An official website of the OECD.
OECD Good Practice Principles for Public Service Design and Delivery in the Digital Age
Description
One of the increasingly common elements in the toolkit of digital government is a set of principles, supported by guidance, helping to determine 'what good looks like'.
Over the last few years the OECD's Working Party of Senior Digital Government Officials (or the E-Leaders for short) has hosted a Thematic Group focused on Service Design and Delivery under the watchful leadership of the UK's Government Digital Service.
Out of those discussions came a desire to develop a set of OECD Good Practice Principles for Service Design and Delivery in the Digital Age (GPPs). These GPPs have been discussed and iterated within that community, within the OECD and through work we have been carrying out in the MENA region. They have also been informed by our Going Digital Toolkit Policy Note.
We hope to formally launch the finalised GPPs later this year as part of the E-Leaders annual meeting but before then we want to open them up to a wider audience and seek the input of professionals involved with the design and delivery of public services around the world.
So, please let us know before June 17th what you think by commenting on the draft and adding any thoughts you might have about what's missing, what's unclear, or what needs to be removed.
Should you have any questions or want to discuss the GPPs further please send an email to eleaders@oecd.org.
Publications you may find interesting:
- Digital Government Policy Framework
- Digital Government in Chile – Improving Public Service Design and Delivery
- Going Digital Toolkit Policy Note on designing and delivering public services in the digital age
- Digital Government Review of Slovenia - Leading the Digital Transformation of the Public Sector
- G20 Compendium on the Use of Digital Tools for Public Service Continuity
There is an implication in this section that a common or standard methodology for design should be applied to the design of services. Firstly, the services that citizens need, range form renewing passports (highly transactional) to supporting families with multiple needs (complex).
Both types are not only very different, but that the approach and methodology that they require are in some cases diametrically opposite. If complex services are designed using transactional digital methods, then we end up increasing citizens hardship, like in the UK case of Universal Credit.
And, you do not openly register that some services simply need people to engage face to face. Digital is not the answer to all public service design, and this document appears to push the reason that direction.
I see your point but perhaps a more complete introduction at the beginning of this document can clarify: Service Design emerged in the last 10-12 years explicitly because digital and physical (or "complex" as you call them) services can be and in fact must be designed with the same processes and methodologies. Co-design, concept testing, prototyping, usability testing, iterative feedback, etc. are applicable for both design of "transactional" or "complex" services. It's also important to note that almost all citizen interactions have mixes of digital and physical touchpoints which together make up a complete journey.
Thanks for your reply. When I use the term 'complex' I am distinguishing it from the logical and transactional type of services. Complex services tend to be Ines that involve direct person interactions with regard to supporting people in need. Service Design as it emerged 12 years ago is specifically designed to deal with transactional services, not complex ones. In the UK there are now some in the public sector that are attempting to move Service Design and Digital into the realm of complex services, and it is failing miserably. Both transactional and complex service design are very different in terms of characteristics, and methodology. And combining them both together is both conceptually an error, and the evidence demonstrates harms citizens.