5. Potential for improvement

"Central government has the money and the resources; why do we have to change what we do?"

From our consultations we can identify a number of areas where the service delivery culture can be improved - at least to the viewpoint of the groups we talked to.

5.1 Identify the audiences

Different groups need different things. Many government services on and offline seem driven by narrow technical considerations and policy designers who are seen as removed from the 'real world' conditions of most citizens.

Many citizens that want to use the internet are at the end of 'thin pipes' - and will remain so. So their material needs to come carefully designed using structures that download well, despite the poor quality and capacity of the connection. This suggests a substitution of cunning and smart design for sheer of volume availability online.

There are many disabled people who could use the internet but the sites need to be designed so as to be readily accessible for their use.

5.2 Sort the messages

Overload means people want to be sent the messages of potential interest to them. Regular reviews of mailing lists and communication channels are required to keep material focused. Others spoke of the need able to overview material in summary before diving into the masses of detail. They saw the ability to access such detail as vital, but a matter that they should be triggering; it's important that they still are able to find the detail when it's required.

There seemed to be limited interest in 'puff.' Citizens do not want their expectations built up beyond what is going to be delivered. There seems to be a strong cynicism about service delivery, resulting in an attitude that was pervasive of believing what they see.

There are sites that will be mostly accessed by professionals but there still needs to be a "dummy's version." Many economically related sites will be like this with the predominant share of visitors perhaps clued up accountants or business people, but still rating a degree of attention from non-technicians who would thus require some smart simple ('one touch') directions.

Citizens have a vast array of transactions with government. They see the need for different communication types (phone call, letter, face to face, and internet) but they have a variety of dimensions to the selection of the appropriate channel.

These include:

• the type of client involved (shy, articulate, etc);

• the type of enquiry;

• the degree of interaction included; and

• the importance of the matter ("I'd never trust any reply on a tax matter that was not written down and signed")

5.3 Blur the boundaries

Citizens do not all understand (or care about) the agencies of central government and the precise fall of their boundaries. They should not have to be limited by the existing silos.

Suggesting that the service sought is the responsibility of another agency is not necessarily the most helpful action. Smooth shifts to allow citizens to be transferred to someone who can deal with them would be an improvement.

Similarly their degree of seamless access could ideally be widened to include the appropriate local and non-government sites and related information where possible.

5.4 Proactivity

Citizens do not know - or care - about the way their issues are seen by the government; they just want to complete their business, so that the things that are important get solved. So, from their viewpoint, IT is one of the tools that should be employed by the government system to ask the right questions and make the right suggestions to them.

So 'active marketing" is needed. Most often likely service needs can be identified by requests for associated services. The equivalent of the notorious "would you like fries with that burger?" enquiry is to ask the Levin-based patient at Palmerston North hospital whether they have the mileage claim form.

Suggesting information to citizens - if done the right way - seems to be what they would like. Such material could cover the thrust of policies, citizen entitlements, manuals and programmes as well as easy and simple claim mechanisms.

5.5 Recognise the standard

Citizens deal with the private sector constantly. This is the benchmark for standards of service. We were struck, as mentioned, by the number of Levin dwellers who instanced the usefulness of internet/telephone banking as a means to use their time better. This sat uncomfortably with the universal loathing of government call centres.

Why the contrast?

It was not possible to resolve this issue. But the general picture was that the private centres (e.g. banking) were seen as working better. And why was that happening? Again, no resolution to the enquiry, but suggestions include, the lack of queues (or long waiting times); the seeming better training (quality?) of the staff at the private ones; and a simpler set of needs provided through this channel. The favourable views did, after all relate to a highly competitive business, aware that clients have a choice.

5.6 Some agencies are the front line

A small sub-set of central government agencies form the 'frontline' of the public sector. They are the ones that are constantly involved in interactions with the public. As such they 'set the tone.' Many respondents referred to the LTSA as an agency they had recently dealt with. Usually the impression was reasonably positive; in many cases it was extremely favourable.

Other agencies that citizens reported regular contact with, were, on the other hand, uniformly discussed in negative terms. It was often hard to tease out the extent to which reported experiences were recent. We formed the opinion that certain agencies in the area had been "given a bad name" at one time. And this perception tends to persist in the public mind.

Whether they still deserved it we were not well placed to judge, but in the one case we looked at we certainly saw no evidence of any of the practices we had heard complaints about (Phones not being answered, lengthy delays at the counter and so on). Indeed, we arrived to talk to the manager while he was away, but there was no concern. The staff - without knowing why we were visiting - looked after us promptly, pleasantly and without fuss.

This points to the long lasting consequences of service delivery failure. We think also, based on the simple 'gossip model' (if service is poor each person involved tells many friends and acquaintances) of critical incidents, that even short periods of relatively poor service can create a negative impression in a location. If it is assumed too, as seems reasonable, that the impact of a bad reputation is to undermine, to some degree, the ability to carry out efficient quality service delivery, it further suggests that the costs of such incidents are high.