Included outputs
- Validated interactive capability graph
- Responsibility and supplier-ownership map
- Overlap and accountability analysis
- Evidence-gap register
- Executive report and action plan
GOVERNMENT AS A SERVICE · PUBLIC-EVIDENCE BETA · 3 AUGUST 2026
See where government capability connects, overlaps and disappears.
An evidence-backed Government Capability Graph covering UK government technology supplier relationship management and ICT procurement.
40 PUBLIC-EVIDENCE NODES · 54 RELATIONSHIPS · EVIDENCE CHECKED 3 AUGUST 2026
SELECT A NODE
Explore the operating landscape
Rotate the graph by dragging. Select one or more node types, then click any node to inspect its public role, evidence source and confidence. The selected details remain visible below the graph.
Government bodyCapabilitySupplierRoute to marketOverlap hypothesisEvidence gap
| Selected node | Click, tap or keyboard-select any visible node to see its role, evidence, confidence and official source. Your selection remains here even while you rotate the graph. |
Capability overlap heatmap
Public-role intensity across selected layers. Shared activity is a prompt to validate coordination or legitimate assurance, not proof of duplication.
| Capability | GCA / GCF | GDS | Departments | NHS | MOD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supplier segmentation | Cross-gov lead | Digital input | Local lead | Sector/local | Sector/local |
| Performance management | Aggregate | Digital performance | Contract/service | National/local | Programme/contract |
| Risk and resilience | Commercial risk | Technology resilience | Operational owner | Clinical/operational | Defence/security |
| Market intelligence | Cross-gov | Technology | Departmental | Health sector | Defence industry |
| Escalation ownership | Strategic | Boundary unclear | Contract/service | Distributed | Sector route |
Responsibility and accountability matrix
Public-evidence interpretation only. A = accountable, R = responsible, C = contributor, ? = evidence gap.
| Capability | Central commercial | Digital centre | Departmental commercial | Service / contract owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relationship ownership | A/R strategic | C | A local | R |
| Contract performance | C/aggregate | C/service data | R | R |
| Technology strategy | C | A/R centre | C | R local |
| Concentration risk | A commercial | ? technology | R local | C |
| Cross-government escalation | A | ? boundary | R initiate | C |
BETA FINDINGS
6overlap hypotheses requiring validation
5material public-evidence gaps
1supplier relationship to trace end to end next
VALIDATED PILOT · 4-6 WEEKS
Turn the graph into a decision tool for one bounded government landscape.
Start with one strategic IT supplier, capability or service landscape. Combine the public-evidence baseline with stakeholder validation to make responsibilities, relationships, overlaps and gaps inspectable.
INDICATIVE EARLY-ADOPTER PRICE
£15,000-£25,000
Fixed scope and price agreed before commitment.
1 · BaselineAgree the boundary, taxonomy, evidence and decision questions.
2 · ValidateBuild the working graph and test it with accountable stakeholders.
3 · ActDeliver the ownership map, evidence-gap register and prioritised recommendations.
Arrange a 30-minute scoping conversation
Tell us which supplier, capability or service landscape matters, who needs the answer and what decision the map should support.
Questions for the first demonstration
- Which decision or coordination problem should the map help resolve?
- Where is ownership currently clearest - and least clear?
- Which relationships are missing or misclassified?
- Which overlaps are legitimate assurance rather than duplication?
- What evidence would be trusted for an authoritative view?
- Who owns the budget and governance route for a bounded pilot?
Evidence boundary
This public-evidence beta does not claim to be an authoritative map of current government responsibilities. Every material relationship carries a source, observation date, confidence rating and accountable human validation. It synthesises published role statements and explicitly labelled analytical inferences. Public descriptions may lag organisational changes and cannot reveal every internal delegation or relationship plan. Visual proximity and shared responsibility do not prove waste. Material edges require confirmation by an accountable human.
This public-evidence beta does not claim to be an authoritative map of current government responsibilities. Every material relationship carries a source, observation date, confidence rating and accountable human validation. It synthesises published role statements and explicitly labelled analytical inferences. Public descriptions may lag organisational changes and cannot reveal every internal delegation or relationship plan. Visual proximity and shared responsibility do not prove waste. Material edges require confirmation by an accountable human.
WHAT THE GRAPH NOW SHOWS
A distributed operating system.
Central commercial leadership, digital direction, departmental ownership, NHS and defence-specific arrangements, strategic suppliers and procurement platforms are connected but distinct.
NEXT EVIDENCE GATE
Trace one supplier end to end.
Validate the taxonomy with government stakeholders, then connect one strategic supplier across Crown, departmental, contract, service, risk and assurance relationships.