GIG Members Feedback

On proposed Digital Service standard

GIG (Government Information Managers Group) April 18

1

GIG WORKSHOP REPORT APRIL 2018The Government Information Managers Group (GIG) was invited to provide feedback on the New Zealand Government’s draft Digital Service Standard.

Date: Thursday 12 April 2018Time: 12.00 – 1.00pmLocation: Poutama Room, Archives New Zealand, Mulgrave St, Wellington

GIG facilitated a workshop session to gather feedback from its members. Stephen Clarke, Department of Internal Affairs, provided an overview of the standard. This was a highly participative session with a small group of approximately 16 senior practitioners and managers in attendance.

The following report provides a summary of common themes and then the raw responses by question.

ABOUT GIGGIG is a community for information managers, leaders and senior staff from New Zealand government agencies.

The primary goals of the group are to:

Influence and contribute to the future development of New Zealand government information management strategies and initiatives;

Operate as a community of practice for information management leaders, managers and senior staff.

Be the key contact for government agencies/groups seeking to engage and/or consult with the government information managers community;

Raise awareness of current and future initiatives and issues that are of interest to the government information managers community;

Provide a forum for government information managers, leaders, and senior staff to discuss, share and collaborate on issues and initiatives: – from an All of Government perspective; and of significance for New Zealand government agencies.

GIG run quarterly forums in Wellington for its members each year. More information about the group can be found at https://giggroup.wordpress.com.

GIG FEEDBACK ON DIGITAL SERVICE STANDARD – APRIL 2018

2

GIG FEEDBACK FROM THE WORKSHOP

SUMMARY OF COMMON THEMES FROM THE WORKSHOP Citizen centric design = better designed and more fit for purpose services Big shift for government agencies and services required Conflicts with the current funding model for government, not agile A good starting point, but needs to be mandated

Who/how and frequency of measurement and monitoring? DIA to measure customer satisfaction with government services and breakdown

by agency Must be able to measure these, agencies must take a consistent approach

Scope requires clarification Who is the audience, government, NGO, public or private etc.? Is this a standard, or should it be guidance and principles? Link to existing standards where applicable to do so

Transparency is good Visibility who is doing what across government? As simply as possible, using best practices openly What about outside of Wellington?

GIG FEEDBACK ON DIGITAL SERVICE STANDARD – APRIL 2018

3

QUESTION: DO YOU FORESEE ANY DIFFICULTIES THAT THE STANDARD MIGHT CAUSE?

Who is the audience? What is the relationship with other standards? What percentage can be met by meeting existing standards? Need to sell as holistic expectations rather than a checklist Capability to implement the standard Conflict with existing way of doing things e.g. funding models

How will it be monitored and enforced? Lack of visibility of what exists and can be reused No measures Agile is light on documentation, there will be push back on proving processes Building fast and cheap in a risk averse culture Risk meeting privacy obligations

QUESTION: HOW ABOUT RISKS?

Too broad, potentially seen as a compliance exercise Not measurable, how can you prove you have met the standard? Shelf-ware, a list to be ticked off Not funded Lower level actors not accountable to the GCDO

Misalignment with other standards set by other agencies Structural issues such as funding, annual, 4 year planning does not support agile

practices Not outcome based How about outsourcing services, will the vendor follow this standard?

Opening up technology and shared API increases risk of security breaches Public may not be digitally inclined/ready Decentralised control, problematic if an agency requires something

urgent/specific to be immediately implemented Widening the divide between digital haves and have-nots

QUESTION: IN WHAT WAYS SHOULD ITS SCOPE BE EXPANDED OR REDUCED AND WHY?

Expand scope because…

Is better government services addressing this point? Beyond NZ, greater ties with Australis, Canada, UK etc.? Reuse: not just APIs, technology and implementation but also experience and

governance etc. Extend bits not covered by other standards and guidance Who is meant to implement this? Audience is ambiguous and constantly changing

GIG FEEDBACK ON DIGITAL SERVICE STANDARD – APRIL 2018

4

Short list of documentation required to meet the standard A methodology to measure principles and evidence Clarify scope, what’s a service in this context? Who uses, who does it apply to? Fit into budget, planning policy, processes.

Reduce scope because…

Do we need this as a standard? More like guidance (guidelines and principles)? It’s a philosophy, citizen/people centric Multidisciplinary teams, methodology to employ/deploy just digital services scope.

This is wider than Digital, are standards the place for this? Do not repeat if exists elsewhere Don’t use terms that identify particular products or methods, needs to be more

generic for a longer life span

Point 7 = security standard and privacy act Point 8 = PRA act/standards or IT standards? Point 6 = HR act Point 4 = HR diversity policy

CAN THIS STANDARD ESTABLISH A SOUND BASE FOR ENCOURAGING GREATER CONSISTENCY ACROSS AGENCIES’ SERVICE DELIVERY?

Clarity & consistency

6. Like the use of consistent. Services need to use consistent language approaches.

Consistent with other government principles and standards, ict.govt and digital.govt

Remember disability/barriers to use of technology when developing and implementing

Great to have some direction, need to influence stakeholders It is clear, easy to read and short!

Are there circumstances/operating environments where standards cannot be applied?

Only compliance legislates drive What is a sound base? What is consistency? Translation/adaption for agencies that do not deliver frontline services

Ambiguous re audience and purpose. Where does this sit with other standards?

Should we not consolidate rather than proliferate standards and guidance? Stick to user centric guidelines Why isn’t it digital service principles? Principles = guidance Standard = prescriptive specification Who is the audience? Public, agencies or vendors?

GIG FEEDBACK ON DIGITAL SERVICE STANDARD – APRIL 2018

5

Central design authority, devolved accountability

Common threads

Guidelines not a standard 3 & 4 more about how we do things, is it the place for standards to do this? 3 & 4 challenging, a good thing 8 share the code for betterment of government Reads inclusively

This could provide a frame for establishing digital services 8 two different things, how you get to it, and share the love A big shift go government wide required, perhaps one option from a toolkit? Good starting point to start developing a common understanding Aligned to some agencies thinking already, capability (people, process and

technology) and delivery principles

Fail fast, deliver sooner, service designed Pragmatic design principles Principles you can’t mandate are useless Many agencies use waterfall and agile, across government it will be even less

consistent

WHEN THE DIGITAL SERVICE STANDARD IS WELL IMPLEMENTED IT HAS THESE IMPACTS ON ME, MY ORGANISATION AND BROADER…

Impacts on me

Role lever to start discussion re-funding and engagement Easier cross government interactions/uniform expectations Diversity taken into account/overtly Change to the way of working Greater user experience when I do my job

I am going to need to think differently, change my behaviour and then transform the way I work

Understand expectations on what I need to do I am better placed to insist on things to be done “the right way” As a citizen a better service A as public servant – efficiency? Ability to focus on hard cases? A consistent

process!

Impacts on my organisation

Increased consistency Efficiency best use of resources and funding Cross government sharing/info exchange e.g. open data Easier to move stuff around the public service Transparency and consistency Fail faster

GIG FEEDBACK ON DIGITAL SERVICE STANDARD – APRIL 2018

6

Training and management support for new ways of working Change is hard, effort to effect change is significant Need to really understand your customers, whole new emphasis plus resources Prepares the organisation to be better prepared and resilient and adaptable to the

ecosystem it operates in

Who is going to monitor? Clear guidance on how we should approach and how other agencies do this Better decision making What about charitable orgs? Non- government orgs? Are they included? Better product and quicker, more effective

Broader impacts

Address obsolescence Economic opportunities, nationally/international Positive impact on NZ’s reputation Openness/transparency – reputation of being safe and incorrupt If true to process, better quality output higher customer satisfaction Potential confusion for management who do not understand options, other

approached may be better suited than agile for example

The organisation provides fit for purpose services that meet my information needs and expectations for the task at hand

Where do we draw the line between what Government knows about customers and what they want us to know?

Societal change and what the concept of privacy is evolving into. Public expectations? More sharing across agencies

Enables knowledge services, resources both people and technology Consistent experience for the customer How does this standard fit in with business continuity? Outside of Wellington? Alignment with and mutual support of other A.O.G. mandates e.g. ICT – strategy,

PRA etc.

HOW DO YOU PERSONALLY THINK ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING AGAINST THE STANDARDS SHOULD BE MANAGED?

Digital service catalogue maintained… Keep it up to date! It should provide a master list.

Standard compliance can be tested for a digital service at source to ensure that it gets well implemented.

An agency needs to receive requests/interests/proposals for digital service to avoid duplication of effort

Non-compliance needs to be handled in a strict way for the benefit for everyone Training and support for the organisations to deliver a good digital service.

GIG FEEDBACK ON DIGITAL SERVICE STANDARD – APRIL 2018

7

Organisations that have not followed the standards may need to be monitored closely

Compliance and audit Random audit of agencies, report results to senior management, no judgement,

just facts. Offer guidance should the agency want it. Need to know investment into digital services, who is doing what Visibility – success measures of each initiative Transparency of government spend in digital services Pragmatic measurement framework established/and measures

This is not a standard to assess and monitor against. It means different things in different contexts

The assessment and monitoring is better against the outcome/benefits being delivered using these principles

One principle could be comply with things that are standards e.g. web standards What are the outcomes? How are they measured? Who measures and how often?

What are the consequences of not meeting them? Could be done for services although measures would need to be qualitative

lots more customer surveys Quantitative may be possible in some instances, e.g. now takes 2 days average

instead of 10 days previously Can’t be done for processes, and most of this standard is process! DIA to measure customer satisfaction with government services then breakdown

by agency for all of us. Built into project management methodology, addressed in development and

implementation

Public consultation, special interest groups, different sectors of the community Build some into the organisational culture so it is something to strive for Too much is amorphous, what is open or accountable? If each agencies set’s own measure where is value or comparative judgement

possible? These guidelines are not S.M.A.R.T. Guide development of monitoring and assessment measures as part of team r

organisational behavioural framework.

Personally the use case is unclear, therefore the fitness and monitoring options are also unclear

As simply as possible, using the best practices openly Tools, where is the carrot? Where is the stick? See kiwi counts, create the

service channels people actually want Compliance or conformance? Context of where and how the standard fits into all of the government processes

needs to be defined, e.g. budget bids, and how do we share, how do we club fund? Do we need contacts or simply agreements at the right level in the organisation?

GIG FEEDBACK ON DIGITAL SERVICE STANDARD – APRIL 2018