Five things to think of when personalizing digital government services

“What if public services could be more like Amazon’s”? writes Eddie Copeland in 2015, Director of Government Innovation at Nesta, a leading public innovation think tank in the UK.
The idea of ‘personalization’ has only recently entered the public sector. Personalization is delivering a user content (buy this book, watch this episode, use this service), experience, or functionality that matches their needs, with no effort from the user. Nick Babich, software developer, explains that personalization (ie. push notifications based on previous content, location based suggestions, personalized features) is different from customization (ie. customizing an interface or notifications): with personalization the system or artificial intelligence decides what a user sees, while with customization the user decides what they want to see. Personalization is also called one-to-one marketing, writes Ashley Frietlein, and as an idea has been around since the dotcom hey day (E-consultancy, 2013). Only recently machines have become so advanced that personalized services have become a reality. So now Amazon does it, Spotify does it, Netflix does it. But should governments do it?
Tech companies think governments should. “The next phase in public sector digital transformation is personalization”, writes Microsoft (2017). Big consultancy firms think governments should. And according to Accenture (one of those large consultancies) 2 out of 3 public service leaders across 9 countries now think “a personalized citizen experience is a top-three priority.” (2015). However there is very little guidance (case studies, best practices) available for governments when it comes to questions like: why are personalized government services desirable for citizens? When are they not? How are citizens under the reigning power of governments different from customers buying products from companies? What would a good personalized digital service experience look like? What does it take for government service providers to personalize their digital services? This blog attempts to look at the challenges and implications of personalization in public service delivery by sharing 5 key points government leaders could think of when embarking on a journey of personalizing their digital services. But first: why personalization?
Personalization: why?
According to Copeland, ‘personalized digital government services’ over mere ‘digital government services’ are better equipped to address the needs of the modern citizen: “The information and services I see [on a government website] should not be the same as those used by my parents or grandparents.” Second, it would allow governments to spot service delivery gaps: “If government had a joined up view of an individual’s interactions with different public services, it could spot needs that were unmet.” And third, it would enable digital nudging of citizen’s behaviours: “Personalized government would suggest other services based on a person’s age, demographic or location. For example, why not be prompted to sign up for organ donation or giving blood when renewing a driving licence online?”.
Copeland thinks personalization is highly desirable for governments: it could save money, it could make services better and it could especially support the most vulnerable citizens as the majority of public services are directed to the poorest (and often most vulnerable) 25 % of society. The value and promises of personalization are widely shared and celebrated by private consultancies (ie. KPMG, Open Text, TNS Global, McKinsey, Accenture, PWC, FutureGov): “All [government] departments will benefit from powerful customer insight from the data produced when citizens sign up and register online. This information will prove invaluable. The ability to analyze this data, track and record online behaviour. It could even allow for government to request additional information; all of which would help inform strategic and policy decision making whilst easing operational delivery.” writes KMPG (2016). And Open Text (2017) writes: “Personalization not only offers a better citizen experience, it can deliver the holy grail of agile, low cost operations.” Tech companies like Microsoft (2017) follow: “People want more, highly personalized digital services, and they want them now”.
So far, so good? If personalization is a guiding star on your government horizon, then here are 5 points to think about when personalizing government services.
1. Listen to and learn from your citizens (… team up with citizens, anthropologists, service designers, UX researchers, behavioural insight specialists)
Very little is known how citizens value personalization of public services. Research shows that around the world citizens want to interact digitally with government. However that same research also shows citizens are often not satisfied with the digital services governments have to offer to them. In the “Accenture Public Service Pulse Survey” of almost 7,000 citizens in seven countries, Accenture has revealed a significant gap between what citizens want from digital government and the services that are available: “90 percent of citizens interact with their government via digital channels, but 60 percent of them are ‘neutral’ or ‘not satisfied’ with the quality of their interactions. And yet despite this dissatisfaction, citizens across the board, want to increase their level of digital interaction with public sector organizations.”
This brings us to the question of how citizens want to interact with government in a digital age, and what kind of relationship do they want to have with their governments? TNS Global thinks that the way people are experiencing their digital activities (as personalized, intuitive), influences the way they want to experience digital government as well (as personalized, intuitive). Building relevant digital experiences around them then isn’t just a case of smoother online journeys, thinks TNS (2015): “Personalized experiences for citizens have the power to transform their relationship to government from a largely transactional one (based on a few specific interactions each year) to an on-going one; a relationship that lasts a lifetime and in which government is seen as providing ongoing support and value.”
Open Text (2017) suggests that in order to achieve the ambition of the personalization of service, governments have to move from the position of service provider to service facilitator or broker. “The citizen needs to be able to self-select and self-manage if personalization is to be fully adopted.”. Open Text thinks this is something governments can’t achieve alone: “There are great benefits to be achieved in terms of cost of taking a partnership approach with citizens and private enterprise.” Assuming that the image of digital government services impacts the perception of government, and citizens’ relationship with it, then what do citizens value in that relationship with government? Do they want to feel empowered, in control or served?
In this journey we could think of challenges surrounding privacy of sharing data of citizens’ use of services across Ministries, and how security issues could arise. Copeland makes a strong point about ethics. “What are the ethics in delivering services based on predicting people’s needs? Could this lead to ‘predictive determinism’ where people’s situations become self-fulfilling?” And: “Is it acceptable if some people choose to opt-in to personalized services, and everyone else gets the standard version?”.
That we often don’t know, but Accenture (2015) has a valuable point: do more research with citizens to guide your decisions about for example ethics. “Personalized digital experience requires much more than a refreshed portal. Digital governments must know the needs, motivations, preferences and pain points of their “customers.” They also must own and shape the entire “customer” experience. Ultimately, providing a personalized experience requires digital governments to achieve a higher level of sophistication at every level and in every aspect of their operations — and to apply that standard consistently across thousands of citizen touch points.” TNS Global (2015) thinks along the same lines: “An individualized experience of government can only develop at the pace of people’s appetite for it, and governments need deep insight around the nuances of citizens’ relationships with them, in order to guide it. (..) The future of digital government is an exciting prospect. However, its potential can only be fulfilled if the government understands the ways citizens feel about their digital government experience and how these expectations can be shaped and changed.”
Thus the era of personalized digital services needs answers to a bigger question: which information and services do people actually need to live their lives better? And then how do citizens think about ‘personalization’, both in traditional face-to-face or over-the-phone contact, and in a more artificial intelligence digital form where government makes suggestions through a robot? “It’s difficult to ask about people’s appetite and aptitude for digital services they haven’t yet experienced. But starting with asking these questions to citizens can help to reveal where the real efficiency opportunities for digital government are, whilst also highlighting where blended service offerings and offline support are still seen as an important part of the government’s duty of care”, says TNS Global (2015).
In understanding citizens challenges, needs and behaviours, governments can team up with people who specialize in this field: anthropologists, service designers, UX researchers and behavioural insight specialists.
2. Before having good “personalized” digital services, just make sure to have “good” digital services (… team up with Government Digital Units to learn how to digitize)
Every government stands at a different stage of the digital journey. Some are still spreading the word that people can find useful information on their departmental websites. Others have already built portals that are personalized to meet individual citizens’ own needs, writes TNS Global (2015). Take this situation in the UK (in 2015): “The good news is that digital adoption has been a success. Over 40% of respondents to a recent survey [1000 respondents] reported that the majority of their interacts with government were digital. Almost 90% stated that they want to maintain or increase their digital interactions. The bad news? Only a quarter of the people surveyed by Accenture were actually satisfied by their digital interactions with government. Consider that the respondents’ top five priorities included ‘the ability to have my question answered definitively’ (91%), to ‘be able to see the status of my request or activity’ (79%) and ‘information organized by my need or issue’ (69%) when it came to digital public services. It’s clear the investment made in digital government has yet to consistently deliver the level of information and personalization that citizens want.” (Open Text, 2017).
Getting ready for digital transformation is key to delivering good personalized citizen experiences. “As a public sector organization, you can’t deliver on demands — more services and better service availability — without first making sure your underlying platforms, systems and security are ready.” (Microsoft, 2017). For many governments obstacles remain. In Accenture’s survey (2015), public service leaders cited a number of key barriers to personalization: “security (79 percent), customer privacy/trust (76 percent), lack of skilled workers (69 percent) and technology immaturity (62 percent).” TNS Global (2015) rightly so points out that “As both governments and citizens have different levels of openness to an on-going, personalized relationship, establishing the right form of me.gov for each national policy and audience is essential for an effective digital government strategy.”
So how to get ready? The most popular current route for governments to digitize their services is to establish a “Government Digital Unit”. In this recent study “Digital Government Units: Origins, Orthodoxy and Critical Considerations for Public Management Theory and Practice” (12 July 2017). Amanda Clarke (Carlton University) writes: “These units operate at the centre of their respective civil service administrations, and adopt a common philosophy of digital government, borrowing from the tech sector and startup culture by prioritizing user- centred design, data-driven decision making, open source technologies and platform models of service provision. And in contrast to earlier dominant theories of digital government proposed to date, and e-government initiatives of previous decades, these units couple pluralistic procurement practices with in-house talent recruitment and government-led development of digital services, versus solutions which rely primarily on provision from non- governmental actors (Clarke, 2016a).”

The UK was first in introducing a GDU (Government Digital Services, GDS, check out their Service Manual). The United States (United States Digital Service and 18f, 2014), Australia (Australian Digital Transformation Agency, 2015) and Ontario (2016, Canadian province) followed. Most recently, the Government of Canada announced the creation of a Canadian Digital Service in its March 2017 budget, noting that the unit will be modelled on GDS and GDUs in the United States (18f and the US Digital Service).

Although GDU’s are also not challenge free they globally lead the way in how to digitize services in government: they develop design patterns, technology, service standards and ways for government teams to adopt anything ‘digital’. Therefore they might also naturally be the units to look into when forging pathways forward to ‘personalization’ of digital services.
3. Privacy and security first, personalization later? (… team up with data experts to understand how citizens and Ministries want to share their data across government services)
To what extent are people open to sharing data in order to improve their experiences? As quoted before KMPG (2016) sees no problem in having citizen’s data made readily available: “The application of the basic principle of citizen-centric thinking in government is straightforward: the more government knows about an individual, the better it can serve them. And there’s no reason why the majority of government departments couldn’t deploy these tactics.” However, the idea of governments knowing a lot about an individual also comes achingly close to Big Brother in 1984.
Does that mean we shouldn’t try it? Ultimately, the degree to which the experience of digital government can be personalized will also depend upon each individual’s willingness to share their personal data, writes TNS Global (2015). “This is as true of digital citizen experiences as it is of digital consumer experiences. Privacy concerns make this a sensitive area — and governments need research to help them frame the right terms for data exchange. The most appropriate approach will depend upon each country’s history and culture, general attitudes to privacy, but also perceptions of what is appropriate for different services, and the success of communications in bringing the potential benefits of data sharing to life. Governments can also plan campaigns and public engagement programmes to take this debate forward, re-shape expectations and help to build consensus.”
Providing a high level of transparency could be a first step in fostering trust in government, and create a greater willingness by citizens to more proactively engage with government agencies. Openly communicating privacy and related policies, requiring explicit consent to use and share personally identifiable information (PII), and providing clear opt-out mechanisms will proof invaluable to reach this level of transparency. To what extent are government service providers currently capable to safely and securely capture this kind user data and share that data across governments, both in terms of technology and current privacy and data policies in place? “Underpinning this collaborative approach to delivering co-created personalized services has to be a government platform that allows for the open and secure exchange of information”, says Open Text (2017). What does a platform like that look like for your government? Team up with all the data and security experts you can find in your government and find out!
4. Be prepared to personalize alone, no one’s done it across Ministries (… team up with business innovation analysts to learn where benefits will arise first)
When governments set out to personalize their digital services for citizens, they can be considered brave global pioneers. An initial environmental scan shows that globally there are zero governments who have personalized their digital services across Ministries. Therefore there is little learning and knowledge sharing from other governments. However there are experiences with personalized government apps for individual services (see this The Guardian article, 2017) and there are case studies of personalizing individual government services within Ministries (ie. elderly care in Singapore and New Zealand). What can governments learn from these experiences?
TNS Global (2015) advises: “Governments need deep insight to help illuminate the risks and opportunities that me.gov involves. Only through such insight can we identify the right opportunities for more personalized services, the most effective areas on which to focus investment, and the shape of more meaningful citizen experiences. In doing so, researchers can make a major contribution to re-positioning the relationship between citizens and government”.
Private consultancy companies suggest to have good risk-analysis and cost-benefit analysis in place. What are the investment costs and the likely returns for government services, and where are they likely to show up first? TNS Global (2015): “Like the other phases in the digital government evolution, me.gov will require investment. Before deciding whether that investment is justified, governments need a robust framework for projecting the likely returns”. KMPG (2016) points out that ultimately, this kind of an approach could reduce friction and administrative costs in our public services. “But to produce these benefits, government departments would have to start working collaboratively — creating cross-departmental links and building new access points into public services.” How to establish collaboration across governments, how to break down age-old silos, simultaneously? Dan Kartz, technical director for the public sector at Acquia (consultancy) warns for an “uphill battle” and advises to team up with partners with experience in both the government sector and digital marketing technologies — people who understand for example technology, laws around privacy and can work with government leadership.
5. To portal or not to portal, is that the question? (… team up with tech and Artificial Intelligence experts to chose the latest tools and platform for personalization)
Towards working to personalization, Carrie Bishop, who works for FutureGov, a consultancy that helps governments to digitize their services, writes: “Citizens Portals” are all the rage, but are they any good?”. Her answer: No. No, they’re not. “The main problem is that the products being sold as citizen portals are not intuitive for users and are designed around business processes, not user needs.” (..) “What a council *does* need is a good data platform that means they knows who a user is, wherever they transact, but this doesn’t need a front end for users, just good back end integration and a decent CRM — breaking down single solutions into their constituent parts to use in combination across different use cases”.
In personalizing digital government services it can be beneficial to pair up with leading tech companies and tech experts in catching up with the latest developments on Artificial Intelligence and robots. What else is out there, when personalizing government services? ServicesFutures writes about 7 types of technology McKinsey thinks could help support personalization of government services.

Singapore is leading the way with developing “Conversations as a Platform” and chatbots with Microsoft (2016). “The Government [of Singapore] will explore next-generation government services based on a shift towards conversational computing — specifically, the use of intelligent software programmes known as chatbots for selected public services where appropriate. These chatbots will function as digital representatives, simulating human behaviour in order to make interactions simpler, more efficient, and more consistent.” (..).*
*Just on a side note: when consulting tech experts they might also try to sell you things..
For Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister-In-Charge of the Smart Nation Initiative in Singapore the future is bright: “I believe there are more intuitive ways for government services to be delivered to our citizens. Everybody expects responsive and personalized interactions in real time. The recent quantum improvement of natural language processing means that ‘conversations’ will be the new medium. This joint research project with Microsoft to demonstrate the utility of conversational computing for public services will be all the more pertinent”.
Feeling ready?
So to summarize this rather lengthy blog … understand your citizens needs, assess the status of digitization of your government services, be transparent and secure, undertake a risk-cost-benefit analysis and choose the best technological solution for the desired level of personalization. In your journey, team up with citizens, anthropologists, service designers, UX researchers, leading government digital units, data & security experts, business innovation analysts and tech/AI experts. And while everyone around you is strategizing, researching and aligning, don’t forget to just try out little things, because experiments (build, show, fail, build again!) still teach us most about how to do ‘the future’.
Feeling ready?
