A few *cough* years ago, I wrote a blog explaining why, at the Department of Works and Pensions (DWP), we were committed to the title ‘Product Owner’ and why I believed it was crucial. Nowadays, I dedicate my time to working with various Public Sector Departments and Agencies, where a significant portion of my work involves discussing taxonomies and role definitions. Increasingly, I find myself discussing why the term ‘Product Owner’ might no longer be the most appropriate title for their context. So, what has led to this change in my perspective?
Back when I was at DWP (when digital in Government was admittedly less mature), the term ‘Product Owner’ felt entirely appropriate. We were striving to fundamentally change how digital projects were delivered, transform organisational culture, and foster empowered teams who would see their product through from inception to completion – a concept largely unheard of at the time. The notion of someone ‘owning’ the vision and roadmap for their product was vitally important. These individuals were not merely managers; they were empowered to make critical decisions, and they bore the ultimate responsibility for the outcomes. In DWP, at least, we needed these roles to be held by fairly senior individuals; thus, the title ‘Owner’ rather than ‘Manager’ made perfect sense.
Almost a decade later, while many of those principles still hold true, several key factors have evolved:
- The Evolving Role of the Service Owner. The role of the Service Owner has gained significant prominence. While this role was present in the original DDaT Capability Framework, our collective maturity in understanding and delivering end-to-end services has advanced considerably. At the time, managing products was challenging enough; services seemed an entirely different beast. Back then, particularly in departments like DWP, the idea of someone ‘owning’ the end-to-end strategy and delivery of a service – possessing the digital skills and knowledge to align with Government Service Standards – was unimaginable; our Services were just seen as too big; and no senior person was thought able to ‘own’ them in the way needed. Nowadays, we have individuals like Will Garner, Service Owner of Working Age Services at DWP: senior, empowered, with a strong product background, and a deep understanding of digital. He is not alone; more and more departments are now fully embracing the Service Owner role.
- Divergent Terminology and Methodologies. The term ‘Product Owner’ itself carries different meanings across various Agile methodologies. In the early days of Agile adoption within the UK Public Sector, the DDaT Capability Framework had not yet been established; and most Departments (like DWP) in the early days used Scrum.
- In SAFe (Scaled Agile Framework), the term Product Owner is typically viewed as the primary customer advocate within a single Agile Team. They are responsible for defining, prioritising, and accepting stories in the Team Backlog to ensure maximum value. A SAFe Product Owner usually supports one or two teams, rather than an entire product, and reports to a more senior Product Manager. Their focus is primarily on the execution of the backlog, rather than the overarching product strategy.
- Within Scrum, the Product Owner is the sole member of the Scrum Team accountable for maximising the value of the product resulting from the team’s work. They define the product vision, manage the product backlog, and serve as the primary liaison between stakeholders and the development team to ensure the highest-value features are delivered first.
- Within Kanban the Product Owner role doesn’t necessarily exist as a distinct title, or it may be synonymous with the ‘Product Manager’. Their focus remains on maximising product value by managing the backlog, defining user stories, and prioritising workflow to meet customer needs. This role emphasises continuous delivery, maintaining a ‘ready’ queue to ensure the team remains productive, and managing lead and cycle times.
- Consistency and Evolving Role Expectations. Crucially, we now have the DDaT Capability Framework within which the specific role of ‘Product Owner’ is notably absent. This omission is primarily because the framework was designed to ensure consistency of roles across departments, irrespective of the Agile methodology being employed. The focus for our ‘Product Managers’ within this framework is to serve as that strategic voice, championing value delivery and user needs, regardless of their seniority. They are supported by User Researchers, who advocate for user needs, and Operational Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), who champion the business’s requirements.
The journey of digital transformation within the public sector has been one of continuous learning and adaptation. My evolving perspective on the ‘Product Owner’ title reflects this dynamic landscape. While the ‘Owner’ designation once powerfully conveyed empowerment and accountability in a nascent digital government, the environment has matured significantly. The rise of the ‘Service Owner’ role underscores a deeper understanding of end-to-end service delivery, demanding a broader, more strategic remit. This evolution does not diminish the importance of product roles; rather, it underscores the recognition that exceptional products are fundamental to delivering excellent services.
Furthermore, as Agile maturity has grown within the public sector, more departments and teams have confidently branched out from Scrum. The proliferation of Agile frameworks has resulted in a fragmentation of the ‘Product Owner’ definition, creating inconsistencies that can hinder clarity and collaboration. The DDaT Capability Framework’s deliberate move towards the ‘Product Manager’ role directly addresses this challenge. By consolidating strategic leadership, value delivery, and user advocacy under a consistent ‘Product Manager’ title, supported by specialised roles such as User Researchers and Operational SMEs, this fosters a more unified and effective approach to digital product and service development across government. This shift is not merely semantic; it represents a commitment to clearer expectations, greater consistency, and ultimately, more impactful outcomes for the public.
