DESIGNING SERVICES FOR PEOPLE

Right, well, first of all, thank you very much for being here and taking the time to talk.

Thank you very much for inviting me.

How do you sum yourself up in a few words?

Well, that’s a very good question because I find myself right at the intersection of these two worlds. On one hand, I’m the CEO of a strategy consultancy, and on the other, I’m very much involved in the design community as a designer. And sometimes those... for me, I sit perfectly in the middle of those things, but I think sometimes it can seem sort of far apart.

To give you an example, I’m currently at Central St Martins in London where I was on the board of UAL, and I’m still very active in meetings with creative institutions like Central St Martins and the London College of Fashion. In these settings, I typically introduce myself as a designer or someone with a design background.

However, in other contexts, such as corporate or government meetings, I may lead with my role as a CEO. It depends on the situation, but even when I present myself as a CEO, I always bring a design-thinking approach to the table. My work revolves around digital transformation, which is really about optimizing the use of the internet to create better services for citizens, making processes more user-focused and efficient.

So, while I wear different hats depending on the meeting, design thinking is at the core of everything I do,  whether it’s leading a consultancy or driving digital change for organisation around the world.

How do public and private organisation differ in their approach to digital transformation, particularly in how they view and serve their users? Are there notable differences between how governments and private companies perceive and interact with their users?

In my experience, every organisation tends to believe it’s different or special, facing unique challenges. Organisation are large groups of people, who have all the same problems. Of course, there may be some exceptions, like military or secret service organisation, which have distinct operational needs, the fundamental principles of how organisation function—what I call “organisational physics”—are consistent across the board.

The private sector often thinks it’s fundamentally different from the public sector, mainly because of the profit motive versus public service goals. While this can lead to some differences, like being driven by quarterly results versus election cycles, the core challenges around managing people, teams, and technology are very much alike. 

When we dig deeper into an organisation, regardless of whether it’s private, public, or government-run, we always find that about 90% of the problems are identical. The solutions might be framed slightly differently, but the core issues—especially in larger organisations—are remarkably consistent. The only notable distinction comes from newer companies or startups. If an organisation has been around since before the internet became mainstream, say, before the mid-’90s, they tend to have the same set of legacy problems. However, younger companies that were ‘“born’” into the internet era may operate slightly differently because they grew up with modern technology. Still, for most organisations, the challenges are largely the same.

As I reflect on the past 30 years since the internet began, I wonder about its impact on organisations and how it can enhance services for people today. I know you had your first significant experience with the UK Government about 15 years ago. Did that experience feel groundbreaking and innovative, especially coming from a public organisation? It seems that, even now, many countries, including Italy, still view this as a futuristic concept despite the internet’s long history. How do you perceive this evolution in thinking about services?

Um, that’s... so I think... When we designed the GOV.UK website, the final product didn’t look radical or innovative at first glance. It was actually meant to appear familiar, incorporating elements like Margaret Calvert’s typeface to create a sense of trust. On the surface, it’s just a simple website that lets you renew your driving license or passport, nothing that feels groundbreaking in terms of technology. Government services are generally quite basic: you fill out a form, pay a fee, and receive a document. 

The technology behind it isn’t cutting-edge. However, the process we followed to build the site was where the real innovation happened. We focused heavily on user needs, constantly engaging with citizens to refine and iterate. We were making changes and updates on a daily basis, sometimes even within hours if users pointed out issues. 

This approach, continuously improving the design and functionality, was incredibly different from the traditional government method, where changes might only happen once or twice a year.

So I think those outputs, no, none of that is radical, none of that is new, none of that is innovative. 
The way we went about it was very new, very different.
That was very innovative. And the outcomes that the citizen had, that was very new and innovative. But the bit, the assets and stuff, no. One of the biggest shifts was unifying everything under one platform. 

Previously, each government department had its own website, branding, and even different ways of asking for basic information like names and addresses. However, for the public, government is a single entity. People don’t distinguish between departments, they just want to get things done as quickly and stress-free as possible. So we brought all these departments together under one website, with one consistent user experience and tone of voice. That was truly radical.

The design was often criticised early on for being too plain, some even called it boring because it’s just a black-and-white site with minimal elements. But that simplicity was intentional. People aren’t browsing government websites for fun; they’re often stressed and just want to get their task done. 

So, we stripped away anything unnecessary and focused entirely on usability. A good example of this was getting rid of icons. While they looked great, users found them confusing, so we just removed them.

Today, people still approach me and say how easy it is to use GOV.UK, and how they wish their own company websites were as simple. That’s because, at its core, the design prioritises the user. 

And in that sense, it’s still innovative. Even though it may not look flashy, the way we put user needs first and continuously improved the experience was, and still is, quite groundbreaking for a government website.

So, I’m curious to know if you’ve had a huge impact on the end users, but at the same time, you’re dealing with hundreds of services, each with their own processes and cultures, how did you manage that? How did you tackle changing not just the external service delivery but also the way service providers themselves think and operate? How did you handle the behind-the-scenes shift in how people actually work? Was it difficult to align everyone on this?

Well, in government services, there are two things, two key elements to consider: how departments create and publish content, and the technology that supports these processes behind the scenes. This is where service design truly comes into play. This is the true work of service design, I think, and this is where, you know, people always struggle with a definition of service design. For example, many governments have taken outdated paper processes, like issuing a passport, and simply put them online, which makes the process faster but doesn’t fix the underlying inefficiencies. So it’s better, it’s quicker and it’s more efficient, but it’s still a bad process.

What we advocated for was a more transformative approach, leveraging the internet to completely rethink these processes from the ground up.

Instead of just digitising a bad process, why not ask: “Why are we doing it this way?” How people work, does change what people do behind the scenes, changes all kinds of things. Reimagining how things work, could change everything from how departments function to the very reason why certain services, like passports, even exist. We could handle identity differently, for instance. We’re just beginning to see the benefits of this mindset, but there’s still a long way to go. The UK, like many other countries, could be far more radical in its approach. Estonia is a great example, they embraced a digital-first strategy back in the ‘90s and have completely redesigned their services. Meanwhile, much of the West is still just digitising old, inefficient systems rather than starting fresh and asking, “How could this be simpler?”

So it’s not just about digitising something or putting a digital layer on processes that have been done the same way for decades. It’s more about asking: How would they approach this today, with the tools available now, as if they were building a startup from scratch? How would they create it in today’s context?
You mentioned conducting numerous interviews with end users, stakeholders, and so on. Did this shift in thinking become part of the government’s culture? Has it changed the way the government designs and builds services today? Did those years introduce a new culture into GOV.UK?

Yes, yes, it did. Yes, it absolutely did bring about a change. One of the most interesting aspects was seeing how people from the digital world, who were already working in this way, brought their skills to the government. 

But what really stood out for me, one of the biggest joys, was seeing people from completely non-digital parts of government showing genuine interest. They’d come to us and say, “I want to work the way you’re working.” “ I think we could learn something from you.” It wasn’t about having a website or offering digital services; they simply wanted their teams, even in areas like finance, to adopt similar approaches. They realised it wasn’t just about technology, but more about the mindset, embracing service design, user-centric thinking, and agile ways of working. Seeing these teams, who traditionally wouldn’t be associated with digital transformation, adopt these methods has been incredibly rewarding. That’s a real joy, really.

Absolutely. Is this related to what I saw on the Public Digital website regarding the importance of funding teams rather than just projects? You mentioned that teams serve as enablers, right?

Yeah, exactly. I believe that while projects may come to a conclusion, the services we provide never really do. They continuously evolve and require ongoing attention. This creates a sense of urgency, almost like standing on a cliff edge, which can lead to challenges if not managed properly. That’s why it’s crucial to invest in a dedicated team. By empowering them and consistently providing the necessary resources, they can focus on their work and deliver results effectively. This philosophy is central to our approach.

We’re saying before that it’s important to see technology as something that helps us achieve a specific purpose. Shouldn’t this be the foundation for creating a more efficient, public-facing organisation that effectively shares data? It seems like a feasible idea, yet implementing it appears to be a challenging task that requires significant infrastructure changes. Do you see this becoming a reality in the near future? Given your experience at Public Digital, where you work with various organisations, what’s your take on this?

So that’s a good question. I think broadly speaking, yes, that’s how things should be done. There should be data sharing between departments, and between services. That should be seamless. Are we close to that happening? No, we’re not. I think one of the reasons we’re not, is because you’ve got legacy services and legacy data. it’s actually quite hard to implement that. So the easiest way to do it is to often scratch. That’s why Meta and Amazon and people are better than governments, frankly. So we’re a long way from seeing governments do that properly. But there’s also, I think, just a lack of understanding, with senior politicians and senior civil servants globally regarding the importance of effective data sharing. Not just in the UK but all over the world,  they often get sidetracked by trends like AI, which, while exciting, won’t make a substantial impact if the underlying data isn’t in order. 

So the things are the data really should be seen as a foundation, and having this stuff in good order ought to be seen as a foundation. And you can’t do any of the more exciting things without doing that.

You mentioned earlier how private companies like Amazon and Meta handle data in different ways. In your opinion, are there specific practices from the private sector that the public sector should adopt because they would add value? And conversely, are there any lessons or insights from the public sector that private companies could benefit from?

I think that’s a really good question. I mean, It’s not so easy to draw a clear line between the strengths of the private and public sectors. I wouldn’t say the private sector always does certain things better or that the public sector excels in others. I think that the private sector is sort of better at hiring. I don’t just mean salary, in most cases, the private sector tends to be more flexible in attracting talent and moving on when things don’t work out, which allows them to keep refreshing their teams more easily.
But, you know, the public sector has an incredibly dedicated workforce.

People in the public sector are there because of a sense of mission, not just for the paycheck or the company.

In fact, many private companies would love to have that level of commitment and belief in their core mission. So I think in the more forward-thinking teams that we work with around the world, the public sector finds it easier to think about the user. I think that’s something the private sector sometimes struggles with, as they can get caught between the demands of corporate boards or shareholders, even though they do aim to be user-centric. In summary, while the private sector might be better at certain operational aspects, the public sector excels in fostering a deep commitment to its mission and users. That’s something that can be a bit harder for the private sector to achieve.

Earlier, you mentioned AI and the importance of having solid foundations to properly use it. In an ideal scenario where an organisation or government has the necessary infrastructure, where do you see the main opportunities for AI application? And on the flip side, where do you see the potential risks or challenges in implementing it? How could it be utilised by a government like the UK’s, or do you believe there are areas where it shouldn’t be applied?

If I were a government, AI would not be top of my list. There’d be many other things I’d do before that. And many of the things that I think would benefit governments and would be helpful that people might call AI, these are really machine learning or, you know RPA kind of, pretty basic sort of processing. 
Again, if the government had data, if they cleaned their data up, and if that was well-managed and well-structured and so on, there are efficiencies. We’re already seeing this in a couple of health services for diagnostic purposes around the world. So that’s really serious work there, and it’s really having some efficiencies and speeding some things up. 

There are also some sort of fraud activities again in governments around the world where they’re able to spot patterns quicker than a human would. And that’s really quite interesting.

What challenges and opportunities do you see in the public sector today, particularly in the context of the UK Government? If you were still working as the leader of the UK Digital team, what goals or challenges would you focus on moving forward?

Absolutely, that’s a great question. I believe in the UK it’s a very interesting moment because GOV.UK’s sort of ten years old, 12 years old. You’ve got a brand new government. There’s a fresh focus on mission-driven initiatives.  That’s already a bit more outcome-focused than previous governments have been. 
So I think there is a chance, and they’re very enthusiastic about digital. They’ve made some moves already, merging various units under one department. That’s all so far so good. I see this enthusiasm and mission-led mindset as perfectly aligned with the principles of service design. It’s an opportunity for us to reassess and enhance our methods.

While the essential work on GOV.UK should continue, there’s potential to expand and explore new directions. 
We can really push the boundaries of what we’re doing. By mastering the fundamentals, we can then venture into new areas with confidence.

Are you currently collaborating with the UK Government through your agency, Public Digital?

Yeah, we don’t work directly on GOV.UK, but we do work with other government departments yet on various services.

I saw Public Digital has headquarters also in Nigeria.

I’ve been engaged with the global South for quite some time, focusing particularly on our work in Africa. 
For instance, in Madagascar, we assisted in establishing a digital unit. More recently, in Edo State, Nigeria, we supported the launch of a digital and data unit that just went live a month ago. I’m genuinely excited about this development; they’ve taken significant steps in getting everything set up. In Africa, we are working with the Gates Foundation. 
And you know, I think if you’re working anywhere around the world, you can’t just keep flying people from London over all the time. So we’re very much keen to work with local talent and have a local base. 
So that’s why we have a small but hopefully expanding office in Nigeria. And the same in Canada. I see we do quite a lot of work with Nova Scotia and various Canadian states.

Could you share some insights about the projects you’re currently involved with Public Digital?

Absolutely, I’d be happy to share what I can. Often, though, I can’t dive into too much detail due to the sensitive nature of some projects. Currently, we’re working with British Telecom (BT) in the UK. They really want to make huge strides in improving how they implement agile and new ways of working. 

We’ve also recently partnered with the Edo State Digital Data Agency in Nigeria, which has just launched. This initiative is fantastic and full of potential. Additionally, Nova Scotia remains one of our oldest clients, and they continue to excel in their efforts. Talking about what we said about actually, thinking about services from the very beginning onward. They continuously do great work there. 

In the United States, we are collaborating with Bloomberg Philanthropies on projects related to digital and data strategy for various cities, including some in South America. It’s fascinating to note that cities in the US have significant power, unlike in the UK, where services are much more centralised under the government. This decentralisation presents unique opportunities and challenges, making our work with US cities particularly engaging. That gives you a good overview of some of our current projects.

I’d love to know: are there any emerging technology frameworks that excite you, particularly in the realms of technology and design? I find that as we explore and study new concepts, it often takes time before we can integrate them into our client projects. I’m curious if there are specific tools or enablers out there that inspire you to dive deeper into research. What are your thoughts?

I’m the wrong person because I tend to focus on functionality. I really want things to be simpler and clearer, and that doesn’t always come across as enthusiastic. But there are definitely aspects I’m excited about. For example, when I look at the digital landscape in government, I see significant growth.

Ten years ago, there were only a handful of effective digital units—maybe five or six. Fast forward to today, and that number has exploded to over 100. They’re growing, and some are very small, some very powerful, but they are talking to each other. These units vary in size and influence, but what’s encouraging is that they’re starting to communicate and collaborate with each other. I’ve seen firsthand how certain digital ways of working change people’s perspectives; once they experience them, they don’t want to go back to the old ways.

I’m also quite optimistic about the new government in the UK. It’s not about politics for me; it’s about the opportunity for a fresh start. A complete government overhaul like this can inspire a new way of thinking, and I’ve noticed some promising signals so far.

Overall, I tend to see the future through an optimistic lens. While I understand the prevailing pessimism, I believe that, by most measures, the world is improving—quality of life is on the rise, even if it doesn’t always feel that way. However, I do acknowledge that there are some troubling forces at play, which can be hard to recognise.

At Public Digital, we maintain the belief that the Internet can still be a force for good. Yes, it’s easy to get lost in the negativity online, but I genuinely believe that the positives outweigh the negatives. While I have reservations about the hype surrounding AI and its potential to ‘save us all,’ I do see a role for technology in our future. Whether it’s addressing climate change or improving services, technology can be a powerful enabler if used correctly and focused on the needs of citizens and users.

In summary, I remain optimistic about the direction we’re heading in, though there’s certainly room for improvement in how we harness technology and implement it in our projects.

Before we wrap up, I wanted to ask if you have any recommendations for readings, movies, podcasts, or anything else you’ve enjoyed in the past year.

I want to share an example that stands out to me. There’s a brilliant thinker and writer named Richard Pope, who played a crucial role in shaping the innovative ideas behind GOV.UK during the early days of the Government Digital Service. He’s not only a fantastic writer but also a doer in the realm of digital government and services.

But Richard is portraying a very realistic, very practical, very exciting future. His book called Platformland is very rich with thoughts and ideas and diagrams and sketches, and it’s well worth a read. Whether you’re a technologist or public servant or a designer, all three of those types of people could read that book and get something from it. So I just sort of recommend that book. This book explores many important topics related to the future of digital services. While I often hear voices urging us to focus on fixing the basics, Richard presents a more optimistic vision of the future, particularly with the potential of AI. His perspective is both realistic and inspiring.


Ben’s reading recommendation.

PLATFORMLAND