Recommendation 8

Recommendation 8: Adopt an open and collaborative methodology to design and improve location-enabled digital public services

Implementation guidance	Related information
Why How Challenges Best Practices	LIFO Monitoring Related Frameworks: EIF Related Frameworks: UN-GGIM IGIF ELISE Resources Further Reading

Why

Having an open and collaborative methodology and communicating it openly to all parties involved increases stakeholders’ buy-in and participation since it starts from the needs and requirements of the users.
Public services are about ‘serving’ the public (i.e. businesses and citizens) who pay taxes to help in paying for these services. Businesses and citizens should therefore have a say in what the services look like.
There is an expectation from taxpayers that different parts of government will share information they provide and act in a coordinated and efficient way.
Asking for feedback at an early stage of development together with frequent releases ensures quick user feedback, incremental improvement, and reduces the risk of building a service that does not meet users’ requirements.
Working groups with experts from public administrations, academia, and the industry can help to build consensus and tackle difficult challenges when developing digital public services.
Use of business process standards can help formalise the process and analyse the (location) data flows of services and collaboration opportunities, possibly using service chaining and orchestration to facilitate collaboration and implementation of services.
Evaluating and monitoring digital public services help public administrations improve future releases of the service.
Allowing or ensuring feedback to the public sector on the improvement of data by the private sector can provide a source of added value of data.

[Top]

How

Collaborative service development

Use the three phases for collaborative development of digital public services - design, implement, evaluate and monitor – defined in the European Commission publications: ‘Collaborative Production in e-Government’ and ‘Analysis of the value of new generation of e‑Government services’.
- (1) Follow these collaborative service design principles:
  - Stakeholder engagement by organising workshops, surveys, interviews, focus groups and other forms of collaboration.
  - Ask early feedback by sharing ideas, concepts, source code and any other relevant artefacts as soon as possible so that engaged parties can provide feedback.
  - Release early and frequently to reduce risk in service design. This enhances mutual learning and usually improves quality.
  - Adopt user-centric design principles, based on needs and views of users, for example:
    - Create a service that is simple and intuitive enough that users succeed first time;
    - Give users a single point of contact for the service, rather than passing them around different parts of government;
    - Ask users of digital public services once only for location-related information. For example, users should not be required to resubmit their address data for each service when it has already been registered with government;
    - Requested location information should be relevant and proportionate to the needs of the service and the associated legislation;
    - Location-based digital public services should use the preferred electronic channels of citizens, e.g. mobile channels. They should be optimised for mobile use;
    - Public administrations should respect the legitimate ‘location privacy’ of citizens and businesses (see recommendation 3) and should not compromise their security through unchecked sharing of location-related information. The approach should aim to increase businesses’ and citizens’ confidence in the way public administrations are handling their location information;
  - Create and communicate the process for collaboration so that stakeholders know how and to what extent their input will be taken into account. As an example, the UK Government Digital Service Manual contains guidance and resources to understand the needs of the consumer of digital public services. The Manual is tailored to different profiles like designers, developers, researchers, analysts, architects, etc. Make use of Working Groups. For example, ISA developed a ‘Process and methodology for developing core vocabularies’ which includes among others the use of collaborative tools that are publicly available.
  - Adopt governance models and business models for developing added value data which allow or even entice public and private sectors to collaborate.
- (2) Ensure that implementation and operation of the service maintains the user and collaborative focus of the design phase:
  - Put in place a sustainable multidisciplinary team to design, build and operate the service, led by a service delivery manager.
  - Deliver the service by ensuring that collaborators can reuse the service or data in their processes. Service chaining (choreography) and orchestration are key to manage the process flow:
    - Standards such as the Universal Description, Discovery and Integration (UDDI) can facilitate service chaining and orchestration of services. UDDI is a protocol that includes a registry by which organisations can list themselves on-line and allow for third parties to register and locate web service applications;
    - Electronic Business using eXtensible Markup Language (ebXML) includes XML-based standards sponsored by UN/CEFACT and OASIS and allows reuse of (electronic) business and location information by all collaborators.
  - Test the end-to-end service with all participants and parts of government in an environment identical to the live service, including all common types of browsers and devices. If possible, involve users who have contributed in the design phase. If required, conduct usability testing with other potential users outside the input group to validate the design.
  - Ensure contingency plans are in place for initial service introduction (e.g. peaks in certain processes) and potential service disruption.
- (3) Openly measure and evaluate the performance of digital public services:
  - Analytics can reveal how digital public services are actually being used and how users respond to variations in service design. Similarly, key performance indicators like usage statistics or service delivery costs can help make better decisions on improving services. For example, Gov.uk Performance makes this information publicly available to promote transparency and accountability;
  - Carry out ongoing user research and usability testing to continuously seek feedback from users to improve the service.

External delivery

The above model assumes that public authorities take responsibility for service delivery as well as the ICT associated with the service. The ICT may be produced in-house or with the help of private sector companies. However, it must first be determined whether public authorities should deliver the service, i.e. that the service is part of the public task. There, there are other models that may be adopted, for example:

The private sector may be well-placed to offer a particular service or a sufficiently similar service without the need for significant intervention from the public sector (i.e. it is in their commercial interest to offer such as service and their commercial interest coincide with the public interest).
Public authorities may collect data through a particular process or service and decide to make the data openly available for external parties to develop their own products and services. In this case, the external parties (e.g. private sector companies) should be engaged openly to inform them and to assess their potential interest in using the data. Actions to tailor the data to external needs may be part of the eventual public sector process. This option is also a contributor to growth objectives (see Recommendation 15).
Public authorities may scale back their role in existing service delivery when they can rely on alternative models. For example, the UK Department for Transport operated a national multi-modal journey planning service for several years. The data was subsequently made available as open data so that developers could build their own services. Finally, a public / private partnership called Traveline was developed that operates the service, including publication of open data, on a not-for-profit basis without public funding (see Best Practice 21).
Governments may encourage ‘civic hacking’ to develop new ideas, technologies or methodologies to help solve civic problems and improve the lives of citizens (this is a form of participatory government, often involving the use of public data, that has had some successes).

[Top]

Challenges

If public administrations do not use open methodologies for collaborative digital public service design, they risk developing digital public services that do not meet stakeholders’ requirements, especially if stakeholders are not included early in the design process.
Difficulty in obtaining the ‘voice of the customer’ when it comes to public services. Introducing an open collaborative approach gives voice to those wanting to participate and not necessarily those whose needs may be met by a collaborative approach to digital public services.
The wishes of citizens and businesses may conflict with government policy needs, which are often about control, rules, taxes etc.
There is a risk in overcomplicating the data collection and reporting process under the guise of ‘policy compliance’.
Legacy systems often make repeat requests for data and possibly use different standards and formats, and channels that are difficult to integrate.
There may be gaps in skills (digital divide) that limit participation and use of digital services. This possibility needs to be managed in the process.
Required changes may not be affordable.
The time required to develop a service may be so long that, when the service is ready to use, it is obsolete. A faster way to develop services should be adopted.
If government relies on the private sector to deliver ‘services’, there is a risk that the public interest may not be (fully) supported.

[Top]

Best Practices

[Top]

LIFO Monitoring

The Location Information Framework Observatory (LIFO) monitors the implementation of EULF Blueprint recommendations in European countries. Read about the implementation of Recommendation 8 in the LIFO Country Factsheets or the LIFO European State of Play Report. Explore the results for selected countries at LIFO Interactive Dashboards - Recommendations.

[Top]

Related Frameworks: European Interoperability Framework (EIF)

EIF Pillars	Recommendations
Underlying Principle 4: Reusability	Recommendation 6: Reuse and share solutions and cooperate in the development of joint solutions when implementing European public service.
Underlying Principle 6: User centricity	Recommendation 11: Provide a single point of contact in order to hide internal administrative complexity and facilitate users' access to European public services.
Underlying Principle 6: User centricity	Recommendation 12: Put in place mechanisms to involve users in analysis, design, assessment and further development of European public services.
Underlying Principle 6: User centricity	Recommendation 13: As far as possible under the legislation in force, ask users of European public services once-only and relevant-only information.
Basic Component 6: External information sources and services	Recommendation 45: Where useful and feasible to do so, use external information sources and services while developing European public services.

Top]

Related Frameworks: UN-GGIM Integrated Geospatial Information Framework (IGIF)

Strategic Pathway 7: Partnerships

Documentation	Elements
Implementation Guide Appendices	Private Sector and Academia Collaboration Community Participation

Documentation

Elements

Implementation Guide

Appendices

Private Sector and Academia Collaboration

Community Participation

Actions	Tools
1. Understanding Partnerships
Need for Partnering
Types of Partnership	APP7.1: Types of Partnership
2. Evaluating Opportunities
Partnership Opportunities
Selection Criteria
3. Identifying Potential Partners
Potential Partners	APP9.1: Categories of Stakeholders APP9.2: Identifying and Classifying Stakeholders
Preliminary Screening
4. Selecting Partners
Options and Operational Implications	APP7.2: Evaluation of Potential Partners
5. Formalising Partnership
Establishing Agreement

Strategic Pathway 9: Communication and Engagement

Documentation	Elements
Implementation Guide Appendices	Stakeholder and User Engagement Monitoring and Evaluation

Documentation

Elements

Implementation Guide

Appendices

Stakeholder and User Engagement

Monitoring and Evaluation

Actions	Tools
1. Providing Leadership
Communication and Engagement Strategy
2. Understanding Opportunities
Stakeholder Identification	APP9.1: Categories of Stakeholders APP9.2: Identifying and Classifying Stakeholders
Stakeholder Analysis	APP9.3: Stakeholder Analysis Matrix
5. Monitoring Progress
Review and Evaluation	APP9.8: Review and Evaluation - Methods for Benchmarking
Stakeholder Surveys

[Top]

ELISE Resources

Type	Resource	Date
Guidance	Design of location-enabled e-government services	2020
Guidance	Improving use of location information in e-government processes: methodology and use case	2020
Webinar	Using serious games in the geospatial domain to stimulate digital transformation of government	2019
Webinar	Location enabled public services	2020

[Top]

Recommendation 8