Public services are one of the most direct ways in which governments are experienced by people. Making them work well is therefore as much an implementation challenge as a matter of policy or design. Drawing on the 2025 Digital Government Index, this chapter examines how governments can move beyond strategies and standards to deliver services that are reliable, joined-up and easy to navigate. It shows that service standards are widespread but inconsistently applied; user engagement is improving yet remains narrow and ad hoc; reliable delivery requires joined-up channels, digital identity and trusted data; proactive services depend on shared foundations, not isolated efforts; and continuous improvement needs measurement systems that genuinely inform frontline decisions. Across all of these elements, the evidence points to a common conclusion: closing the gap between ambition and delivery is the key challenge, and doing so requires sustained attention to governance, capability and accountability, not technology alone.
Digital Government Outlook 2026
From Foundations to Transformational Impact
Abstract
The core challenge in public administrative services is implementation. Many governments have strategies, service standards and tools, and yet users still experience friction when accessing services due to fragmented entry points, poorly coordinated journeys across agencies and levels of government, and inconsistent quality depending on which part of government they deal with. The gap between policy ambition and what people actually experience is the defining implementation challenge for public service delivery today.
Whole-of-government service standards are widespread, but their value depends on whether they shape everyday decisions. The issue is not whether standards exist, but whether they shape routine decisions (e.g. investment approval, delivery gates, procurement and service reviews) and help improve the delivery and commitments of the administration towards users. Closing the gap between having standards and their application in practice requires both practical support and governance mechanisms that make standards hard to ignore.
User engagement is improving but needs to be more consistent, involve a wider range of users and continue throughout the service lifecycle. Governments are doing more to involve people in service design, and co-design tools are now widely available. But engagement still too often reaches the most accessible users rather than those with the greatest needs, takes place at the start of projects rather than throughout their lifecycle, and stops short of making testing a routine expectation. Engagement that is embedded as a regular practice, and that deliberately reaches people who face higher barriers to access, produces better services and reduces the risk of costly problems emerging after launch.
Reliable service delivery depends on joined-up channels, shared infrastructure and trusted data sharing. Ministries have made progress integrating data and services within their own policy areas, but these efforts rarely extend across organisational boundaries. Services need to work consistently across agencies and levels of government, regardless of how people access them, and users should be able to move between channels without repeating information. This depends on three things working together: a clear approach to how channels relate to one another, digital identity systems that are widely used across services, and the ability to share data between agencies in ways that are governed and trusted in practice.
Proactive services reduce burdens and improve fairness, but require shared foundations to scale. When government anticipates needs and acts before people have to ask, it reduces the effort required to access support and helps ensure entitlements reach those who need them, not only those best placed to navigate bureaucracy. Achieving this requires making the once-only principle an operational default, shifting data use from planning into service delivery, and applying automation and AI with appropriate oversight and safeguards. Automating routine, rules-based tasks like eligibility checks can make services faster, more accurate and more equitable, while freeing staff for cases requiring judgement or support.
Stronger feedback loops are critical to continuous improvement. Most governments monitor services to some degree, but measurement of actual service performance and what services cost people in time and effort remains limited and inconsistent. Only 28% of OECD countries have standardised ways of measuring the burdens services impose on users. Without reliable, consistent measurement connected to the decisions that shape services, improvement tends to be exceptional rather than routine.
Public services are perhaps the most direct expression of what government does for people. When they work well – when they are easy to navigate, reliably available and responsive to individual circumstances – they build confidence in government. When they do not, they erode it. OECD evidence shows that people's satisfaction with public administrative services is strongly shaped by whether services are fast and easy to use, and that nearly half of people (46%) do not feel confident they can access support when they need it (OECD, 2024[1]). Only 31% of people, on average across OECD countries, feel they could easily receive public benefits if they needed them, and 28% say they think the application process would be simple and quick (OECD, 2025[2]). As expectations rise and people's needs become more complex, governments' ability to deliver services that are simple, dependable and joined up becomes increasingly important for trust. In some service journeys, the stakes also go beyond convenience, as public services can affect people’s ability to understand, claim or exercise their rights.
People's needs rarely fit neatly within a single government organisation. A person seeking support may simultaneously be a worker, a caregiver, a student and a small-business owner. Yet public services are still frequently organised around institutional boundaries rather than people's actual situations. The result is duplication, repeated requests for the same information and fragmented handovers between agencies, making services difficult to navigate, particularly for people already dealing with difficult circumstances such as job loss, health challenges or displacement. These challenges can be particularly consequential where service journeys affect rights, obligations or access to remedies, for example in relation to legal aid, victim support services or protective measures. The OECD Recommendations on Human-Centred Public Administrative Services and on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems recognise these challenges and call for services that place people’s needs at the centre of design and delivery, while ensuring reliability, fairness, transparency and trust (OECD, 2025[3]; OECD, 2023[4]). The Recommendations underscore that delivering on this ambition requires not only good intentions but reliable digital infrastructure, effective data governance and the organisational capacity to coordinate across institutional boundaries (Box 5.1).
Many governments have made real progress. Strategies, standards and tools for human-centred service design are now widespread. But the central challenge today is not whether service frameworks exist: it is whether they shape what happens in practice. In many countries, services are still experienced as a collection of disconnected entry points across ministries, agencies and levels of government, rather than a joined-up system. Governance is fragmented, accountability for cross-cutting journeys is unclear, and technical and organisational capabilities vary significantly across agencies and levels of government. Furthermore, line ministries have advanced in designing and delivering services that meet user needs, but face issues when integrating with other sectors to deliver more complex services such as life events (OECD, 2024[5]; OECD, 2023[6]). As a result, users experience inconsistency, duplication and unnecessary complexity, not because governments lack ambition, but because they have not yet solved this implementation problem.
This chapter looks at the implementation challenges of delivering human-centred public administrative services. It explores how governments organise, steer and improve services so that people experience them as reliable, easy to navigate and responsive, both in ordinary circumstances and when conditions change. It is organised around where service delivery most often succeeds or fails in practice:
Service standards: whether they exist is less the question than whether they shape day-to-day decisions about design, investment and delivery.
User engagement: whether it involves a sufficiently wide range of people and is embedded throughout the service life rather than concentrated at the start.
Reliability: whether services remain coherent and accessible as needs shift, demand changes and circumstances evolve.
Proactive services: whether governments can anticipate needs and act before people have to ask.
Feedback and measurement: whether governments have the information they need to improve continuously and steer performance over time,
The Recommendation provides a policy framework for the development and implementation of public administrative services (PAS) that put people’s needs at the centre of policy design and delivery. PAS are the administrative processes that people use to comply with laws and regulations, access government programmes, and use their rights. These include familiar processes that many people use regularly, such as renewing passports or identity documents, paying taxes, or managing their benefits like public pensions. Other PAS are processes that an individual may use only occasionally but at important points in their lives, such as applying for a driving license; registering a birth, marriage or death; or getting the deed on a home
The Recommendation has four pillars:
Pillar 1: Strategic vision, values and rights
Whole-of-government strategy: develop services aligned with government-wide goals.
Foster a human-centred culture: prioritise user needs and public engagement.
Protect rights: respect the rule of law, providing procedural guarantees and transparency.
Pillar 2: Core foundations
Leadership and roles: clearly define leadership and co-ordination responsibilities.
Skills and competencies: build public servants’ capacity to design and deliver services.
Digital infrastructure: develop scalable, secure and interoperable digital infrastructure to support service delivery.
Pillar 3: Seamless and accessible services
User-centred design: based on user needs, ensuring inclusiveness and accessibility.
Omni-channel approach: provide consistent, high-quality service across all channels.
Simplified services: streamline processes, reduce administrative burdens, anticipate needs.
Pillar 4: Measurement, engagement, improvement
Measure user experience: track user satisfaction and service performance.
Data-driven improvement: use data and feedback to continuously enhance services.
Public engagement: involve users in the co-design and evaluation of services.
Source: (OECD, 2025[3])
Having clear expectations for how public services should be designed and delivered is an important foundation for consistency. Service standards – which are frameworks that set out what good service looks like - help agencies work to a common benchmark, reduce fragmentation and give teams practical guidance for design and delivery decisions. Such principles will usually provide the basis for setting expectations with delivery partners (whether those are public servants or non-governmental suppliers), and in some cases may also be the criteria against which formal assessments of performance are carried out.
The United Kingdom’s Service Standard sets out a clear definition of what good services look like. It translates high-level principles into a practical checklist for teams, covering:
1. Understand users and their needs
2. Solve a whole problem for users
3. Provide a joined up experience across all channels
4. Make the service simple to use
5. Make sure everyone can use the service
6. Have a multidisciplinary team
7. Use agile ways of working
8. Iterate and improve frequently
9. Create a secure service which protects users’ privacy
10. Define what success looks like and publish performance data
11. Choose the right tools and technology
12. Make new source code open
13. Use and contribute to open standards, common components and patterns
14. Operate a reliable service
By stating these expectations in one place, the standard helps make service quality more consistent across organisations and supports assurance and review conversations with a shared reference point.
Source: (GOV.UK, 2019[7])
5.2.1. Service standards as shared principles are widely in place
Service standards are now in place in 32 out of 36 OECD countries (89%), reflecting broad recognition that coherent service delivery requires shared expectations across government. Standards typically focus on service quality, user engagement and a consistent, whole-of-government approach to design and delivery. However, the 2025 DGI results show that some important dimensions are less consistently covered (Figure 5.1). Omni-channel approaches, which ensures services work consistently across digital, telephone, in-person and other channels, are included in standards in only 20 out of 36 countries. Cross-border service delivery features in standards in just 10 out of 36. As people increasingly expect services that work across channels and jurisdictions, these gaps are worth addressing.
Percentage of OECD countries with availability of government-wide service standards and associated goals, 2025
Note: Data not available for Germany or the United States. Refer to Annex Table 5.A.1 for comprehensive OECD and Accession country data.
Source: OECD (2025) Survey on Digital Government 3.0.
The OECD Good Practice Principles for Public Service Design and Delivery in the Digital Age provide a reference point for this shared understanding. They emphasise designing services around real user needs, delivering coherent omni-channel journeys, ensuring that multidisciplinary teams can do high-quality work, and promoting accountability and transparency throughout design and delivery (OECD, 2022[8]). These principles help administrations articulate a common benchmark for quality, supporting alignment across agencies and reducing fragmentation.
5.2.2. Consistent application of service standards remains the challenge
However, the central challenge is not whether standards exist, it is whether they change how services are actually built and delivered. Human centred design for digital services depends both on standards that are practical to use and on governance mechanisms that support consistent application. A standard only has impact if it shapes the decisions that matter: how services are prioritised, how funding is approved, how delivery teams work day to day, and how services are reviewed and improved over time. Without this, standards risk remaining aspirational documents that teams are aware of but not consistently guided by. Furthermore, it remains essential to promote their adoption and use consistently across government functions to avoid duplication of efforts and promote a more consistent, unified experience to users.
The 2025 DGI results point to an important implementation gap: while many countries report having service standards, formal requirements to use standards are limited, with only 16 out of 36 countries (44%) reporting that following the service standard is mandatory at both central/federal and sub‑national levels. The use of mechanisms to support their application – ranging from hard levers, such as legal or regulatory requirements and links to project approval or funding, to softer supports, such as awareness‑raising activities and investment in digital skills – are also moderate (Figure 5.2). This matters because consistency does not emerge automatically across ministries, agencies and levels of government. Where standards are optional or unevenly applied, the quality of services people receive can depend more on which agency they deal with, or which team happens to be responsible, than on any government-wide commitment to good design.
Percentage of OECD countries reporting mechanisms to support the application of service standards, by type, 2023 and 2025
Note: 2025 data not available for Germany and the United States. 2023 data not available for Germany, Greece, Slovak Republic, Switzerland and the United States. Refer to Annex Table 5.A.1 for comprehensive OECD and Accession country data.
Source: OECD (2025) Survey on Digital Government 3.0.
Strengthening implementation requires at least two things working together. First, governments need to make standards easier to use, providing clear guidance, templates and practical tools that help teams translate standards into concrete design and delivery decisions. Second, governments need to make standards harder to ignore, by embedding them in the governance and management processes that shape services. This includes checking compliance at key stages such as project approval and service launch, and linking adherence to standards to funding and procurement decisions. When these mechanisms are in place alongside shared platforms and common infrastructure, they can shift service delivery away from fragmented, one-off solutions towards reusable, consistent approaches that benefit users across government (Box 5.3).
Some OECD countries combine legal requirements, investment governance and practical support to turn service standards into everyday delivery tools:
Portugal’s Decree-Law 49/2024 makes MOSAICO (a common model for designing digital public services centred on people and businesses) mandatory from August 2024. Implementation is linked to project governance requirements, and agencies are supported through published toolkits and capacity-building activities led by LabX.
Australia connects investment oversight to service standards: the Digital and ICT Investment Oversight Framework links funding decisions to compliance with whole-of-government standards under the Digital Experience Policy, including the Digital Service Standard, Digital Inclusion Standard, Digital Access Standard and Digital Performance Standard. Practical tools and guidance support teams in applying these standards consistently.
Italy anchors service design in law: Design Guidelines for government websites and digital services are required under the Digital Administration Code, with clear distinctions between mandatory requirements and recommended approaches.
Switzerland reinforces service delivery and interoperability expectations through a legal and standards framework anchored in the Public Procurement Act (BöB) and the Federal ICT Strategy. Associated eCH standards specify whether they are mandatory or recommended and for whom, providing clarity for teams implementing them.
Even where standards are mandatory, teams need the right conditions to apply them, particularly for complex service journeys that span multiple organisations and channels. This is as much a capability and organisational challenge as a governance one. The conditions that make standards work in practice typically include:
A central team in charge of disseminating and monitoring how the standards are applied across the administration;
A named person with clear accountability for the quality and ongoing improvement of each service;
Stable, multi-disciplinary teams, combining policy, design, technology and operations skills — with the time, funding and mandate to design and run services rather than deliver one-off projects;
Delegated decision-making authority, so teams can resolve trade-offs and improve services without having to escalate every decision; and
Practical, accessible support, shared templates, reusable design components, peer learning, networks of experts and light-touch expert guidance that makes it straightforward to apply standards well.
The OECD Good Practice Principles for Public Service Design and Delivery in the Digital Age makes these conditions explicit, emphasising clear accountability for each service, sustained multidisciplinary teams and consistent delivery methods supported by practical tools and training (OECD, 2022[8]). Putting these conditions into practice is hard, particularly in complex, resource-constrained settings. Strengthening implementation requires deliberate workforce planning, sustained investment in capability and senior leadership engagement. Some OECD countries are already acting: New Zealand is improving senior leadership decision-making to bring authority closer to multidisciplinary teams, while Israel is reviewing recruitment, career development and mobility pathways to support more collaborative ways of working.
Overall, the 2025 DGI results suggest that the challenge has shifted. Most OECD governments have defined what good services looks like. The harder and more pressing task is embedding those expectations in the decisions and routines that actually shape services, from investment approval and procurement choices to delivery stage reviews and ongoing improvement. Standards become useful when they are built into these processes and when teams have the support to apply them consistently.
5.3.1. User engagement is progressing but remains uneven and fragile
Public services work best when they are designed around the people who actually use them. This sounds obvious, but it requires deliberate effort: the people who design and deliver services are rarely the same people who depend on them, and the assumptions that seem reasonable inside government often do not match the reality of people's lives. User engagement - systematically involving people in how services are designed, tested and improved - is how governments close this gap. It helps teams understand what people actually need rather than what they assume is needed, identify where services create unnecessary complexity or exclude certain groups, and make improvements based on evidence rather than guesswork. When engagement is done well and done consistently, it reduces the risk of building services that do not work for the people they are meant to serve, and increases the likelihood that digital investment delivers real improvements in people's experience of government.
Involving people in the design of public services has shifted from an unfamiliar idea to a recognised practice across OECD governments. Tools and methods for working with users – from interview and usability testing to co-design workshops and online consultations - are now widely available, and their use has grown significantly. This is an important step forward: without practical methods, engagement tends to remain rhetorical, limited to one-off consultations that happen too late to influence design choices. The widespread availability of these tools signals a more hands‑on, evidence-based approach to service design.
However, having the tools is not the same as using them consistently. The harder challenge is turning user engagement from an occasional exercise into a regular part of how services are designed, run and improved – something that happens throughout the life of a service, not just at the start. The 2025 DGI results suggest that engagement is advancing on some dimensions but remains less consistently embedded in the ways that matter most for human-centred delivery.
Who is involved is one gap. Methods to understand and involve users broadly are relatively widespread, but targeted engagement with people who face higher barriers to access, including illiterate people (11 of 36 countries, 31%), asylum seekers or refugees (11 of 36, 31%), indigenous communities (12 of 36, 33%) and low-income population groups (14 of 36, 39%), is less consistently in place. These are often the groups whose experience of services differs most from the average, and whose needs are most likely to be missed if engagement is not deliberately designed to include them.
Whether testing is routine is another. The 2025 DGI shows only moderate use of formal requirements or recommendations to test services with users (12 of 36, 33%) and/or service providers (12 of 36, 33%) before and after launch. Testing methods such as usability sessions, focus groups and online consultation tools are more widely available than they were in 2023, but they remain unevenly used across government (Figure 5.3). Where testing is not routine, problems with services, confusing navigation, inaccessible language, steps that work for some users but not others, tend to surface only after launch, when they are more costly and disruptive to fix.
Whether needs are tracked over time is a third gap. Engagement that happens only at the start of a project captures a snapshot of user needs rather than how those needs evolve as services are used, circumstances change and new issues emerge. Systematic tracking of user needs across the service lifecycle remains moderate (21 of 36, 58%).
Percentage of OECD countries reporting methods to test digital government services, by type, 2023 and 2025
Note: 2025 data not available for Germany and the United States. 2023 data not available for Germany, Greece, Slovak Republic, Switzerland and the United States. Refer to Annex Table 5.A.1 for comprehensive OECD and Accession country data. “A/B testing” refers to a user experience testing technique based on the comparison between two versions of a same product or service. “First-click testing” refers to a testing method for websites, apps or platforms which examines the ‘first click’ of the users when interacting the system, aiming to verify the success of completing a task. “Tree testing” is a user‑research method used to check whether people can find information easily in a service, website, or app based on its structure and labels, not its visual design.
Source: OECD (2025) Survey on Digital Government 3.0.
These gaps become particularly important as governments introduce AI-enabled services. The 2025 DGI shows that user engagement is not yet consistently embedded in AI development: only 15 out of 35 OECD countries (42%) report engaging service users when developing AI policies or deploying AI in public services. This matters because feedback from real users is essential for ensuring that AI-enabled interactions are usable, accessible and trusted, and because problems with AI systems, such as bias or exclusion of certain groups, may only become visible through sustained engagement with a wide range of people. International engagement with AI is also limited: only 13 out of 36 OECD countries (36%) engage with counterparts in other countries on AI-related work beyond participation in international fora. Since AI standards, data practices and risks frequently cross borders, purely domestic approaches to engagement leave important gaps.
5.3.2. Making engagement repeatable requires shared enablers
A practical route to make engagement more consistent is to provide government-wide digital participation tools that any ministry or agency can use repeatedly when designing policies and services, standardising the basic process of involving users and reducing the effort to do it well (OECD, 2025[15]). The 2025 DGI results suggest that this enabling layer is only partly in place: only 17 out of 36 OECD countries (47%) report requirements to use digital participation tools when policies are being designed, and government-wide initiatives to encourage their use score at a moderate level.
Making engagement systemic require three connected shifts: setting clear expectations for user research and testing at key stages in service development; making participation practically feasible through shared recruitment, accessible formats and reusable research protocols; and providing enough specialist support that teams can plan and run engagement that reaches a wide range of people, translate findings into design decisions and repeat this process as a matter of routine rather than exceptional effort (Box 5.4).
Several governments are moving from ad-hoc consultations toward more repeatable engagement practices – setting clearer expectations, making participation feasible at scale and reaching a wider range of people:
The United Kingdom operationalise expectations for user research through published standards and guidance, backed by central governance arrangements including publicly available service standard assessment reports. This helps embed user research and testing as a routine part of service work rather than an optional extra.
Iceland supports assessment of user needs at different stages of the service life through different resources, including at launch and throughout design and delivery. The Ísland.is Influencers initiative provides a structured way to recruit and involve users in testing before services are launched, and signposts multiple testing methods including usability testing, A/B testing, first-click testing and tree testing – making participation feasible at scale.
Canada requires departments to maximise public engagement under the Policy and Directive on Communications and Federal Identity, alongside consultation requirements in specific legislative frameworks. Departments also draw on practical design guidance for engagement where no single standardised framework applies.
The Netherlands supports participation and inclusion through the Alliance Digital Society, a sustained collaboration model that works directly with groups who face higher barriers to digital access. Practical measures include distributing refurbished devices, a free helpline for digital questions, and physical information points – helping engagement remain feasible and meaningful for people who might otherwise be left out.
Overall, the results suggest that user engagement is advancing in terms of available methods and stated commitments, but has not yet become consistently embedded in the ways that most shape service quality: reaching those who face higher barriers to access, making testing a routine expectation and tracking needs throughout the full life of a service.
Public services need to work reliably not just when everything goes as planned, but when people's circumstances change, demand increases or a channel becomes unavailable. A parent dealing with a sudden job loss, a family navigating a health crisis, or a business facing an unexpected regulatory change all depend on services remaining accessible, coherent and responsive precisely when the need is greatest. Reliability in these moments is not a bonus feature, it is what distinguishes a service that people can genuinely count on from one that works only in ideal conditions.
This kind of reliable, joined-up service delivery depends on three things working together: an approach to service delivery that works consistently across different channels; digital infrastructure that underpins continuity when circumstances change; and the ability to share data across agencies so that people do not have to repeat themselves as they move through service journeys.
5.4.1. Joined-up service delivery across channels
Most governments now offer services through multiple channels - online, by telephone, in person and increasingly through apps and assisted digital support. This gives people more options depending on how they prefer to access services. The OECD Risk That Matter Survey 2024 data show that while just over half of respondents report using digital tools to access government services most of the time, four in ten say they would prefer in‑person or paper‑based options (OECD, 2025[2]). But offering multiple channels is not the same as delivering a joined-up experience across them. The real test is whether someone can start a process in one channel and continue it in another without losing their place, repeating information or having to navigate a system that cannot recognise them. This matters because, even where service delivery is principally online, a significant share of people still relies on, or prefer, human and paper‑based channels. This is particularly important for services that affect rights, entitlements or legal status, where a failed handover can have consequences beyond inconvenience, including missed deadlines, loss of access to support or difficulties exercising rights. Designing services that truly work across channels is therefore not a transitional issue, but a core requirement for human‑centred service delivery.
Many governments have strengthened the entry points to their services: service catalogues are more widely available (31 of 36 countries, 86%) – often complemented by single information and/or service delivery platforms – and channel options are more clearly signposted (26 of 31 countries with service catalogues, 83%). But the 2025 DGI results suggest that a clear, government-wide approach to managing how channels relate to one another - what is often called an omni-channel strategy - is still missing in many countries. An omni-channel approach means designing services so that all channels work together as a coherent system: users can move between them smoothly, the quality of the experience is consistent regardless of how they access a service, and no channel is treated as secondary or disconnected. Only 19 out of 36 OECD countries (53%) have such an omni-channel strategy (Figure 5.4).
Countries reporting government strategy for omni‑channel service delivery approaches, 2023 and 2025
Note: 2025 data not available for Germany and the United States. 2023 data not available for Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Slovak Republic, Switzerland, Thailand and the United States. 2025 data for Indonesia and Thailand cover the period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2023. An omni-channel approach is defined as one in which all channels for services work together as a coherent system: users can move between them smoothly, the quality of the experience is consistent regardless of how they access a service, and no channel is treated as secondary or disconnected.
Source: OECD (2025) Survey on Digital Government 3.0.
Even where an omni-channel approach exists, the practical details of how channels are organised and positioned are not consistently defined across government, e.g. which services can be completed fully online, where telephone or in-person support is needed, how national and sub-national channels are aligned, and how channels and services across different sectors of the public administration are connected and interoperable. Without this clarity, expanding the number of channels can actually make things harder for users, adding more entry points without reducing the complexity of navigating between them.
Building a joined-up approach across channels requires at least three practical commitments. First, treating priority service journeys as end-to-end experiences that span multiple organisations and channels, rather than as separate transactions owned by individual agencies or specific sectors. Second, being explicit about what the channel is for (e.g. what can be completed digitally from start to finish, what requires assisted support, and what requires an in person interaction) and designing clear handovers between them. Third, putting in place continuity mechanisms so that people do not have to start over when they switch channels: this includes identity systems that work across touchpoints, appropriate data sharing between agencies and clear accountability for who takes over when an interaction moves from one channel or organisation to another (Box 5.5).
Several governments are making their approach to channel delivery more explicit, helping people move between channels without losing progress or having to repeat information:
Australia positions its omni-channel approach within the Data and Digital Government Strategy, with expectations for non-digital access reflected in standards including the Digital Service Standard and Digital Inclusion Standard. myGov serves as a primary entry point, with guidance and standards supporting consistent service delivery patterns across channels.
Portugal’s Decree-Law 49/2024 defines how public service channels should be integrated to support an omni-channel approach, enabling citizens and businesses to start a service through one channel and continue it through another according to their needs, while supporting a unified customer service experience.
Korea’s Government24 (Gov.kr) is an integrated channel for government services, linked to the Electronic Government Act’s provisions on integrated service windows. It provides clear guidance on which services can be completed online and which require in-person steps, supporting clear handovers between channels.
Israel’s GOV.IL and MyGov.il consolidate government services and information through a unified digital entry point, with structured routes for different service types and clear signposting for contact and assistance.
5.4.2. Digital public infrastructure as a foundation for continuity
Joined-up channel delivery depends on the digital infrastructure that sits behind it. When someone moves from one channel to another, or from one agency to another, the systems that support those interactions need to be able to recognise them, reuse the information they have already provided and maintain continuity of their service journey. Without this, even a well-designed omni-channel approach breaks down at the handover.
Digital identity is particularly important here. A widely used digital identity system allows services to recognise the same person across channels and agencies, so users do not have to re-establish who they are or re-submit information they have already provided. Where digital identity is widely adopted, agencies can reuse verified information for eligibility checks and case continuity, supporting simpler journeys and faster resolution of requests. As shown in chapter 2, most OECD countries have a digital identity strategy and the key governance arrangements in place, but the share of services that can actually be accessed using digital identity, and the share of the population that uses it, remain more limited. This gap matters in practice: where digital identity does not reach most services and users, the continuity it could provide cannot be realised. Addressing this gap requires shifting focus from formal frameworks to widespread use in practice, by embedding digital identity across service portfolios, improving user experience and trust, and creating clearer incentives for both institutions and users to rely on digital identity in routine service interactions (see Chapter 2, Section 2.3 on the governance of digital identity).
Other components of DPI also contribute to continuity and responsiveness. Authoritative data registries – official records of key information such as population data, business details and addresses – help agencies access core data in consistent ways, reducing the need for manual checks or duplicate requests when a case moves between organisations. Common notification and messaging tools allow agencies to communicate reliably with people through alternative channels when primary channels are unavailable. Shared payment systems support faster and more reliable delivery of financial support. Taken together, these components make it easier to reroute service journeys when needed, reducing single points of failure and enabling faster, more reliable handovers (see Chapter 2, Section 2.1 on DPI building blocks).
5.4.3. Data sharing to support joined-up journeys
The third element of reliable, joined-up service delivery is the ability to link and share data across government institutions and sectors — including, where appropriate, personally identifiable information that allows organisations to recognise the same user across different line ministries or agencies. Many public services involve interactions with multiple entities, each of which may require the same supporting information, such as proof of identity, household details, or income. Without effective data sharing, users are asked to re-submit evidence at each step that government already holds elsewhere. When data can be linked and shared securely, with appropriate governance and safeguards, the experience becomes simpler and more coherent, allowing people to progress through a service journey without unnecessary duplication — and enabling governments to identify needs, verify eligibility, and coordinate responses across organisational boundaries.
The 2025 DGI results suggest that the enabling conditions are partly in place but actual use lags behind formal requirements. Requirements to share data across public sector institutions are relatively strong, with 79% of OECD countries reporting such requirements. But in practice, on average only 63% of central government institutions and 58% of subnational governments institutions in countries with a data sharing system are actively using it. Chapter 2 previously identified the challenge that, while legal frameworks and strategies are in place, incentives, operational integration, skills and accountability mechanisms to embed interoperability in day-to-day service delivery remain uneven. This gap between having a system and using it matters: when handovers depend on data sharing that is technically available but not consistently used in practice, the burden falls back on the person accessing the service, who must re-submit evidence and navigate a system that cannot join up what it knows (see Chapter 2, Section 2.5 on interoperability). Some governments are also embedding consent management into their digital public infrastructure, enabling individuals to authorise, monitor and revoke data sharing in ways that can facilitate trusted data reuse across interconnected services (OECD, forthcoming[27]).
Taken together, these three elements - joined-up channel design, widely used digital infrastructure and trusted data-sharing arrangements - are mutually reinforcing. Strengthening any one of them without the others produces only partial improvement. A clear channel strategy without digital identity means users still have to re-identify themselves at each touchpoint. Digital identity without data sharing means agencies can recognise a person but cannot act on what they know. Data sharing without clear channel design means information flows but the user experience may remain fragmented. Where services are genuinely proactive, anticipating needs and reaching people directly, the choice of channel or access mechanism becomes less critical, as the burden of navigating the system shifts from the user to the state.
Most public services today are reactive: people must know what they are entitled to and how to apply for it. This places the burden of navigating government on people or business, and it does not fall equally. People who are less familiar with government systems, who face language barriers, who are under stress or who simply do not know what support is available may not apply at all, apply too late or give up partway through (OECD, 2024[5]). The result is avoidable non-take-up: support that exists but does not reach the people who need it.
Proactive services address this by shifting the default. Rather than waiting for people to come forward, government acts on what it already knows - identifying likely eligibility, pre-filling information, sending timely reminders or delivering benefits automatically when conditions are met. This is not simply a convenience improvement. It is a matter of fairness: proactive approaches help ensure that support reaches those who need it, not just those who successfully navigate the system.
Proactivity also reduces unnecessary work on both sides. When services rely on repeated form-filling and manual verification, government incurs avoidable workload through incomplete applications, duplicate checks and administrative back-and-forth. When services can reuse information, anticipate needs and automate routine steps where appropriate, both people and government save time and effort.
The 2025 DGI results show that proactiveness ranks fifth among the six dimensions of the Digital Government Policy Framework, indicating that many governments remain stronger at strategy and digital delivery foundations than at enabling services to anticipate needs or simplify interactions by default (Figure 5.5). The reason is not primarily lack of ambition, it is (in part) that proactivity depends on capabilities that are hard to scale through isolated projects: shared systems, interoperable infrastructure and the ability to reuse data safely across agencies. In addition, more proactive models can have significant fiscal implications: when governments actively identify and reach all individuals who are eligible for a service or benefit, take‑up increases by design, requiring budgets and funding models to anticipate and absorb higher, more visible demand.
Countries acknowledging proactive service delivery as an operational goal, 2023 and 2025
Note: “Yes” includes either a stand-alone strategy or inclusion in a wider strategy. 2025 data not available for Germany and the United States. 2023 data not available for Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Slovak Republic, Switzerland, Thailand and the United States. 2025 data for Indonesia and Thailand cover the period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2023.
Source: OECD (2025) Survey on Digital Government 3.0.
Three practical levers can help governments make meaningful progress.
5.5.1. Moving the once-only principle from policy to practice
The once-only principle - the commitment that government should not ask people to provide the same information more than once - is widely recognised across OECD countries and referenced in many national strategies (Figure 5.6). But recognition in a strategy document is a long way from embedding it as a routine feature of how services are delivered.
Countries recognising the “once-only” principle, 2023 and 2025
Note: 2025 data not available for Germany and the United States. 2023 data not available for Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Slovak Republic, Switzerland, Thailand and the United States. 2025 data for Indonesia and Thailand cover the period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2023.
Source: OECD (2025) Survey on Digital Government 3.0.
Making the “once-only” principle work in practice requires a set of operational practices that many governments have not yet made consistently: which information can be reused and under what legal basis; what safeguards and consent arrangements apply; which technical mechanisms – shared data registries, data exchange platform, standardised verification processes – will handle the reuse; and how compliance will be checked when new services are designed. Without these foundations, service teams are left to negotiate case-by-case data sharing arrangements or rely on manual workarounds, both of which reintroduce the burden and fragmentation that the once-only principle is meant to eliminate.
The goal is to make once-only the default, not the exception: where information can be reused, it should be; where it cannot not, the reason should be clear and the technical pathway for verification and reuse should be available as a shred resource rather than something each team has to build from scratch (Box 5.6).
Several governments are moving from recognising the once-only principle to embedding it as a delivery requirement:
Belgium’s Only Once Act requires federal public services to reuse information already held in official registers such as the National Register and the Crossroads Bank for Enterprises - rather than asking people to provide it again. New forms must be reviewed before use by a simplification service that can require changes. People and businesses can report non-compliant forms for review.
Greece supports once-only delivery through a dedicated Once-Only Technical System and the Once-Only Hub. New digital services are expected to address compliance with interoperability and once-only requirements as part of project approval, aligned with the gov.gr development frameworks.
Spain enables cross agency verification through a Data Intermediation Platform, used under collaboration agreements between administrations. This is linked to the legal framework for administrative procedure, allowing public bodies to verify information directly rather than asking people to submit it again.
Korea anchors its once-only approach in the Electronic Government Act and links it to project approval and budget governance, including reviews under the Framework Act on Intelligent Informatization – creating a direct connection between the once-only principle and how digital projects are approved and funded.
5.5.2. Using data to improve service delivery
Governments collect and analyse large amounts of data about how services are used, who accesses them and what outcomes they produce. But there is an important difference between using data to understand what is happening and using data to change what happens at the point of service delivery. Proactivity becomes real when information shapes the actual decisions made in service operations - eligibility checks, case transitions, notifications, targeted outreach - not just the reports that managers read afterwards.
The 2025 DGI results point to a mixed progress here. Governments report relatively stronger use of data to anticipate and plan government interventions at a strategic level – informing budgeting, policy design and resource allocation. But the operational use of data to design and deliver services – using real time information to route people faster, identify emerging needs or trigger proactive support – remains less mature, albeit still fairly common (Figure 5.7). This gap is partly structural: strategic uses of data can be developed centrally by analytical teams, while operational uses require data to be integrated into the systems, processes and day-to-day workflows of the people delivering services.
Percentage of OECD countries reporting government-wide initiatives to use data to anticipate and plan interventions and making government-wide use of data to design and deliver public services, by area, 2025
Note: Data not available for Germany or the United States. Refer to Annex Table 5.A.1 and Annex Table 5.A.2 for comprehensive OECD and Accession country data.
Source: OECD (2025) Survey on Digital Government 3.0.
Shifting data use from reporting and planning into service operations requires investment in the tools, skills and governance arrangements that make operational data accessible and actionable. It also requires clear safeguards: data used to identify eligible people, predict needs or tailor communication must be governed transparently, with appropriate protections against bias, inappropriate inference or exclusion of particular groups. Proactivity built on skewed data risks causing harm rather than reducing burden (Box 5.7).
Proactivity often starts with responding to early signals. Several governments therefore strengthened how they use data to anticipate needs and plan interventions, including:
Australia uses linked and longitudinal data to support targeted interventions and planning, including through the Life Course Data Initiative and place-based initiatives. Evaluation reporting supports evidence-informed decisions about where to prioritise action.
Estonia uses a smart text search solution to support preparation of policy decisions. Legislative drafting rules also require explanatory notes to include an assessment of the expected impact of proposed legislation, reinforcing an evidence-based approach to policy design.
Greece is developing a central hub for managing and analysing large datasets under the Greece 2.0 recovery plan, supporting strategic decision-making and strengthening the evidence base for regulation and policy analysis.
Finland uses government-wide information management approaches to support better decisions in complex environments, including the Tietokiri tool and structured approaches to impact assessment when drafting legislation.
United Kingdom (London). Five local authorities collaborated through the InnOvaTe Programme to apply real‑time sensor data for earlier and more targeted local interventions. Across 47 trials, more than 2 900 sensors fed into a shared platform generating actionable insights, supporting use cases such as early flood alerts, identifying under‑used buildings and reducing fly‑tipping.
Source: (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2026[33]; Australian Department of Social Services, 2025[34]; Australian Department of the Treasury, 2025[35]; Government Office of Estonia, 2026[36]; Ministry of Digital Governance (Greece), 2022[37]; Ministry of Finance (Finland), n.d.[38]; Finnish State Treasury, 2024[39]; OECD, 2024[40])
5.5.3. Using AI to make timely support the default
AI can help governments move from reactive to proactive service delivery in practical ways (OECD, 2025[41]; OECD, 2025[42]) (see also Chapter 4):
improving triage and routing, so people are guided to the right pathway earlier (for example, by identifying the most relevant service, channel or follow-up step);
supporting more personalised and timely communication, such as targeted reminders, nudges or status updates that reduce missed deadlines and prevent avoidable drop-out while maintaining fairness, accessibility and clear explanation;
helping administrations identify patterns that indicate emerging needs or service frictions, including spikes in unresolved cases, bottlenecks, repeated contacts or signals of exclusion risks.
Used well, AI can make timely, targeted support the default rather than something people must find and request themselves. Delivering more timely support means aligning AI capability-building with changes to how work is organised, integrating AI into operations, clarifying responsibilities between people and systems, and empowering staff to act on AI outputs. At the same time, AI can introduce real risks such as opacity, skewed data and inappropriate automation. Where AI is used for a clear public purpose with human oversight and safeguards that are proportionate to risk, it can help reimagine how proactive public service looks: strengthening the responsiveness of service operations by turning data signals into earlier action and helping staff focus attention where it is needed most (Box 5.8).
France‘s Compar: IA enables comparison of AI language models in French, collecting user preferences that are turned into open datasets. This supports public bodies in evaluating and selecting AI models that meet national requirements, building the evidence base for responsible AI adoption in government.
Luxembourg uses AI through its AI4Gov portfolio for two types of proactive support: identifying unusual patterns in municipal financial data to flag potential irregularities, and profiling to help employment advisers assess which jobseekers are likely to need which type of support to access employment.
Spain uses AI in forest fire management: the Arbaria system uses AI and historical fire data to predict fire behaviour and inform both preventive and reactive decisions, helping authorities act earlier and more effectively.
Korea’s Ministry of the Interior and Safety (MOIS) has piloted an AI-based telephone monitoring system that proactively contacts potentially vulnerable people, analyses responses to identify signs of risk and triggers rapid human follow‑up. The initiative aims to reduce routine administrative workload while improving early detection for groups such as older people living alone and low‑income households. (OECD, 2025[43])
Proactivity is not a single programme or technology, it is a shift in how service delivery is organised. Governments can make the most progress by focusing on three connected moves: turning once-only from a principle into a practical delivery default that service teams can apply consistently; shifting data use from reporting and planning into the operational processes where services are delivered; and using AI as a tool to make timely, targeted support the norm rather than something people must find and request on their own.
Everything described in this chapter - consistent service standards, meaningful user engagement, joined-up channel delivery, proactive services - depends on governments having reliable information about whether their services are actually working. Without this, it is difficult to know where improvements are most needed, whether changes are making a difference, or whether digital investment is delivering real benefits for people. Feedback loops - the mechanisms that connect evidence about service performance to the decisions that shape services - are what make improvement sustainable rather than occasional
The 2025 DGI results suggests that this remains a weak link for many governments. Most OECD countries include monitoring of user experience in their national digital government strategy – 26 out of 36 OECD countries (72%). But including it in a strategy is different from measuring it systematically and acting on what is found. The evidence points to measurement that is often partial, inconsistent and not sufficiently connected to the decisions that matter, with 21 out of 36 countries (58%) doing systematic tracking of user needs across the service lifecycle.
5.6.1. Monitoring is common, but what is being measured matters
Tracking whether services are meeting their objectives is a basic management function, and most OECD governments have some form of service monitoring in place. But two important questions are whether monitoring captures the right things and whether it is connected to improvement.
Much current monitoring focuses on process and output, whether a service launched on time, whether a milestone was met, whether a form was completed. This kind of information is useful for basic accountability but does not tell governments much about whether services are working well for the people who use them. Monitoring that captures user experience - how easy a service was to use, where people got stuck, whether they found what they needed - provides a much more useful basis for improvement.
The 2025 DGI results show that the use of indicators to measure service performance remains low across OECD countries (Figure 5.8). This is a significant gap: without consistent measurement of service performance, governments are operating with limited visibility when they try to prioritise improvements, allocate resources or make the case for investment in service transformation. Additionally, OECD Serving Citizens Survey results show that only around one third of countries require delivery targets across central government, while a similar share report having no such targets at all (OECD, 2025[47]; OECD, forthcoming[48]). Taken together, the results suggest that measurement is often partial, uneven and insufficiently standardised to support comparison, targeting and decision-making across government. Nonetheless, countries are advancing in government-wide efforts to measure satisfaction with public services, as noted in Box 5.9.
Percentage of OECD countries reporting measurement of digital service performance and transaction costs, by type, 2023 and 2025
Note: 2025 data not available for Germany and the United States. 2023 data not available for Germany, Greece, Slovak Republic, Switzerland and the United States. Refer to Annex Table 5.A.1. for comprehensive OECD and Accession country data.
Source: OECD (2025) Survey on Digital Government 3.0.
Public transparency about service performance is also limited. Only 17 out of 36 countries (48%) publish progress or monitoring data about digital project online – up from 39% in 2023, which is a positive trend, but still meaning that in more than half of OECD countries, there is no routine public window onto how major services are performing. Greater transparency would support external scrutiny, encourage shared learning across government and strengthen public accountability for service quality.
Chile's User Satisfaction Survey (MESU) is one of the largest user experience surveys across OECD countries. Overseen by the Ministry of Finance, it is mandatory for a broad set of public institutions — 68 agencies participated in 2024, with around 60,000 users responding. MESU produces an overall satisfaction score for each agency and captures experiences across specific dimensions such as accessibility, infrastructure quality, and treatment of users. Chile is progressively strengthening the link between survey results and service improvement: many agencies are required to develop satisfaction improvement plans informed by MESU, and performance-related pay is available to those that meet agreed targets, reinforcing the role of citizen feedback in driving organisational change.
Australia's Trust in Australian Public Services (TAPS) survey measures public satisfaction, trust, and experiences with public services. Led by the Australian Public Service Commission, the 2024 wave collected more than 11,000 responses and found that trust in the public service remained stable at 58%. A distinctive feature of TAPS is its emphasis on demographic disaggregation, revealing systematic differences in trust by gender and age — for example, higher trust among men (63%) than women (53%), and among younger and older adults compared with middle-aged cohorts. The survey also examines five core dimensions of service experience: staff, information, access, process, and outcomes.
5.6.2. Measuring what services cost people, not just what they cost government
One of the most informative — and underused — forms of service measurement is tracking the costs that services impose on the people who use them. These transaction costs include the time spent completing a service, the number of steps required, the documents that need to be gathered, the handovers between agencies and the occasions when people have to contact government again because something went wrong the first time. A service can appear efficient from the inside while still imposing significant burdens on users.
Only 10 out of 36 OECD countries (28%) report standardised mechanisms or guidance for measuring transaction costs. This is a genuinely low figure — and it means that in most OECD countries, governments do not have a consistent way of knowing where burdens concentrate, which groups are most affected, or which parts of a service journey create the most avoidable frustration or dropout.
Measuring transaction costs systematically has three benefits. It reveals where services impose the highest burdens, helping governments prioritise where to focus improvement efforts. It identifies which user groups are most affected, supporting more equitable service design. And it provides a common metric that can be tracked over time, making it possible to demonstrate the impact of simplification and digitalisation in terms that are meaningful to both decision-makers and the public (Box 5.10).
Several governments have developed standardised approaches to measuring the costs and burdens that services impose on users, making improvements more targeted and demonstrable.
The United Kingdom requires central government service teams to calculate cost per transaction across all available channels – including assisted digital support – and publish this data regularly. This creates a consistent, comparable measure of efficiency and burden that connects to service improvement decisions.
Portugal provides guidance and a practical tool that support public bodies in calculating the benefits and savings linked to digital transformation and service simplification. This makes transaction cost measurement more feasible and repeatable across organisations of different seizes and capacities.
Colombia calculates “citizen savings” from the simplification of administrative procedures using a defined methodology, drawing on data from its national system for tracking administrative requirements. Savings are weighted depending on the type of simplification action taken, producing a quantified estimate of the burden reduction achieved.
Iceland uses a standardised approach (Ávinningur af stafrænum ferlum) to calculate the benefits of digital processes, focusing on changes in efficiency and cost. Agencies are encouraged to use a dedicated tool and report a standard indicator, supporting a consistent measurement across government.
5.6.3. Connecting measurement to decisions
Measurement only improves services when it changes what people decide. The risk with any monitoring or reporting system is that it becomes something that is observed but not acted upon, for example dashboards that exist but do not drive change, reports that are filed but not discussed. The core challenge is the lack of incentives for civil servants to act on the evidence they gather. The OECD Serving Citizens Survey results indicate that only half of countries incorporate user experience and performance data into their decision-making process to improve services (OECD, 2025[47]). Avoiding this requires explicit pathways from evidence to action.
Practically, this means building measurement into the decision points that shape services. Service performance data should be reviewed alongside investment proposals, so that evidence of how existing services are performing informs decisions about where to invest next. It should trigger service redesign when performance falls below acceptable levels, depending on the outcomes for users, or when user burdens, drop off or accessibility issues are identified. It should feed into assurance processes and go-live decisions for major services, so that new services are not launched without a clear plan for how their performance will be tracked.
It also means designing measurement as a tool for learning rather than a compliance exercise. When teams see measurement as something done for them rather than to them, as a source of insight that helps them improve their work rather than a reporting burden imposed from outside, they are more likely to engage with it seriously and use it well. This requires measurement to be proportionate, accessible and connected to issues that teams can actually act on. A simple, regular user experience survey for a high-volume service is more useful than an elaborate measurement framework that takes months to produce and arrives too late to influence decisions.
Finally, measurement needs to be connected to the governance and accountability structures that give it force. If service teams know that evidence of poor performance will prompt support and improvement rather than punishment, they are more likely to collect honest data and report it accurately. Building a culture where measurement is valued as a management tool, rather than feared as a means of blame, is as important as having the right indicators and systems in place.
Ultimately, stronger feedback loops make continuous improvement possible rather than exceptional. When evidence about outcomes, user experience and transaction costs is collected consistently, reported transparently and connected to the decisions that shape services, improvement becomes part of how governments operate, not a special initiative that depends on exceptional teams or circumstances. This is what it means for service transformation to be sustainable: not a series of one-off projects, but a system that learn, adapts and gets better over time.
Availability of whole-of-government service standard or guidelines on service design and delivery at the central/federal level(*); and if yes, associated goals these common guidelines or the service standard
Note: 2025 data not available for Germany and the United States.
Source: OECD (2025) Survey on Digital Government 3.0.
What mechanisms are in place to support the application of these common guidelines or service standards?
Note: 2025 data not available for Germany and the United States. 2023 data not available for Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Slovak Republic, Switzerland, Thailand and the United States. 2025 data for Indonesia and Thailand cover the period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2023.
Source: OECD (2025) Survey on Digital Government 3.0.
Methods used to test digital government services
Note: “Usability testing” refers to a testing technique based on the evaluation of a system by its users, ensuring effectiveness and efficiency, and measuring the degree to which the system is adapted to the user needs. “Focus groups” refers to a group involving a small number of participants with similar experience gathered together to address and discuss and specific issue. “Design thinking sessions” refers to organized meetings to identify and overcome issues by using the ‘design thinking methodology’ which consists of matching the needs with feasible solutions to create value in a ordered and systematic way. “Public consultation websites” refers to a web tool to collect opinions of interested and affected groups for particular issues in order to improve transparency, efficiency and effectiveness of public regulation. “A/B testing” refers to a user experience testing technique based on the comparison between two versions of a same product or service. “First-click testing” refers to a testing method for websites, apps or platforms which examines the ‘first click’ of the users when interacting the system, aiming to verify the success of completing a task. 2025 data not available for Germany and the United States. 2023 data not available for Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Slovak Republic, Switzerland, Thailand and the United States. 2025 data for Indonesia and Thailand cover the period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2023.
Source: OECD (2025) Survey on Digital Government 3.0.
Government-wide initiatives by the central/federal government to use data to anticipate and plan government interventions, by area
Note: Data not available for Germany and the United States. Data for Indonesia and Thailand cover the period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2023.
Source: OECD (2025) Survey on Digital Government 3.0.
Government-wide initiatives by the central/federal government to design and deliver government services according to the use of data, by area
Note: 2025 data not available for Germany and the United States. 2023 data not available for Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Slovak Republic, Switzerland, Thailand and the United States. 2025 data for Indonesia and Thailand cover the period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2023.
Source: OECD (2025) Survey on Digital Government 3.0.
Metrics used to measure performance of digital government services
Note: “Failure demand” refers to inquiries caused by failures, poor services or inconveniences when providing services. 2025 data not available for Germany and the United States. 2023 data not available for Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Slovak Republic, Switzerland, Thailand and the United States. 2025 data for Indonesia and Thailand cover the period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2023.
Source: OECD (2025) Survey on Digital Government 3.0.
References
[52] Administrative Department of the Public Service (Colombia) (2022), Documento metodológico operación estadística: Cálculo de ahorros ciudadanos por racionalización de trámites, https://www1.funcionpublica.gov.co/documents/34645357/34703525/Documento_metodologico_operacion_estadistica_calculo_ahorros_ciudadanos_racionalizacion_tramites_v2.pdf/003a321b-17e6-f7df-7923-cdbcfb66f0ce?t=1670346246908.
[22] Alliance for Digital Living (2026), Alliance for Digital Living, https://digitaalsamenleven.nl/.
[51] ARTE (n.d.), Manual de Apoio à Quantificação de Benefícios Económicos.
[33] Australian Bureau of Statistics (2026), Life Course Data Initiative, https://www.abs.gov.au/about/key-priorities/life-course-data-initiative.
[34] Australian Department of Social Services (2025), Partnerships for Local Action and Community Empowerment, https://www.dss.gov.au/supporting-community-change/partnerships-local-action-and-community-empowerment.
[35] Australian Department of the Treasury (2025), State of Evaluation in the Australian Government 2025, https://evaluation.treasury.gov.au/publications/state-evaluation-australian-government-2025.
[13] Conféderation suisse (2026), Modèle de gouvernance de la transformation numérique, https://www.bk.admin.ch/bk/fr/home/digitale-transformation-ikt-lenkung/bereichdti/organisation.html.
[11] Designers Italy (2025), Designers Italy, https://designers.italia.it/.
[53] Digital Iceland (n.d.), Benefits of digital processes, https://island.is/s/stafraent-island/avinningur-af-stafraenum-ferlum.
[18] Digital Iceland (n.d.), Influencers, https://island.is/en/o/digital-iceland/influencers.
[14] DTA (2025), Digital Experience Policy, https://www.digital.gov.au/policy/digital-experience.
[39] Finnish State Treasury (2024), Fact sheet, https://www.valtiokonttori.fi/palvelu/tietokiri/.
[28] FPS BOSA (2024), Only Once: the one-time collection of data, https://bosa.belgium.be/nl/themas/digitale-overheid/administratieve-vereenvoudiging/only-once-de-eenmalige-inzameling-van.
[24] gov.pt (2026), The Portuguese public services portal, https://www.gov.pt/servicos.
[17] GOV.UK (2026), Service Standard Reports, https://www.gov.uk/service-standard-reports.
[16] GOV.UK (2025), User research, https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research.
[50] GOV.UK (2021), Measuring cost per transaction, https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/measuring-success/measuring-cost-per-transaction.
[7] GOV.UK (2019), Service Standard, https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/service-standard.
[21] Government of Canada (2026), Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, https://www.canada.ca/en/impact-assessment-agency.html.
[20] Government of Canada (2025), Policy on Communications and Federal Identity, https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=30683.
[26] Government of Israel (2026), gov.il – Services and Government Information Website, https://www.gov.il/he.
[46] Government of Spain (2022), Wildfires in Spain: News Update, https://www.miteco.gob.es/content/dam/miteco/es/biodiversidad/temas/incendios-forestales/avance_1_enero_31_diciembre_2022_tcm30-560521.pdf.
[36] Government Office of Estonia (2026), A smart text data search solution supporting the preparation of policy-making decisions, https://www.riigikantselei.ee/poliitikakujundamise-otsuste-ettevalmistamist-toetav-tekstiandmete-targa-otsingu-lahendus.
[31] Head of State (Spain) (2015), Ley 39/2015, de 1 de octubre, del Procedimiento Administrativo Común de las Administraciones Públicas., https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2015-10565.
[19] island.is (2024), Project Management, https://docs.devland.is/technical-overview/project-management.
[12] L’Assemblée fédérale de la Confédération suisse (2024), Loi fédérale sur l’utilisation de moyens électroniques pour l’exécution des tâches des autorités, https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/oc/2023/682/fr.
[44] Ministry of Culture (France) (2025), compar:IA, https://comparia.beta.gouv.fr/.
[30] Ministry of Digital Governance (Greece) (2024), OOTSHUB Greece, https://ootshub.mindigital.gr/.
[37] Ministry of Digital Governance (Greece) (2022), Implementation of a Central Hub for the Management & Analysis of Multidimensional Big Data, https://greece20.gov.gr/?projects=kentrikos-komvos-diacheirisis-kai-analysis-polydiastaton-dedomenon-megaloy-ogkoy-big-data-16842.
[29] Ministry of Digital Governance (Greece) (2022), Once-Only Hub - The future of the single market, https://digi.gov.gr/once-only-hub-to-mellon-tis-eniaias-agoras/.
[45] Ministry of Digitalization (Luxembourg) (2025), L’initiative AI4Gov, https://gouvernement.lu/fr/dossiers.gouv2024_mindigital+fr+dossiers+2021+AI4Gov.html.
[38] Ministry of Finance (Finland) (n.d.), Knowledge management, https://vm.fi/tietojohtaminen.
[32] Ministry of Government Legislation (Korea) (2026), Korean Law Information Center, https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/eng/engMain.do.
[25] Ministry of the Interior and Safety (Republic of Korea) (2026), Government24+, https://plus.gov.kr/.
[43] OECD (2025), Digital Government Review of Korea: Harnessing Digital and Data to Transform Government, OECD Digital Government Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9defc197-en.
[49] OECD (2025), “Effectively Managing Investments in Digital Government: An OECD Framework”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 76, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5c324e91-en.
[41] OECD (2025), Governing with Artificial Intelligence: The State of Play and Way Forward in Core Government Functions, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/795de142-en.
[47] OECD (2025), Government at a Glance 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0efd0bcd-en.
[42] OECD (2025), Harnessing Artificial Intelligence in Social Security: Use Cases, Governance and Workforce Readiness, OECD Digital Government Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b52405c1-en.
[2] OECD (2025), More Effective Social Protection for Stronger Economic Growth: Main Findings from the 2024 OECD Risks that Matter Survey, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3947946a-en.
[3] OECD (2025), “Recommendation of the Council on Human-Centred Public Administrative Services”, OECD Legal Instruments, OECD/LEGAL/503, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0503 (accessed on 9 January 2026).
[15] OECD (2025), “Tackling civic participation challenges with emerging technologies: Beyond the hype”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 72, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ec2ca9a2-en.
[40] OECD (2024), Global Trends in Government Innovation 2024: Fostering Human-Centred Public Services, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c1bc19c3-en.
[5] OECD (2024), Modernising Access to Social Protection: Strategies, Technologies and Data Advances in OECD Countries, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/af31746d-en.
[1] OECD (2024), OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions – 2024 Results: Building Trust in a Complex Policy Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9a20554b-en.
[9] OECD (2023), Civic Space Review of Portugal: Towards People-Centred, Rights-Based Public Services, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8241c5e3-en.
[6] OECD (2023), OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023: Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en.
[4] OECD (2023), “Recommendation on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems”, OECD Legal Instruments, OECD/LEGAL/0498, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0498.
[8] OECD (2022), “OECD Good Practice Principles for Public Service Design and Delivery in the Digital Age”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 23, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2ade500b-en.
[27] OECD (forthcoming), Operationalising consent in the digital ecosystem: mapping challenges and technical innovations, and exploring the opportunities of AI, OECD Publishing, Paris.
[48] OECD (forthcoming), Serving Citizens, OECD Publishing, Paris.
[10] Portuguese Republic (2026), MOSAICO, https://mosaico.gov.pt/.
[23] Presidency of the Council of Ministers (Portugal) (2024), Decreto-Lei n.º 49/2024, de 8 de agosto, https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/49-2024-875899341.