “We used to laugh and say we were a ninja team… we were building and getting solutions out without a huge development cycle.” This lean approach was met with pushback by the institutional bureaucracies when the initial shock subsided. Interviewee H identified a recurring tension: “Bureaucracies tend to erode people and projects… vertical silos dominate over horizontal collaboration. This happened to our team as well.”

4.6. Decision Making

Decision making within the Greek e-Government team followed a mixed model that combined strategic direction from senior leadership coupled with considerable autonomy for team members in how to deliver results. Political will played a key role in opening windows of opportunity, while the day-to-day decisions were largely shaped by the practical judgment of the team.

In effect, the Prime Minister’s Office, and oftentimes the PM himself, together with the three lead coordinators, were the ones that typically set priorities. Practical implementation steps were to a large extent left to the members of the unit (Interviewee C explained: “The team leaders would pass along the key policy goals, but we were free to design our own solution”). This arrangement provided significant space for initiative and experimentation. The team was able to adapt project design and execution based on their expertise and understanding of the institutional landscape without much micro-management (“Interviewee E mentioned: “If we realized that a more elegant solution was possible, we could move forward without the need of complicated formal permissions”).

The team thus tended to make decisions through consensus and informal coordination. Members emphasized the importance of persuasion and trust (Interviewee D described: “You need to convince your colleagues—it’s not about orders, it’s about trust”), especially when navigating collaboration with other parts of the administration.

4.7. Impact and Its Measurement

Practically all interviewees singled out the Diavgeia transparency portal as the project that fundamentally altered administrative culture. As Interviewee D described it, the portal became “the defining legacy of the group,” while Interviewee G observed how it changed bureaucratic behavior: “It forced [public servants] to think twice… because of the fact that there’s so many things now being published.” The cultural shift extended to decision-making processes, with Interviewee A noting that officials now operated under greater scrutiny: “It’s different to make a decision that’s going to be reflected in a publicly available document, that’s not going to go into a locked file cabinet, now people are going to look at it.”

Beyond Diavgeia, the team delivered several other impactful projects. The Open Data Portal became an essential resource for journalists, researchers, and engaged citizens. The Mitos platform for administrative procedures allowed researchers and administrators to compare administrative procedures across agencies and work towards simplifying them, showcasing how lean, well-designed digital solutions could achieve scale. Electronic signatures represented another practical breakthrough that, according to Interviewee K, served as “a game-changer” in reducing bureaucratic delays. These technical achievements were complemented by platforms like labs.opengov.gr that pioneered new forms of citizen–government interaction, which Interviewee B recalled as particularly rewarding to develop.

Despite these commonly agreed upon success stories, measuring impact presented challenges given the absence of formal metrics, but some indicators emerged. The enduring operation and institutional adoption of Diavgeia years after implementation, as noted by Interviewee D, attests to its usefulness in government practice. Interviewee C highlighted somewhat more qualitative dimensions of success, arguing that “the true measure of Diavgeia’s impact is in the increased public trust and the higher standards of accountability that’s evident in opinion polls.” Usage statistics from the Open Data Portal provided tangible evidence of value, with growing numbers of users accessing government information. Some limitations became apparent over time, particularly regarding actual citizen engagement. Interviewee G offered a critical perspective: “While Diavgeia had all the information, the citizens never found a way to utilize it,” suggesting that transparency alone didn’t automatically translate to public empowerment.

The team’s legacy thus encompasses both concrete digital infrastructure and more intangible cultural changes in governance and demonstrated how focused technical interventions could alter administrative norms and processes, even if questions remained about the depth of citizen participation. As Interviewee I reflected, this period represented both professional achievement and missed potential—a time remembered “with joy and sadness” for what was accomplished and what might have been.

4.8. Key Challenges and Limitations

The implementation of digital governance reforms by the Greek e-Government team encountered significant systemic challenges across four key dimensions. At the operational level, the team struggled with fundamental tensions between legal and technical requirements. As Interviewee D noted: “It was very difficult to convince e-Government team leaders that something technically simple could have far-reaching legal implications and prepare for them” Scaling produced innovation proved equally problematic, with Interviewee I noting: “The bigger challenge… was to transfer the same innovation culture from something that existed within the team to the department level… and do it quickly.” The absence of established innovation-transfer models within the team compounded these difficulties, as Interviewee B explained: “Many times, we had no empirical data or international best practices to guide us so we relied on building networks of collaborators to transfer all the innovation from the team to the desk [the department level]”.

Institutional resistance emerged as a persistent barrier, manifesting in multiple forms. Political opposition surfaced, especially around sensitive reforms, such as the introduction of a novel e-Prescription system in 2011 that was designed to mitigate overprescribing by doctors (Pangalos et al., 2013) with Interviewee F recalling: “There were financial interests… and many stakeholders opposed e-prescribing.” Bureaucratic inertia proved equally formidable, with Interviewee C stating: “Sluggish bureaucracy was one of the biggest obstacles we faced. Many officials were resistant to changing the way they worked, they didn’t want to give it even a second thought.” Officially adopted solutions often suffered superficial implementation, as Interviewee G noted: “Open consultations [before law adoption] became a box-ticking exercise.” Even in cases of flagship initiatives such as the Diavgeia portal, the goal of moving to a more data-centric administration (Konstantinidis et al., 2024) was only partially achieved. Interviewee A noted that “Diavgeia is now a very large repository of pdf files but little data interoperability is actually taking place. No business intelligence comes out of it”.

For some members of the team, sustainability challenges undermined long-term impact. The team’s project-oriented approach left reforms vulnerable to political shifts and was criticized by Interviewee H—“We treated these as projects, not products… so we missed user-centricity and a long-term service delivery focus”. Interviewee E highlighted the same fragility: “[most initiatives] were pretty much abandoned by the Government of PM Papademos, and they were then abandoned for good with [the ascent to power of the center-right party] New Democracy.” Interviewee B identified the core issue: “There was no political locus to make consistent policy for openness… what was achieved was done by taking the system by surprise and—for a while—overcoming bureaucratic inertia.”

Interviewee J noted persistent trust barriers: “Building trust in our new digital platforms was a major challenge.” Technical infrastructure shortcomings also emerged, with Interviewee F reflecting: “One project that we had underestimated… would be the consolidation of public administration records… Something like a register of registers.”

Key lessons emerged from these challenges. Interviewee E emphasized structural anchoring: “The key change… if you want to get something done in the public sector, the first thing you do is—institutionalize it.” As Interviewee E concluded, effective reform requires combining “small teams, rapid cycles, legislative safeguards, and public service alignment”—elements that proved effective but required more durable implementation frameworks. Interviewee J suggested that perhaps building such teams with finite durations from the outside would help with longevity problems by making them irrelevant. In such a way, team members would focus on the specific work and prevent burnout.

5. Discussion

The experience of the Greek e-Government team offers critical insights into the composition, motivation, innovation processes, and institutional challenges that characterize public sector innovation units. These findings align with existing literature on government innovation labs, particularly in their hybrid positioning between policy, technical development, and administrative reform (Tõnurist et al., 2017).

The Greek e-Government team’s achievements reflected its three core mission areas: digital service transformation, policy integration, and administrative capacity building. In the first domain, it focused on developing cost-effective ICT solutions that maximized existing infrastructure while introducing some data-driven monitoring systems where possible. In terms of policy integration, it developed comprehensive approaches that addressed legal, operational, and technological dimensions of governance challenges simultaneously. The capacity-building work the team undertook established novel and innovative transfer mechanisms for the Greek administration, including crowdsourced expertise mobilization from within the civil service.

The strategic placement of digital governance units centrally within an administration and close to significant power (e.g., a PM’s or President’s office) represents a significant institutional innovation in public administration. As demonstrated by the Greek e-Government team case (2009–2012), such units can effectively bridge the gap between political priorities and technological implementation when granted both mandate and access to decision-making centers. The particular unit’s establishment followed directly from the “Digital Commitment framework” (Avgerou et al., 2009) developed by PASOK’s (a social democratic political party that headed the Greek government between 2009 and 2012 and was part of a government coalition of three parties in 2012–2015) Special Committee on e-Government, which articulated a comprehensive vision for digital-era governance emphasizing citizen participation, administrative transparency, and systemic efficiency gains through technology adoption.

Organizational analysis reveals several distinctive features of this innovation unit. It had a rare combination of policy formulation, legislative drafting, and technical implementation capabilities within a single team structure operating at the highest levels of government. It comprised twelve core members and three coordinators with complementary expertise spanning ICT systems, legal frameworks, and organizational design. Further team members were added according to needs and expertise. The team adopted a matrix structure that allowed it to operate across ministerial boundaries while maintaining central coordination from the Prime Minister’s Office. This structure proved particularly effective in overcoming the traditional silos of bureaucratic administration, enabling the team to develop complete policy packages that integrated technological solutions with necessary legal and organizational changes. The Diavgeia transparency platform stands as a prime example of this holistic approach, combining legislative reform with digital infrastructure development to achieve meaningful systemic change (Karamagioli et al., 2014a, 2014b).

The Greek e-Government team also developed an innovative operational methodology. While maintaining centralized strategic direction from the Prime Minister’s Office—filtered through its three coordinators—implementation followed a decentralized model where individual ministries acted as clients for specific projects. This approach allowed for iterative development cycles and continuous stakeholder feedback, though as was made clear during the interview, ultimately limited direct citizen participation in the development process itself. The team’s working methods emphasized leveraging existing public sector resources and infrastructure wherever possible. In this manner, it demonstrated how innovation units can drive transformation without requiring widespread system change and instead relying on targeted interventions.

5.1. Multidisciplinary Composition and Professionalism

An important feature of the Greek unit was its deliberate recruitment of professionals with diverse, hybrid backgrounds—ranging from physics and IT, user experience and design, to law and business administration. This diversity underpinned its problem-solving capacity and reinforced the notion that interdisciplinary teams are a cornerstone of effective public innovation (Janssen & van der Voort, 2016). Equally important, the emphasis on meritocratic selection rather than political patronage echoes similar findings for depoliticized recruitment to foster innovation (Borins, 2014).

The presence of in-team technical expertise significantly enhanced agility. Technical capabilities embedded within public innovation labs enable rapid prototyping, reduce dependency on external contractors, and foster iterative design (Bason, 2018). Team interviewees’ accounts of building platforms such as Diavgeia and Mitos underscore the advantages of co-locating technical and policy expertise for achieving digitally capable bureaucracies (Mergel, 2019). It is worth noting here that studies of multidisciplinary collaboration in the UK’s Government Digital Service (GDS) identified practical difficulties. This can include internal conflict and coordination issues due to competing professional standards and values (A. Clarke & Craft, 2019).

Several countries have similar approaches to the Greek e-Government team’s interdisciplinary recruitment strategy. Denmark’s MindLab, for example, operated as a cross-ministerial innovation lab that brought together professionals from design, public policy, and behavioral science to co-create public services (Bason, 2018). Its deliberate integration of diverse expertise echoes the Greek emphasis on hybrid backgrounds. Canada’s Impact and Innovation Unit (IIU) under the Privy Council Office also prioritized the recruitment of professionals with backgrounds in data science, economics, and behavioral insights to enhance evidence-based policy (A. Clarke & Craft, 2019).

5.2. Motivations and the Role of Mission-Driven Innovation

Examining the interviewees’ motivations points to a set of shared values and a shared commitment to transparency, efficiency, and democratic renewal—an ethos consistent with the principles of open government that is frequent in such endeavors (Chantillon et al., 2020; Lee & Kwak, 2012; Noveck, 2015). Public entrepreneurs are often more effectively driven by transformative missions that create public value, rather than merely fulfilling narrow mandates. The mission-oriented innovation paradigm (Mazzucato, 2018) aligns ambition with purpose, mobilizing capabilities across sectors. The team’s appeal to professionals outside the traditional civil service through open calls also runs parallel with strategies to democratize public recruitment and broaden participation in digital governance (Linders, 2013).

Such motivations have been critical in the success of similar initiatives. In Estonia’s e-Residency program, team members’ shared vision facilitated sustained engagement and innovation resilience (Kattel & Mergel, 2019). In Finland, the D9 team formed within the Prime Minister’s Office to advance digital public services recruited its members through public competitions, emphasizing civic engagement and digital transformation ideals (Mergel, 2019). The UK’s Government Digital Service (GDS) attracted professionals motivated by public value creation and a desire to disrupt traditional bureaucratic models, fostering a reformist culture and mirroring to an extent the Greek experience (Chantillon et al., 2020). In contrast, studies on Canada’s digital government innovation efforts indicate that intrinsic motivation alone is not enough. Faced with entrenched bureaucratic resistance, there is a need for robust structural and institutional support alongside motivational factors—something that several interviewees highlighted in the Greek case as well (Craft & Halligan, 2020).

The Greek e-Government team’s innovation processes were informal, problem-driven, and execution-oriented. This enabled rapid deployment and responsiveness but it occasionally compromised sustainability and user-centeredness. Some form of prioritization clearly took place within the team. In practice, this was largely shaped by the Prime Minister’s own digital governance agenda and the strategic direction provided by the team’s three coordinators. These leaders played a central role in setting the agenda, identifying opportunities, and translating political priorities into concrete digital initiatives. Their alignment and personal commitment were crucial. Without this top-level political support and clear backing from within the team’s own leadership, it is unlikely that the same level of access, speed, or institutional leverage would have been possible.

The team’s approach of deploying minimally viable products enabled short policy feedback cycles and supports recent research emphasizing the value of lean innovation in public settings (De Vries et al., 2016). The agile innovation approach employed by the Greek e-Government team, characterized by rapid prototyping and informal processes, closely follows recognized international best practices such as Singapore’s GovTech initiative, demonstrating significant improvements in responsiveness and citizen-centric service design (Erh, 2023). It is worth noting that recent analyses from the Netherlands and Italy suggest that agile methodologies, while effective in the short term, may struggle with issues related to scaling and integration into traditional bureaucratic structures, highlighting inherent tensions within hybrid innovation governance models (Meijer & Thaens, 2021).

The Greek e-Government team’s approach—move fast and break things—introduced certain risks—particularly around testing, documentation, and the long-term survivability of initiatives. The team attempted to manage these risks through close collaboration within the team, technical competence, and a supportive high-level mandate that prioritized speed and practical outcomes over strict process adherence. It was highlighted during the interviews that this approach that focused on speed of execution did not fully appreciate the magnitude of the resistance to change that it would be faced with. To that effect, it is worth noting that the successful innovation of the Diavgeia transparency portal was one that was accompanied with a novel system of engaging employees at the department level at an early stage. Also, despite the widely stated mission goal of the team of being experimental and agile, some interviewees believe that a key shift missed by the team was that in order to achieve meaningful and lasting results in the public sector, the first and most critical step should have been to protect the initiative by creating a more permanent structure for it within the administration.

The Greek team’s decoupling of policy innovation from large-scale ICT procurement also preempted common pitfalls associated with lengthy procurement cycles (Janssen et al., 2012). This model is one of fast, modular development—sometimes through market-regulating roles—for example, by pushing for open-source solutions to be treated preferentially during procurement of ICT or hybrid financing,

The informal and adaptive innovation practices employed by the Greek e-Government team have analogues in other contexts. Estonia’s e-Government development, particularly the launch of X-Road and e-Residency, was marked by iterative experimentation and minimal reliance on formal bureaucratic protocols (Kalvet, 2012; Kassen, 2019). Similarly, the United States Digital Service (USDS) and 18F have been recognized for their startup-like, agile methodologies in delivering digital services, often bypassing traditional procurement cycles in favor of rapid prototyping and user-centered design (Mergel, 2016, 2017, 2019).

5.3. Challenges of Sustainability and Scale

The Greek e-Government team faced challenges common in public sector innovation: scaling, institutional resistance, and lack of sustainability. The failure to move from project to product thinking and citizen participation highlights a well-documented barrier to systemic change in bureaucracies (L. Brown & Osborne, 2013). Moreover, bureaucratic inertia and political discontinuity undermined long-term reforms, affirming the need for structural anchoring and legal safeguards for sustainable innovation within the public sector (Gascó, 2017).

Also, the difficulty of embedding innovation in legal frameworks echoes known concerns that public sector innovation requires legal agility, not just technical novelty (Hilbert, 2016; O’Reilly, 2011). The Greek team’s very close proximity to executive power—not always the case for such units—allowed it to write regulatory frameworks for flagship initiatives like Diavgeia and e-Prescription, showcasing the value of aligning legal and technical design from inception.

The fragility of innovation initiatives due to institutional resistance and lack of structural embedding is also a common theme. Institutional sustainability is a significant challenge, reflective of the broader literature on public innovation. Innovation seems a sprint not a marathon—there significant difficulties of embedding and maintaining innovation beyond initial phases (O. A. Lewis & Steinmo, 2012). Without adequate institutional anchoring, political volatility and bureaucratic inertia can quickly erode any innovation gains, as evidenced by cases in the United States Digital Service (Mergel, 2019). Conversely, Finland’s innovation fund SITRA provides a robust example of how institutional stability, independent governance structures, and ongoing political support can successfully sustain innovation initiatives over time (Schienstock & Hämäläinen, 2001).

5.4. Impact and the Limits of Transparency

The Greek transparency portal Diavgeia is widely seen as the team’s most significant contribution, delivering systemic transparency and changing administrative behavior. But the interviews also revealed the limitations of transparency in fostering engagement. Information alone does not empower citizens. This critique resonates with research on the “transparency paradox” (Meijer, 2013), where open data does not automatically result in accountability or participation without appropriate intermediaries or civic capacities (Janssen et al., 2012). The Greek Diavgeia platform reflects a broader trend in which transparency tools alter administrative behavior without necessarily generating deeper citizen engagement. A similar pattern is observable in France’s data.gouv.fr platform, which succeeded in increasing data availability but faced challenges in fostering widespread reuse by citizens or civil society (Janssen & Estevez, 2013). South Korea’s OPEN System (Online Procedures Enhancement for Civil Applications) improved bureaucratic accountability but had limited influence on participatory governance outcomes (Im & Jung, 2001).

Such transparency initiatives, as represented by Greece’s Diavgeia portal and efforts on public procurement (Sarantis, 2017), resonate with global trends towards open government and enhanced public sector accountability. Similar examples include Brazil’s transparency portal, which effectively increased government accountability and reduced corruption (Michener & Bersch, 2013). Citizen empowerment or increased civic engagement cannot rely solely on opening data and government decisions to the public. They need to be complemented by mechanisms for active participation and civic education (Meijer, 2013; Ruijer et al., 2017).

5.5. Organizational Transformation and Networks

The unit’s collaborative, flat structure and network-building efforts reflect agile governance paradigms. The use of open calls, engagement of communities of practice (e.g., one comprised all IT managers of Greek ministries), and crowdsourcing platforms (such as labs.opengov.gr in the Greek case) exemplifies how government innovation can successfully use civic tech practices (Chesbrough, 2006; Gil-Garcia et al., 2014). These mechanisms can enhance both technical delivery and legitimacy. In this manner, innovation is regarded holistically as a socio-technical process embedded in broader participatory ecosystems (Ansell & Gash, 2008). The establishment of Diavgeia project teams across all public sector entities further illustrates effective horizontal implementation, where change was driven by internal champions rather than top-down mandates—an example of innovation as embedded experimentation within bureaucratic systems (Bason, 2018).

Several innovation units have adopted network-based models akin to the Greek team’s internal and cross-sectoral collaborations, such as the Netherlands’ Digicampus, which brings together academia, government, and industry in co-designing digital public services (Bharosa & Janssen, 2020). Chile’s Laboratorio de Gobierno established horizontal collaboration by embedding lab members within different ministries while maintaining central coordination, a structure that can be compared to the Greek team’s matrix model (Valdivia & Ramírez-Alujas, 2017).

The profile of the Greek e-Government team anticipated what very recent scholarship now frames as the “second generation” of public sector innovation laboratories. Comparative work on South American labs shows that cross-functional units achieve greater problem-solving range precisely because they embed legal, technical, and design expertise side-by-side, a pattern almost identical to the Greek team’s hybrid staffing (Da Silva Junior & Emmendoerfer, 2023; Da Silva Junior et al., 2024). Recent examination of learning cultures in laboratories illustrates that disciplinary diversity creates the “currents and splashes” of reflexive dialogue necessary to transform political mandates into actual digital services (Brandalise & Werneck, 2023). Interdisciplinarity by itself proves insufficient: in cases when relational capabilities for boundary-spanning are weak, open-innovation efforts in the public sector fall short (Brilhante & Romero, 2025). The Greek team’s mission-oriented operation, its meritocratic and open recruitment practices, and its focus on citizen participation therefore correlate with the New Public Service emphasis on public value co-creation, positioning the e-Government team at the forefront of a shift from managerial efficiency to civic purpose (Almirall, 2024).

The network–governance models documented in Brazil’s InovaGovSC and other federated lab constellations (Krüger et al., 2025) align closely with the Greek team’s matrix arrangement: Central coordination in the Prime Minister’s Office is coupled with project “spokes” that reach inside ministries. Such operation modes mirror the Greek team’s strategy of leveraging existing ministerial resources.

The Greek experience with political turnover eroding institutional memory also aligns with the established need for significant legal anchoring and mandate renewal when possible. PSI labs have better chances of surviving when their policies, assets, and agreements with stakeholders are renegotiated often. If this is not the case labs either revert to ad hoc project factories or are reduced to bureaucratic departments (Litowtschenko, 2024). Longitudinal work in Vancouver and Auckland additionally demonstrates that if labs are to successfully influence underlying cultures within an administration technical pilots are not sufficient—they should be coupled with effective, transformative learning (Cole & Hagen, 2024).

6. Conclusions

The case of the Greek e-Government Team highlights the transformative potential of small, agile units embedded within government, particularly when staffed by interdisciplinary professionals with a strong public value ethos (Chantillon et al., 2020). Their capacity to deliver impactful digital tools such as the Diavgeia transparency portal demonstrates how meritocratic recruitment, in-house technical capability, and proximity to executive power can enable rapid policy implementation and meaningful organizational change. This aligns with growing evidence that innovation in the public sector thrives under conditions of autonomy, hybrid expertise, and mission-driven leadership.

The case also illustrates the structural vulnerability of such units. Despite early successes, limited anchoring with traditional administration structures, bureaucratic inertia, and political discontinuities ultimately affected the sustainability and scaling of innovation. The Greek e-Government team’s experiences highlighted a precarious balance between short-term responsiveness and long-term integration, and between informal innovation processes and formal administrative structures.

The experience of the Greek e-Government team highlights several avenues for further research. The challenge of sustaining innovation beyond political cycles calls for research studies on how different legal, financial, and organizational mechanisms support the long-term embedding of public sector innovation units. The team’s hybrid role—simultaneously shaping policy, drafting supporting legislation, and implementing systems—could invite questions into how innovation labs can balance experimentation with formal policy authority, and what governance models best support such multiple functions. In particular, legal design aimed at regulatory flexibility via sandboxes to facilitate experimentation can be explored to examine how public law can be structured to enable agile innovation while maintaining safeguards.

The team’s use of meritocratic hiring practices and interdisciplinary composition, as well as their use of crowdsourcing and open calls, highlights the potential of participatory digital governance, providing an avenue to explore what motivates sustained engagement among citizens and public servants, and how these practices influence the legitimacy of the respective efforts. Closely tied to this, there is a need to examine the conditions under which open government tools move beyond information provision to enable genuine empowerment and engagement.

6.1. Limitations

This study focuses on a single case, a fact that limits how much the findings can be applied to other contexts—the unique political and institutional setting of the Greek e-Government team may not reflect conditions in other countries. There is also a risk of bias, as the study relies on participants’ memories and views. One of the researchers was a member of the team, which could affect objectivity. This also brings a positive aspect, as the researcher’s insider knowledge helped capture important details that might have been missed by an outside observer. Any possible bias resulting from this was addressed as detailed in Section 3.

6.2. Implications and Future Research

The contribution of this paper is the identification of key dimensions of public sector innovation, grounded in interview data and illustrated through practitioner insights. When systematized, team member experiences can inform analytical categories or indicators applicable across different national and organizational settings. A strong innovation culture emerged by the teams’ adopting of start-up-like approaches to navigate bureaucratic constraints. This was coupled with informal agility, urgency, and a collaborative ethos that espoused co-design, co-production and co-evaluation. Decision making was shaped mainly by consensus with limited influence from strict hierarchy. Similarly, institutional diffusion relied more on informal networks and internal champions than rigid structures.

The impact of innovation was most visible in shifts in administrative thinking—less in state-of-the-art technical outputs. Despite best intentions, citizen participation lagged behind. Even with open data and citizen participation platforms, engagement remained weak: Innovation efforts suffered from a lack of sustainability, often treated as isolated projects rather than embedded services. These insights point to the importance of continuity, usability, and institutional anchoring.

Several operational enablers were also identified. Meritocratic team composition played a key role: Teams leveraged agile methods and lean implementation cycles; underpinning these practices was trust-based collaboration, often across roles and functions.

Together, these themes offer a grounded framework for comparing and evaluating public sector innovation (PSI) units—a shared vocabulary for capturing how innovation is experienced within bureaucratic settings. As indicators, they can support the design of future empirical studies focused on organizational conditions, governance approaches, and the long-term impacts of innovation efforts. More broadly, the findings highlight the value of in-depth qualitative research not only in interpreting practice but also in shaping future agendas in digital governance and administrative reform.

In terms of practical advice for administrations willing to setup and operate similar units, the Greek e-Government team’s experience presents some useful lessons. Agility and flexibility are indeed key advantages. Their long-term effectiveness, however, requires formal integration into administrative structures, preferably at the earliest stage. Project, case, or ad hoc-based setups can be productive but under political turnover or significant bureaucratic resistance these tend to be short-lived. To ensure continuity and scalability of innovation initiatives beyond experiment within the confines of a PSI lab, proponents should create lasting legal mandates or embed innovation capacities within permanent government departments (e.g., digital governance secretariats or inter-ministerial task forces).

Authorities would also be well served to establish a systemic framework for innovation transfer. Our interviews have shown that if no formal mechanism for innovative practices beyond the originating team exists, innovation adoption does not propagate far beyond the original team members. This creates a need for innovation diffusion strategies to support ministries and agencies (e.g., designation of internal innovation champions, regular cross-agency knowledge exchanges, adoption guidelines for innovative digital tools. Methods to bolster institutional memory and sustainability should also be enhanced (e.g., by requiring documentation of methodologies and use cases as standard practice).

Citizen engagement infrastructures should also be extended beyond targeting transparency. Platforms such as Diavgeia may increase visibility but their impact on participatory governance remains limited. To be effective, public sector innovation should be accompanied by the development of interpretative tools, civic education initiatives, and participatory design, production and evaluation mechanisms. A way for authorities to amplify the value of open-government platforms is by involving civil society and citizens not only in consultation, but also in co-creation, testing, and evaluation of public digital services.

Another valuable insight from this study is that meritocratic and interdisciplinary recruitment can positively influence the operation of digital transformation teams. The Greek e-Government team case highlights the importance of hybrid expertise and mission-driven professionals in delivering public value and bridging public administration and innovation ecosystems. In cases of similar teams, public authorities should develop transparent hiring processes that can attract skilled professionals from diverse fields—technology, law, design, data science. It is also critical to ensure clear career pathways for those recruited. These should reward collaborative, outcome-oriented work and protect team members from rapid burn-out in very challenging environments.

These findings point to the critical role of people and team structures in enabling effective digital transformation. They highlight that investing in talent, clear roles, and supportive environments is just as important as technical capacity. This study also demonstrates that while technical solutions and digital platforms are necessary, they are not sufficient. Sustainable innovation requires coordinated legal, organizational, and cultural interventions, grounded in openness and supported by stable governance structures. Future research and policy design should focus not only on the production of innovative tools but also on the conditions that allow them to endure and evolve within the complex realities of public administration.

Positioned at the highest possible level within government, the Greek e-Government team originated from PASOK’s previous efforts on radical transparency and meaningful citizen participation. It gained legitimacy, agency, and access by being embedded in the Prime Minister’s Office in a volatile period of change instigated by the 2010–12 debt crisis. It was designed from the outset as a compact organization of twelve experts and three coordinators—with a structure that allowed combined policymaking, legal drafting, and in-house technical implementation blending ICT, legal, and organizational skills. This enabled the unit to bypass the typical policy-to-implementation sequence: it could set strategy, draft legislation, and build production-ready systems in parallel, exemplified by work on the e-Prescription and Diavgeia portals that remain active and relevant to this day.

This agile approach to policy and service delivery had clear successes—it enhanced transparency, delivered lower-cost digital services, and instituted new capacity-building mechanisms. It also exposed significant vulnerabilities: citizen co-creation efforts were underwhelming despite claims and efforts to the contrary; institutional anchoring was fragile and susceptible to electoral cycles following a frequently seen pattern; scaling innovations once the political impetus moved on proved difficult.

These insights suggest important lessons for contemporary public sector innovation labs. They highlight the value of structural integration and early legal entrenchment; multidisciplinary, meritocratically staffed, mission-driven teams; and innovation-transfer mechanisms with cross-agency diffusion strategies in place from the start for scaling and enduring impact and sustained stakeholder engagement. In such a manner, PSI labs may be better positioned to turn quick wins into durable, sustainable, systemic transformation.