Skip to content

Report of the Digital Government Review

Government Digital Service: the right delivery, the wrong targets

So far, there is one comment on this section. Jump to comments

Over the last four years, the current government has spent significant time, money and effort building a centre of excellence for this digital transformation, GDS (Government Digital Service).

GDS has done great work in building a team of world-class experts, creating a wave of enthusiasm and cultural change across government, building a Service Standard (and associated Service Design Manual); components that can be used by other organisations, demonstrating that government can deliver fantastic digital services, and instilling a focus on people’s needs rather than on Whitehall’s needs.

GDS is a fantastic delivery machine. Unfortunately, when selecting the services that it wished this machine to deliver, the Government took a very Whitehall-centric view.

Twenty-five services, ranging from voter registration to patent renewals and prison visit bookings, were selected as “exemplars” for redesigning and rebuilding. The selection was based on the volume of existing central government transactions and hence the potential cost savings for central government by transferring those transactions to digital.

This is a methodology called “channel shift” and its focus on these transactions – while understandable – meant neglecting other, key questions. What is actually most important, creates the most value, or best meets people’s needs?

In short, the fantastic delivery machine was not focused on the best possible targets. In particular, the current approach to digital services has failed to consider significant contextual issues such as the cost of housing, the difficulties of getting back into work, or the cost of living. It has barely touched upon local government or the NHS. And it has neglected those without basic online skills or those who lack the ability to use and benefit from online transactions [4].

“There needs to be a balanced approach between assisted digital (which will typically rely on support from a family member) and those that need ongoing face-to-face support. These services need to be protected in perpetuity” – Large Company

[4]          There is a subtle but important distinction between these two items. Some people will never be able to use online services on their own:

This page reformats automatically when printed. Print this section

Leave a Reply to Peter Cancel reply

Please note that comments left here are public - you can also make a private submission.

Your email address will not be published. Name, email address and comment are required fields. Please note we may moderate comments.

One comment

  1. Peter says:

    A link to a blog by Totem which states that “it was necessary for to start where they did in order to demonstrate the value of a design-led approach”:

    There was a question at the launch event which can be paraphrased as “What would be the right design-led choice of exemplars for a local authority?”. It would be interesting to hear Totem’s views on that question.