Chapter 3
What is 'digital transformation' of government services
Introduction
3.1
This chapter summarises evidence received by the committee regarding perspectives
as to what 'digital transformation' entails. What is meant by 'digital
transformation' of government services?
Perspectives
3.2
The committee has heard a variety of views as to what is understood by
the term 'digital transformation'. Some submissions addressed the fundamental
nature of the changes to society and government administration brought about by
digital technology.[1] Many focused on the rollout of the actual infrastructure, software and the
devices needed to deliver services.[2]
3.3
Mr Paul Waller, Researcher, Bradford University, London and a former
United Kingdom senior civil servant involved in policy development and delivery
of e-government, observed that there is no generally accepted understanding of
the term 'digital transformation' as applied to government. Mr Waller noted
that implicitly or explicitly, the term mostly refers to a change in
organisational form signalled by the terms 'joining-up' or 'integration', of
government. Mr Waller commented that:
There is in academic or other literature little evidence of any
type of "transformation" achieved beyond a change in administrative
process, nor a robust framework of benefits one might deliver. This begs the
question of what it actually means in reality and why it might be a desired
goal.[3]
3.4
Mr Waller further commented that his research of the literature covering
the last 20 years has led him to the conclusion that digital transformation of
government services has been that governments have been going about the task
the wrong way by applying:
...a very simplistic e-commerce model to what is actually a
highly complex political and legislative context. The model is of very limited
applicability in that context. In effect, digital transformation turned out to
mean websites and transactions on websites...almost nothing [in the literature]
acknowledged that government is about policy development, policy design and its
implementation...[4]
3.5
Mr Waller contended that governments need to look at the issue starting
with policy making and legislation as the core functions of government, and
that:
The key there lies in understanding the impact of
technology—any technology—on policy instruments, their selection in policy
design and how that's translated into interactions with the real world in
administrative legislation.[5]
3.6
Mr Martin Stewart-Weeks, who appeared in his private capacity, commented
that digital transformation of government services is a triangle of issues: 'digital
capability, the role and purpose of government, and [public sector] culture'.
He further stated that:
...part of the challenge for the digital transformation
conversation in government at any level... is that we often fail to make a
connection... between [the] three elements whose interaction has a lot to do with
where and how we can drive the transformation debate as far is it needs to go.[6]
3.7
The Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) made a similar point,
observing that there is a 'misunderstanding of digital', which the CPSU stated 'is
not only about ICT or websites, but also about business transformation'.[7]
3.8
Mr Paul Shetler, the former Chief Executive Officer of the DTO, has a
conception of digital transformation of government services as the delivery of
simple, clear, fast services that meet users' needs.[8] He advocated customer service as the key:
One of the things I've noticed working in government but also
outside government in financial services and a number of other industries that
are currently dealing with digital competition is that in many cases the
companies don't really understand what business they're in. They don't really
understand that they're competing against digital companies. When you are
competing against digital companies, to some extent you are becoming one
because you can be replaced in your customers' minds with a digital company. Government
needs to have the same kind of mindset as industry in this regard. It needs to
understand, 'What is the impact of digital on the business models we have, on
the ways we can serve the public and on the kind of ways we can rethink and
re-imagine our services so that we can make them meet user needs?'[9]
3.9
By contrast, the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network
(ACCAN) focused on 'a government's use of computers, mobile devices and the
internet to provide services and information for consumers in its jurisdiction'
and digital services as 'allow[ing] consumers to complete government
applications and transactions remotely...facilitated through the submission of an
electronic form on a digital platform'.[10]
3.10
The DHS described its Digital Transformation Strategy as:
...a six year roadmap to harness current and emerging
technologies to deliver smarter and more efficient services.[11]
3.11
The DTA as the government's lead agency for digital transformation sees
its task in terms of making technology accessible:
...delivering better
and more accessible digital services to individuals and businesses. This
includes modernising myGov, providing Australians with secure control of their
personal information, adopting cloud strategies to deliver better digital
services, making it easier for small-to-medium enterprises to win government
work and increasing the transparency of government services.[12]
3.12
Mr Randall Brugeaud, Acting Chief Executive Officer, DTA, agreed with
the views expressed that turning analogue services into digital services is not
transformation:
It's not simply sufficient for us to turn paper forms into
electronic forms. In order for us to actually have a significant impact on the
way government delivers services we need to think quite differently about how
those services are delivered.[13]
Whether government is different from the private sector
3.13
Some submissions addressed the question of whether there was any
relevant distinction between government and industry which would have bearing
on how governments should approach the process of the digital transformation of
their activities.
3.14
Mr Waller disagreed with the contention that government should 'be like
Amazon or a bank or supermarket'. He argued that governing a country is not the
same thing as selling potatoes or paperbacks.[14] He contended:
Governments do policies, not services...
... a government is about policy development, policy design and
its implementation; legislation and administration of that legislation;
appreciation of the principles of the rule of laws and separation of powers;...the
role of administrative legislation; and its political accountability.[15]
3.15
In that context, Mr Waller said:
There are words bandied around in the UK—I can't speak for
Australia—about government being agile. In a sense, as policymakers, you have
to respond to events in a way, but that's always been the nature of government.
As Churchill said, 'Events, dear boy, events!' But on the other hand, in terms
of the administration of public policy and legislation, the opposite is true.
We, as nations, both pride ourselves as being adherents to the rule of law, so
regulation is predictable. The execution and the administration of acts of
regulation or whatever are carried out according to the law, objectively, without
favour and entirely predictably and stably. It's generally not regarded as a
good thing if law and public administration chop and change constantly; the
opposite is true. So, the dynamic in public administration as opposed to
entrepreneurial start-ups is, to my way of thinking, completely the opposite.[16]
3.16
In that context, Mr Waller considered the language used to be an
important distinction:
... Language, here, does play a big part, and my biggest hate
is the word 'services', which gets used to apply in this context to everything
from the entire health system or the taxation system down to a simple
transaction or even just a bit of computer code. But it brings into play what I
described as the ecommerce model, a very simplistic model...talking about the difference
between public administration and entrepreneurial start-ups, I am desperately
trying to move people away from the language and concepts from that world ...Yes,
they may look like customers in some sense...Are you a customer of a public
health service? Not quite perhaps, because you're exercising an entitlement to
something under the law. There are not really good words in the English
language, but it's a matter of people exercising rights and entitlements rather
than customers and providing services in the commercial sense.[17]
3.17
Mr Martin Stewart-Weeks, agreed with Mr Waller that the digital
transformation of government must proceed with 'deep, deep respect for the
particular rhythms and contours of public work', however, he did not accept the
proposition that the digital transformation process has been about trying to
impose business techniques on government business:
This is not what it's about at all. The digital game we're
playing is way deeper and way more significant, in my view...It's a whole
different mindset about how you conduct enterprises of any sort. I would argue
very, very forcefully that the digital transformation engine...or motivation is
not primarily about a bunch of private sector techniques. This is in fact about
the discovery of a very, very deeply significant and certainly potentially
deeply disruptive new way of conducting human business of how we organise
ourselves and get stuff done. It doesn't matter what sector it's in.[18]
3.18
Meanwhile, Mr Paul Shetler made no special reference to government being
different from the private sector in delivering government services. He contended
that:
Government needs to have the same kind of mindset as industry
in this regard. It needs to understand, 'What is the impact of digital on the
business models we have, on the ways we can serve the public and on the kind of
ways we can rethink and re-imagine our services so that we can make them meet
user needs?[19]
3.19
Mr Shetler partially accepted the proposition that the inherent
difference between private enterprise and government is that the latter cannot
go out of business. However, Mr Shetler observed that governments can suffer a similar
thing to going out of business where governments suffer a crisis of trust. Mr
Shetler saw the answer as governments being certain they can react in real time
to their understanding of what the user needs are, as that is how private
enterprise survives.[20] He continued:
When I say 'more like Amazon', I mean more responsive to user
needs... Government has a social purpose which is different from industry. ...I'm
not at all saying, 'Run government as a for-profit enterprise.' That's not what
I'm saying, but I'm saying we should learn from the methods that for-profit
enterprises use to deliver brilliant products and seeing what of those we can
actually apply.[21]
3.20
Mr Stewart-Weeks accepted the premise that there is no reason why
government cannot provide a similar user experience as provided by Netflix,
Amazon or Uber. However, he observed:
[that the answer] has to do with the way in which you design
those experiences. If you're going to help people pay their tax easily or get
their student benefits easily and all the rest of it, I think there are more
nuances and there are certainly more hurdles that you have to get across in the
public space in order to be able to deliver the same kind of experience—that is
to say, from the user's point of view, it's simple, it's easy, it's clear, it's
relatively quick and it's safe... That doesn't mean to say that you run the
Department of Human Services like you're running Netflix or Amazon...[22]
What questions should government be asking?
3.21
Some submissions identified various aspects of the digital
transformation process the importance of which would appear not to have been fully
appreciated in conceptual thinking about digital transformation, or indeed,
have been overlooked, in the development of the overall framework for the
digital transformation of government services.
3.22
Mr Waller has argued that the lack of progress in the digital
transformation of government services has been taken to be a failure of
execution, whereas it is actually a failure to understand the problem;
governments are assuming that they are doing the right things badly whereas they
have not actually known what is the right thing to do. Mr Waller observed that
focus has been on the 'how' of things that are done rather than challenging the
'what' or why they are done.[23]
3.23
Mr Stewart-Weeks reflected that at present the conversation tends to be
dominated by the technology, what is or isn't happening, and so forth. He observed
that, important as these things are, they are only one half of the conversation[24].
He observed the trust and empathy and values between government and citizen is
critical to digital transformation:
...the experience for most people of dealing with government is
obviously significantly transactional...It's transactional at one level; people
want to do their business with government whether it's paying taxes or fines or
getting benefits or whatever. But the truth is that people's attitudes towards
and their beliefs about whether the government is doing a good job or not are
not transactional. There are also other very big issues at play: empathy; what
I would call legibility—not so much transparency, but legibility: the ability
for people to literally read and see what's going on and get a real sense of
what's happening—trust; big issues around outcomes and public value; and so on
and so forth.[25]
3.24
Mr Shetler contended the government approach to digital delivery does
not allow for experimentation, and therefore precludes agility, agreeing that a
prototyping methodology is best where there is uncertainty as to how to achieve
an outcome. A project might be clear as to the outcomes to be achieved, but knowing
the end result does not necessarily mean you know the best way of getting
there. Mr Shetler put forward his
belief that the only way to achieve experimentation is to bring digital skills
in-house. [26]
I think that, generally speaking you're talking about
experimentation. That is why I believe government needs to have the digital
skills in-house. Government needs to own that process. If you hand it off to a
vendor, there are all kinds of things that can go wrong. The only way to manage
that is purely on a time-and-materials basis, where you just shut things off if
you don't want them.[27]
3.25
Ms Teressa Ward, Assistant Director-General, National Archives of
Australia, focussed on the dimension of government as a repository of data that
has a public value which is not presently being recognised. She noted that the
National Archives is the custodian of the most significant national data and
information of government. She contended that digital transformation must
recognise that information collected by the government, or data, is a business
asset that must be strategically managed:
...we consider that the successful delivery of trusted
government services requires an increased focus on the value, governance and
management of business information, including data.[28]
'Being digital' rather than 'doing digital'[29]
3.26
Some submissions posited the view that digital transformation requires a
change of mindset about how policy is decided and delivered, proposing a much
more consultative approach to design solutions.
3.27
Mr Waller observed that the purpose of government is to make, implement
and administer policy decisions on behalf of the community, however, in
relation to digital government, the dominant assumption has been that
'government is a service industry, with a private sector model in mind'.[30]
3.28
Of the way ahead, Mr Waller stated:
...we must start with
the political process of policy design. Instead of building web sites to
support existing administration, we must look at how technology can be embedded
in policy realisation, through policy instruments.[31]
3.29
Mr Waller cited an example where the delivery of healthcare services was
greatly assisted by using text messages to remind people about their
appointments, because the missing of appointments was one of the biggest drains
on local healthcare services:
Again, it's just achieving a simple impact on, in this case,
achieving healthcare policy through smart, clever little uses of simple
technology making it easier for people. None of that is actually about websites,
but, historically, we've always been thinking immediately of transactions on
websites as being the solution to everything, and it hasn't really worked.[32]
3.30
Mr Stewart-Weeks observed that policymakers are trained to provide
answers to policy problems, whereas the current environment is one where people
want an opportunity to shape the question. He contended:
..the digital space starts from the premise that we may not
even be asking the right question, and we may find our way to the right
question much more quickly if we are way, way more open about who ought to be
engaged in the first place, rather than keeping that whole policy process
relatively closed, relatively elite and relatively secret.[33]
3.31
Mr Stewart-Weeks' solution is to ensure that, early in the process,
policymakers should be engaging with customers, frontline staff, entrepreneurs
and innovators who can think about ways in which digital tools and platforms
might be able to ameliorate, or even avoid the problem, or to challenge the
subject of the proposed policy. He stated:
In other words, if you're going to be digital, as opposed to
do digital, and you're thinking about the policy conundrum that you're trying
to solve...would you be trying to solve that problem in the first place or are
there other ways, perhaps with more user involvement, self-service and those
kind of things? The policy problem itself may disappear, or at least it may go
away or change. [34]
3.32
Mr Stewart-Weeks referred to 'Policy Lab', a project within the cabinet
office in the United Kingdom concerning open policymaking which examines
whether the policymaking process
...could use digital capability, particularly in the early
stages, a much more open and legible process in terms of people being able to
see what is happening and see the issues that are being debated in order to
have a chance much earlier in the formation and selection of the policy issues
to be worried about in the first place—never mind waiting until somebody's got
a draft paper or a draft bill, or whatever it might be and then we
traditionally get consultation and feedback.[35]
3.33
The Australian Information Industry Association (AIIA) made a similar
point:
The efficiency of
moving a service online is, in most cases, only realized where the business
process that supports the service is re-engineered. Maximising the efficiency
of technology requires leveraging the capability of the technology to improve
and transform the business process and delivery method. This has still not been
addressed by a range of government agencies that deliver outward facing
services to consumers— while the technology is new, the underlying processes
remain antiquated.
For example, the
plethora of forms, the way in which these are compiled, how they are required
to be completed and submitted continues to reflect old processes and old ways
of thinking.[36]
3.34
Ms Ward provided an example of government being rather than doing
digital, in the potential for artificial intelligence to be embedded in
metadata, in this case, to assist in the sentencing and preserving of
Commonwealth records.[37] Ms Ward stated:
The Department of Finance... [have] a research project at the
moment where they're looking at how metadata can work behind the scenes in information
management and help with the sentencing of documents so that the user, the
departmental officer who is typing away into their word document, doesn't need
to be strictly aware of how that document will be sentenced.[38]
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page