• Home• Index and downloads• Glossary ☎ Contact us

Print this page Find Download

 

Improving service delivery

Improving service delivery is reflected in a number of approaches adopted by APS agencies. These include mechanisms to obtain feedback from the public, and providing information and training to employees on their service delivery responsibilities.

Feedback mechanisms

The 2005 agency survey asked agencies that have contact with the public about the mechanisms they use to obtain feedback from the public. Those agencies that indicated that they had no public contact have been excluded from the following analysis. Overall, the use of feedback mechanisms remained constant. The most common mechanism reported was a complaints/feedback website link, reported by 88% of agencies that have contact with the public (a similar result to last year’s). Other widely-used mechanisms include complaints/feedback phone hotlines (75%) and customer surveys (71%); both remain relatively constant compared with last year’s results.

There is still some variation among agencies in their use of feedback mechanisms, depending on their size. Large agencies were more likely to use complaints/feedback phone hotlines (90% compared to 64% of relevant small agencies and 74% of relevant medium agencies). Large and medium agencies were more likely to use complaints/ feedback website links—95% and 91% respectively—than relevant small agencies (79%). Small agencies show a sizeable decline in the use of both of these mechanisms compared with last year (the 2003–04 results were 76% for phone hotlines and 90% for website links). Examples of online feedback and evaluation include:

Use of customer surveys was more often reported by relevant medium agencies (78%), closely followed by relevant large agencies (76%), than by relevant small agencies (61%). The increased use of customer surveys by relevant medium agencies (from 63% last year) is noteworthy—as is the decline in their use by relevant large agencies (from 90% last year). Visitors’ books were least likely to be used by relevant large agencies (5%), although their use did increase marginally in relevant small and medium agencies (a quarter of relevant small and medium agencies). These differences could reflect the nature of the agency concerned—different types of service users and relationships, different ways of doing business or different levels of available resources. Selected agencies’ results in relation to service user surveys and satisfaction levels are discussed in the previous section of this chapter on the effectiveness of service delivery.

Both the agency and the employee surveys asked questions on the use of mechanisms to receive feedback from the public regarding service delivery.⁶ As previously mentioned, the three most popular feedback mechanisms used by agencies are ‘complaints/ feedback website link’ (88% of relevant agencies), ‘complaints/feedback phone hotline’ (75%) and ‘customer surveys’ (71%). These findings are consistent with last year’s results. In the 2005 employee survey, 67% of employees involved in service delivery stated that their work unit received regular feedback from the public, either directly or indirectly, on the quality of services it provided. This is a considerable decline from the 2003–04 result of 73%.

Relevant SES employees (88%) were much more likely to indicate that their work unit obtained feedback from the public than relevant EL (69%) and APS 1–6 (67%) employees. This was also a significant increase on last year’s result (79%) for the SES group. By comparison, this year’s response from APS 1–6 employees about obtaining feedback from the public marked a significant decline from last year (from 73% to 67%).

Although EL employees recorded a decline from last year (72% to 69%) this result was not statistically significant.

Comments by employees in the 2005 employee survey on receiving regular feedback from the public included:

Eighty per cent or more of employees involved in service delivery from three large agencies (CRS, CSA and BoM) indicated that their work unit received regular feedback from the public.

The employee survey also asked employees involved in service delivery if there were formal mechanisms in place to respond to feedback from the public. Seventy-nine per cent of employees confirmed that there were formal mechanisms in place in their work unit to respond to feedback from the public, a slight increase on the 2003–04 result (76%).

Relevant SES employees (84%) were as likely to indicate that there were formal mechanisms in place in their work unit to respond to feedback from the public than were APS 1–6 and EL employees (both 79%). This was a significant increase from last year for the SES group, up from 72%. Last year EL employees (86%) were much more positive than both SES (72%) and APS 1–6 (74%) employees in reporting that formal mechanisms were in place to respond to feedback from the public.

Approximately 90% of relevant employees from three large agencies, Customs, Centrelink and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), indicated that there were formal mechanisms in place to respond to feedback from the public. This is a very high response rate when compared to the APS-wide result of 79%, though perhaps not unexpected, considering that these agencies have a focus on service delivery. Overall, relevant employees from large agencies (80%) are more likely to agree that formal mechanisms were in place to respond to feedback than are relevant employees from small (62%) agencies.

Employees from outside the ACT (81%) were much more likely to indicate that formal mechanisms were in place to respond to feedback from the public than were those in the ACT (72%). This is not surprising, given that most services are delivered from the regions. Results do show an increase from last year for employees outside the ACT, suggesting that a stronger focus may have been given to this area of business in some agencies.

The employee survey found that the effectiveness of these formal mechanisms for responding to the public was rated as high or very high by 56% of employees involved in service delivery in 2005. This is a drop on last year’s result (61%). Seventy per cent or more of employees from BoM, DEST, DFAT and DITR (agencies with 1000 or more ongoing employees) rated the effectiveness of these formal mechanisms as high or very high.

This year employees were also asked to provide their views about strategies that would improve the provision of services in their work area. Thirty-one per cent of relevant employees responded that ‘more feedback/consultation with clients’ would enable them to improve services.

Overall, there is some disparity between the agency and employee data on the use of mechanisms to obtain feedback from the public. Some of this disparity may be explained by the different components of feedback mechanisms examined in the employee and agency surveys.

The agency survey focused on the external component, which is the relationship between the public and the agency. In contrast, the employee survey focused on the internal component, which concerns internal communication from the broader agency level to the work unit level. Overall analysis suggests that while the external components of agency feedback mechanisms appear to be working well, the internal components could be further improved. This proposition is also supported by the discussion on consultative mechanisms in Chapter 5 ‘The Values and Workplace Relationships’.

Employee training and/or information in service delivery responsibilities

The increased focus on service delivery is also reflected in an increasing attention to ‘client-focused’ training and reinforcement of behaviours that promote the Values and the Code that relate to the provision of services to the public. Of those APS employees that responded to the employee survey, 77% of employees involved in service delivery agreed that they ‘received appropriate training or had access to information that enabled them to undertake their client service responsibilities’. This was comparable to last year’s result. Less than a quarter of employees were undecided or disagreed that they received appropriate training.

In 2005, employees involved in service delivery were also asked about strategies to improve the provision of services in their work area. Forty-four per cent of employees indicated that more training and development activities would enable them to improve services. This is consistent with comments made by employees about training to meet client service responsibilities.

Of agencies with over 1000 ongoing employees, over 80% of employees involved in service delivery from CSA, CRS, DFAT, the Department of Health and Ageing (Health) and DVA, agreed that they received ‘appropriate training and/or had access to information that enabled them to meet their client service responsibilities’.

This year relevant employees from medium agencies (83%) were more likely to agree that they received ‘appropriate training and had access to information to meet their client responsibilities’ than relevant employees from small (74%) and large (77%) agencies.

Relevant APS 1–6 employees (77%) were less likely to think that they get ‘appropriate training and information to meet their client responsibilities’ than relevant EL (82%) and SES (81%) employees. The more time employees spent on off-the-job training the more likely they were to agree that they receive ‘appropriate training to meet their client service responsibilities’.

Service charters

A key mechanism used by the Australian Government to improve service delivery is agency service charters. A service charter is a public document that describes the service experience the public can expect from an agency. This includes information about the agency’s service delivery approach and the relationship the client will have with the agency. All government agencies delivering services directly to the public are required to prepare and implement such a charter. Agencies with policy development functions are also encouraged to develop charters.

International developments point to a whole of government approach to the design of service charters, especially in the arena of e-services, with a focus on building confidence and trust with citizens who use services and information. There is also recognition of the importance of assessing the success of client service for all public service providers—public and private—recognising the stronger links being built to provide a seamless service to the public.

The UK Cabinet Office is reviewing their ‘Charter Mark’ scheme, which provides certification for excellence in public service. Recent emphasis has been on focusing public service providers on the needs of customers; the next step is to encourage and recognise outstanding customer service across public services. It is proposed that the new customer satisfaction standard will apply to all public service providers—in the public, private and voluntary sectors. It is anticipated that, as the barriers between state, business and voluntary providers are increasingly broken down in new, user-focused public services, it is only fair that the efforts of each provider in delivering customer satisfaction are given equal merit.⁷

The Government of Canada portal—Service Canada—provides a whole of government approach to services to its citizens. It also has a highly developed ‘Service Charter’ which is a whole of government service charter that describes the government’s service commitment to Canadians. A ‘Minister for Service Canada’ oversees this.

The Australian Government’s approach to service charters is a network of service charters that are based on a set of common principles contained in the Client Service Charter Principles 2000, and contain mandatory elements around service standards, feedback options and reporting on performance. The effectiveness of service charters depends on a number of factors, including the ability of agencies to successfully monitor and report on service user satisfaction using quantifiable performance indicators.

The ANAO has undertaken audits of both the ATO’s Taxpayers’ Charter and Centrelink’s Customer Charter. It concluded that, although progress has been made, more work still needs to be done before these charters can effectively drive service improvement.⁸

Coverage and review

The 2005 agency survey found that 62 agencies (76%) had an agency-wide service charter in place. This was similar to the proportion of agencies that reported having a service charter in both 2003–04 and 2002–03, and includes the vast majority of agencies with a major service delivery focus. A further three agencies indicated that they were developing agency-wide service charters. Seventeen agencies did not have a service charter; of these, seven indicated that they did not have any public contact. Service charters continue to be more common in large agencies (86%) than in medium agencies (77%) and small agencies (69%).

Performance indicators and service standards

The Client Service Charter Principles 2000 place a strong emphasis on the monitoring and reporting of satisfaction. They provide that service charters must include service standards and have avenues for service users to provide feedback and make complaints. In some cases, the feedback mechanisms mentioned earlier contribute to the measures used in assessing the performance of the service to the public as outlined in the service charter. There must also be mechanisms to report on that data.

The Client Service Charter Principles 2000 also state that, when deciding which service standards to publish, agencies should take account of their ability to measure performance against each standard. This year 81% of agencies with public contact stated that they had identified service standards, an increase on last year’s result (78%). The number of agencies reporting that they have identified performance indicators has, however, remained the same for the last three years. A further seven per cent of agencies said indicators were being developed, the same as last year. Ten agencies indicated that they did not have performance indicators because they did not have contact with the public. A further nine agencies indicated that they did not have performance indicators, though five of these agencies had a service charter. Quantifiable indicators or standards are still more common in relevant medium (87%) and large (86%) agencies than in relevant small (71%) agencies with public contact, although there has been a slight increase in the number of small agencies with charters compared to last year (69%).

Although agencies with a service charter are required to publish performance against their charter commitments in their annual report, there has been a decline in the proportion of agencies reporting that they do so (81% down from 90% last year). Reporting through internal agency management structures remained high at 82%, similar to last year’s result. The annual report and reporting through internal agency management structures were the most common mechanisms used to report the quality of service provided to the public. Reporting through internal service delivery units/teams remained constant at 69%. The proportion of agencies using these measures as part of a balanced scorecard concept also remained stable at 34%.

E-government (government online)

ICT is pervasive in all Australian Government functions, from the delivery of health care and education, to the collection of taxes and the protection of borders.

The ongoing changes in technology present the APS with both challenges and significant opportunities in the area of service delivery. Technology has been a major driver and enabler for change. The availability of ICT to both public and private sector organisations and individuals has increased dramatically in recent years. The Internet has been particularly important in driving commercial, government, and social and personal change.⁹ Changes in technology have the potential to dramatically improve the effectiveness of service delivery.

Australia’s e-government objective is to simplify the complexity of government for citizens and business, and improve the efficiency of government administration at the same time. The Australian Government is committed to the continuing reform of government operations, which underpins better electronic service delivery to citizens and business.

Australian Government agencies are identifying priority areas for service improvement, where better linkages can bring a tangible benefit to a citizen’s experience of electronic government services. At the same time, they are improving the ways information is made available to relevant parties and delivering more effective electronic services.

Australian Government agencies are enhancing electronic service delivery by making it cheaper, faster and easier for citizens and business through:

• better infrastructure
• multi-channel service delivery
• more strategic ICT investment
• services designed in response to the needs of citizens and business
• whole of government approaches.

APS e-government effectiveness

Australia continues to rank among the top-performing countries in various international e-government reports. These reports reflect international and domestic recognition of the Australian Government as an exemplary user of ICT, particularly in implementing and delivering e-government and developing customer-centric models of service delivery.

While comparisons with previous data are difficult, there is little doubt that the use of e-government services in Australia is continuing to grow. The 2005 Accenture report, e-Government Leadership, ranked Australia equal third behind Canada and the USA, in overall customer service maturity. The report noted that Australia has been at the forefront of e-government policy and implementation, and has consistently ranked among the top countries in terms of e-government maturity; it has also begun to lay the groundwork for true leadership in customer service, that is, citizen-centred, multi-channel and interconnected government.¹⁰ In the United Nations Global E Government Readiness Report (2004) Australia ranked sixth out of 191 member states in e-government readiness (based on website assessment, telecommunications infrastructure and human resource endowment) behind the USA, Denmark, the UK, Sweden, and Korea. Australia was ranked 10th in e-participation (the quality, relevance, usefulness and willingness of government websites for providing online information and participatory tools and services to the people) behind the UK, the USA, Canada, Singapore, the Netherlands, Mexico, New Zealand, Korea, and Denmark. The United Nations noted that Australia had one of the most impressive online provisions of information and services.¹¹

The Internet is now a mainstream means of government-citizen interaction. For the first time, a survey has been conducted to assess citizens’ satisfaction with e-government services. Australians’ Use of and Satisfaction with E-Government Services, which was released on 21 June 2005, successfully engaged governments across all jurisdictions. This report highlights the increasing use of e-government services in Australia and provides data that governments can use to enable services to continue to meet the needs of citizens and business. It is anticipated that the survey will be repeated annually, in order to gather trend data.¹²

The survey found that people accessing government services via the Internet are no longer a small minority. Thirty-nine per cent or nearly four in 10 adults—and more than half of all adults who use the Internet—contacted an Australian government agency via the Internet in 2004. This represents a substantial increase on the most recent figures published by ABS in 2002, which showed that 21% had accessed government services via the Internet. There has also been an increase in the percentage of businesses accessing government services online, from 44% at June 2000 to 71% at June 2003.¹³

The types of services most frequently accessed via the Internet include income or personal tax (16%), land rates or land tax (10%) and car, boat and vehicle registration and licenses (8%). Reasons cited for using the Internet to contact government were that it could be done at a time that suited users, required less time and was easy and uncomplicated. By contrast, the most significant reason for not using the Internet was that people thought that the service they wanted could not be done online. Almost a quarter of people cited this reason.

Overall, the satisfaction levels of Australians using the Internet to access government services were high. Nine out of 10 Internet users accessing government services online achieved what they wanted, were satisfied with the ease of using the service and with the ease of finding specific information and/or service respondents. Dissatisfaction with the Internet primarily reflected difficulties in navigating websites or incomplete information on websites.

E-government progress within APS agencies

Australian Government agencies are continuing to develop innovative and practical ways of applying new technologies in order to benefit the community, business and government itself. Examples of agency initiatives designed to increase productivity, build internal capability and improve service user focus are:

• DEWR’s JobSearch website <http://www.jobsearch.gov.au> enables people and organisations—whether job seekers, employers or recruitment agencies— to use electronic channels to find jobs, build resumés, advertise jobs or seek seasonal work. This service is delivered, according to the user’s preference, via a personalised web page, email, telephone or a text message to a mobile telephone. JobSearch provides access to over 300,000 jobs each day and securely holds over 100,000 resumés.
• Centrelink’s Electronic Welfare Services Framework is about improving linkages between electronic government services. These services use natural voice recognition, text messaging and other technologies to implement the principle of ‘no wrong door’ so that citizens, wherever they are—at home, at a service centre, at a charity refuge, over the telephone—can quickly access government services in response to their life events.
• HealthConnect is a collaborative effort between the Australian Government and state and territory governments. HealthConnect involves redefining roles and 70 The Values and relationships with the public relationships between citizens and private and public health care providers. HealthConnect is a change management strategy that aims to improve the flow of information across the Australian health sector within strict privacy safeguards. Better flows of information will give doctors, and other health professionals, access to important and potentially lifesaving medical information and improve the quality and safety of health care for all Australians.
• The DITR business website <http://www.business.gov.au> offers simple and convenient access to all government information, transactions and services. It is a whole of government service providing essential information on planning, starting and running a business. This website is estimated to provide time and cost savings of approximately $50 million a year to both business and government.
• The ABS is developing the National Data Network as part of its strategy to strengthen the National Statistical System. The network will support the sharing and integration of information sources relevant to policy development and research. The National Data Network will also provide access to a range of services such as data analysis and geocoding (a process of allocating latitude and longitude to each statistical unit (e.g. a business unit or dwelling)), thereby describing its position on the surface of the earth.
• The ATO has introduced the Tax Agents Portal <http://www.ato.gov.au/ taxprofessionals/> which aims to improve agents’ tax experience by ensuring they can access the information they need in a convenient, efficient and more personalised way.
• The Australian Business Register (ABR) <https://abr.gov.au/abr_bc/homepage_bc.htm> is an extensive database of identity information provided by businesses when they register for an Australian business number (ABN). The ABR makes it easier for businesses and all levels of government to interact using a unique identifier—the ABN. By providing a single point where a business can maintain its registration details and government can view business registration details, the ABR generates administrative efficiencies through re-using data. The ABR is an excellent example of re-using of information.
• The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has developed an effective online search facility—the Panoptic search engine. This product provides high-level search efficiencies for agencies by combining a wide range of indicators to produce relevant search results, thereby facilitating clients’ searching for information on agency websites. The incorporation of Panoptic into the website <http://www.australia.gov.au> provides access to over five million unique resources from over 1100 government sites.

ICT continues to grow in both capability and complexity, as does individual agencies’ dependence on information and technology capabilities for the delivery of services. The time, cost and quality risks involved in implementing new ICT projects are high. The Edge project, a joint project between Centrelink and the Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS) to develop an expert system for the Family Assistance Office is an example of the risks involved. This project was terminated before completion as it was over time and over budget and the direct financial savings from the project were not realised, nor was the project successful when assessed against its aims.¹⁴

ANAO audits of online service delivery

Government policy requires that agencies use the Internet to deliver all appropriate programmes and services.¹⁵ Implementation of this policy has led to considerable agency investment in online service delivery. Government policy also requires investment in Internet-based service delivery which should deliver tangible returns through cost reductions, increased efficiency and productivity, or improved services to businesses and the broader community.

The 2005 ANAO audit programme included a number of audits on growing interconnectivity and changing service delivery through information technology and telecommunications. ANAO examined the Defence project management of the Standard Defence Supply System (SDSS) Upgrade Project, specifically project management procedures and practices in the information management system domain. ANAO found that the Project had not delivered value for money.¹⁶ Also examined was ATO’s Administration of Taxation Rulings. This was a follow-up on an earlier audit that examined ATO’s information technology (IT) systems supporting the provision of advice capability. ATO replaced systems previously used with one case management system which also supported enhanced monitoring and reporting of performance.¹⁷ Another follow-up audit of the ATO was of the integrity of Tax File Numbers. ANAO found that interrelationships between the Tax File Number (TFN) system and other systems within ATO still require some improvement.¹⁸

ANAO conducted an audit that measured the efficiency and effectiveness of e-Government. This audit examined the methods used by selected agencies to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of their delivery of services through the Internet; to evaluate the adequacy of these methods; and to identify lessons learned and opportunities for improvement. The audit covered a specific Internet-delivered service and website of each of the six participating agencies. The agencies selected were of varying size with different types of programmes and services, providing for a mixture of groups.

ANAO found that all of the participating agencies had developed a strategy that set out responsibility for the management of their website and online services. Agencies’ monitoring of the effectiveness of their websites was found to be adequate; however, agencies were unable to report any efficiency savings through the use of the Internet, as they had not evaluated their services. ANAO concluded that most agencies had not developed adequate measures to determine whether their website offered an efficient form of service delivery. ANAO found that agencies generally did better in measuring the efficiency and effectiveness of selected online services, but that few agencies had collected information that facilitated comparison with other service delivery channels. It was noted that agencies could demonstrate their achievements against the Government’s aim for e-government through the provision of services to their service users, business and the broader community, but in general were unable to conclude that their investment in e-government was delivering tangible returns. Overall, ANAO determined that agencies’ methods were inadequate in assessing whether the online delivery of government services and programmes was efficient and effective, although there was evidence that agencies had made considerable progress in this arena during the last year.¹⁹

Management of strategic e-government issues

Key strategic e-government issues are being addressed by high-level cross-government committees.

The Online and Communications Council focuses on a broad information economy agenda of strategic national significance. The strategic priorities for the Council include broadband policy, regional and Indigenous communications services, ICT capability, e-security and online environment, e-government and digital divide. The Council is a collaborative government approach with members from all state and territory governments and the Australian Government.

The Information Management Strategy Committee (IMSC), a subcommittee of MAC, is chaired by Dr Ian Watt, Secretary of Finance. Membership consists of the Secretaries and CEOs of 12 departments and agencies.

IMSC provides shared leadership on multi-agency and whole of government information management strategies. It also provides whole of government governance on ICT matters that contribute to Australian Government administration, operations and service delivery. IMSC has progressed a number of significant issues. These include the Technical Interoperability Framework, an Australian Government Authentication Framework, an agreed Gatekeeper Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) Framework, a guide to ICT Sourcing and the roll-out of the FedLink encryption system (see Chapter 11).

In his 28 September 2005 speech, ‘E-government, the way forward’, the Special Minister of State Senator the Hon Eric Abetz, discussed the Australian Government’s strategic directions for e-government—electronic service delivery to Australians. He stressed that e-government has reached a major turning point. The major drivers for the new direction being proposed for e-government included a commitment to achieving greater levels of use and higher levels of satisfaction with Government electronic services, the need to reduce red tape and administration, to make services simpler and more intuitive, and a desire to cut the Government’s service delivery costs.²⁰

The challenge for the future is embedding ICT into the business of government, while ensuring value for money and ICT project success. At the same time the pursuit of service excellence and protecting privacy and security are essential.

---

6 The agency survey asked about the use of a range feedback mechanisms at the agency level while the employee survey asked questions concerning regular public feedback and formal mechanisms at the work unit level.

7 J. Hutton, Minister for the Cabinet Office (speech on public service reform and social justice, 24 August 2005), <http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk>

8 ANAO, Taxpayers’ Charter, Performance Audit Report No. 19, December 2004; Centrelink’s Customer Charter and Community Consultation Program, Performance Audit Report No. 32, March 2005, <http://www.anao.gov.au>

9 AGIMO & IPAA, Future Challenges for E-Government Volumes 1 & 2, 2004, <http://www.agimo.gov.au/publications/2004/05/egovt_challenges>

10 Accenture, e-Government Leadership, April 2005 <http://www.accenture.com>

11 United Nations Global E Government Readiness report (2004), <http://www.unpan.org/egovernment4.asp>

12 Australians’ Use of and Satisfaction with E-Government Services, <http://www.agimo.gov.au/publications/2005/june/e-government_services>

13 DCITA, The Current State of Play 2004, p. 23, <http://www.dcita.gov.au>

14 ANAO, The Edge Project, Performance Audit Report No. 40, April 2005 <http://www.anao.gov.au>

15 National Office for the Information Economy (NOIE), Government Online—The Commonwealth Government’s Strategy, April 2000 <http://www.agimo.gov.au/publications/2000/04/govonline>

16 ANAO, Management of the Standard Defence Supply System Upgrade, Performance Audit Report No. 5, August 2004, <http://www.anao.gov.au>

17 ANAO, Administration of Taxation Rulings Follow-up Audit, Performance Audit Report No. 7, August 2004, <http://www.anao.gov.au>

18 ANAO, Australian Taxation Office Tax File Number Integrity, Performance Audit Report No. 47, May 2005, <http://www.anao.gov.au>

19 ANAO, Measuring the Efficiency and Effectiveness of E-Government, Performance Audit Report No. 26, February 2005, <http://www.anao.gov.au>

20 <http://www.agimo.gov.au/media/speeches/2005/e-government_the_way_forward>

go to top of the page