This chapter presents findings on how OECD member countries are implementing the second pillar of the OECD Recommendation on Human-Centred Public Administrative Services, “Core Foundations”. It examines how effectively they are building the skills, digital infrastructure and cross-government coordination needed to make public administrative services more human centred.
Serving Citizens 2026
Delivering Better Public Administrative Services
Abstract
Complementing the strategy and vision for improving PAS, countries also need the appropriate framework, conditions and capabilities to implement. The second pillar of the Recommendation, “Core Foundations”, provides guidance on the competences, infrastructure and organisation required to make PAS more human centred.
As a first step, the OECD recommends that adherents make a practical link from strategy to implementation by “clearly defin(ing) roles and responsibilities for enabling human centred service design and delivery”. This is necessary to ensure effective oversight of how PAS reform strategies are being implemented, co-ordination across government agencies which deliver different PAS, and accountability for delivering reform. Encouragingly, most countries have already designated at least one government agency to lead the improvement of PAS (27 out of 31 countries, 87%) (Figure 5.1). The agency which most commonly has (exclusive or non-exclusive) lead responsibility is the public administration ministry (12 out of 31, 39%). Other institutions which commonly have responsibility are the Centre of Government (9 out of 31, 29%), the digital government authority (8 out of 31, 26%) and the Ministry of Finance or Economy, and the Ministry of Interior (each 7 out of 31, 23%).
Responsibility varies substantially across countries, and there is no single institutional model for steering improvements in PAS. Almost every country which responded to Serving Citizens reported a different configuration of agencies with responsibility for enabling human-centred services. In 15 out of 31 OECD countries (48%) responsibility for PAS reform is shared across multiple government agencies. Most commonly, two agencies have joint responsibility (11 out of 31 countries, 36%), but more complex arrangements also exist. In Japan responsibility is shared by the centre of government, the interior and public administration ministries, and the digital government agency. Israel assigns responsibilities to the centre of government, the finance ministry and the digital government agency. There are four countries in which no central ministry or agency has been designated to lead improvements in public administrative services. However, each of these has its own arrangements. For example, in Denmark, municipalities lead in improving the administrative services they deliver.
Distribution of countries sorted by the ministry leading on PAS improvement, 2024
Note: Questions asked were “Q8 Has a central/federal government Ministry/Agency/Department been designated to lead the improvement of public administrative services?” and “Q9 If Yes, please select the entity leading the improvement of public administrative services: a) Centre of government (Prime Minister’s/President’s Office, Privy Council, etc.), b) Ministry of Finance / Economy, c) Ministry of Interior, d) Ministry of Public Administration or equivalent (e.g. civil service, administrative reform), e) Digital Government ministry/agency/department, f) Other””
Source: (OECD, 2026[1])
Below the level of a lead ministry, at working level, it is important that governments also designate the public authorities with responsibility for leading and managing PAS reform and improvement processes. Specifically, the OECD also recommends that countries should “designate a responsible body to lead and co-ordinate service delivery strategy, and provide central oversight, steering, and communication to all service providers on a human-centred approach in service design and delivery". Again, most countries have already done this, by appointing a committee of officials responsible for overseeing improvement of PAS delivery (22 out of 31, 71%) (Figure 5.2).
Responses to Serving Citizens also suggest that governments generally distribute working responsibility for PAS improvement across government, with cross-government co-ordinating committees playing a lead role in reform co-ordination. 18 of the 22 committees (82%) are attended by officials from multiple government departments (Figure 5.2). Moreover, these committees are also relatively senior, with government ministers and/or senior civil servants attending in at least 13 out of 18 cases (72%). This points to the importance of political-level support and leadership in PAS reform.
Cross-government committees attended by senior officials can be especially helpful for co-ordination and for enabling the simplification, streamlining and continuous improvement of services, because related services are often delivered by multiple government agencies, and improvements typically require strategic co-operation across them. It is particularly important that they are attended by senior officials from agencies responsible for delivering public administrative services.
Distribution of countries by the responsible body/committee appointed to oversee improvement of public administrative services, 2024
Note: The figure presents the responses to the question “Q11 Has a responsible body/committee been appointed to oversee improvement of public administrative services within the central/federal government?” and “Q12 Does the responsible body/committee include representatives from different central government ministries/agencies/departments?”
Source: (OECD, 2026[1])
In line with this, almost all the 18 cross-government committees have four core responsibilities (Figure 5.3.). At the strategic level, lead development of government-wide strategy for improving public administrative services (14 out of 18, 78%) and monitor the implementation of this strategy (17 out of 18, 94%). At the delivery level, almost all cross-government committees enable co-ordination between ministries / agencies / departments delivering public services (16 out of 18, 89%) and are also responsible for proposing and initiating simplification of services that involve more than one ministry, agency or department (14 out of 18, 78%). An example is Ireland’s Public Service Leadership Board, which plays a key role in delivering Ireland’s public services reform strategy. The committee is attended by Secretary Generals/CEOs from a wide range of government departments and many other public service organisations (e.g. the police and health services), with the goal of providing a platform to work together on shared PAS reform priorities at a strategic level (Government of Ireland, 2025[2]). Similarly, in Australia, the Secretaries Board is responsible for the overall implementation of the APS Reform Program. The Secretaries Board consists of the secretaries of all Australian government departments, including the Australian Public Service Commissioner (Australian Government, n.d.[3]).
Main responsibilities of committees overseeing improvement of PAS
Note: The figure presents the responses to the question “Q14 What are the main responsibilities of the co-ordination body/committee?” Please select all that apply: a) Lead development of government-wide strategy for improving public administrative services, b) Enable co-ordination between ministries/agencies/departments delivering public services, c) Co ordinate service projects across national and/or sub-national level of government, d) Propose and initiate simplification of services that involve more than one ministry, agency or department, e) Integrate services commonly used together during Life Events, f) Approve methodology or guidance for setting service standards, g) Set targets for delivery of public administrative services, h) Approve methodology or guidance for measuring citizen and business satisfaction with public administrative services, i) Collect and publish information about performance and satisfaction with public administrative services, j) Monitor implementation of government-wide strategy for improving public administrative services, k) Monitor development of service projects across national and/or sub-national levels of government and align them to the objectives of the service strategy, l) Other, please specify"
Source: (OECD, 2026[1])
Committees overseeing PAS reform generally have more extensive roles in performance management in the 7 countries in which the Center of Government (CoG) is among the agencies overseeing PAS improvement (Figure 5.3), in line with policy monitoring roles traditionally allocated to CoG. In 5 out of these 7 countries (71%), the committee overseeing PAS has some responsibility for: setting targets for delivery of public administrative services; approving methodology or guidance for measuring citizen and business satisfaction; and collecting and publishing information about service performance and on user satisfaction. All committees in these countries also have responsibility for proposing and initiating simplification of services that involve more than one ministry, agency or department, and for integrating services commonly used together (both 7 out of 7, 100%). Very few committees in other countries have such responsibilities. This reflects features associated with the CoG, such as their convening power, their proximity to the head of government and their role in ensuring the delivery of national reform agendas. More information on performance management for public services is provided in Figure 6.3 and related discussion below.
Box 5.1 explores a practical example of well-developed leadership and co-ordination mechanisms within government for PAS reform. France demonstrates leading practice among governments in which the CoG plays a role through a dedicated entity, the Interministerial Directorate for Public Transformation (DITP). Direction from the Prime Minister on service simplification is implemented by actions across a wide range of agencies, followed up through a performance management system.
Interministerial Co-operation and Co-ordination for Public Service Transformation in France
The French Interministerial Directorate for Public Transformation (DITP) acts as the lead actor in the public service reform process, with responsibility for co-ordinating cross-ministerial transformation programs and providing expertise to achieve impactful results. The DITP is also the Secretariat to the Interministerial Committee for Public Transformation (CITP), which is chaired by the Prime Minister and involves representatives from various relevant ministries. This committee aims to set the direction and policies for public services to improve the quality of services for people and met once a year until 2024. The CITP is also complemented by the National Council on Public Services (CNSP), which brings together key players of the public administration involved in public service delivery (heads of agencies and Secretary Generals of line Ministries). The Council aims to convene, align across agencies and set priorities on better accompanying users on public services.
Since 2021, the Council has met twice a year, chaired by the minister responsible for public action, in their capacity as Minister for Public Services.
In 2024 CITP set administrative simplification as the government's priority for the 2024-2027 period. Under the Prime Minister’s direction, all ministries developed simplification plans and committed to sharing initial result by the end of 2024 while continuing the process. Simplification is not a one-time process but is also seen as an ongoing action. Each ministry needs to detail measurable targets for their simplification plan. Key measures directly related to people's daily lives were selected to assess the initial achievements of the public service simplification process.
The co-ordination function is also expanded to the implementation of the plan. Monitoring of the implementation of the simplification plan is carried out by DITP, and the Prime Minister regularly requests each ministry to share their progress with the Council of Ministers. The cross-sectoral co-ordination mechanism, bolstered by strong leadership and commitment from all parties, has enabled France's public service reform agenda to align all public service providers towards a unified objective and evolve into a continuous improvement process.
Building the core foundations for more human-centred public services also involves improving the quality and availability of relevant skill sets among public sector employees. The OECD recommends that governments should “equip public servants with the skills and competencies and working environment to design and deliver human-centred services”. Delivering human-centred services can require public sector workers to operate in ways which have not traditionally been incentivised within the public sector: collaborating with colleagues from other public sector agencies or levels of government; innovating and altering how administrative processes are undertaken, rather than focusing on compliance; and putting an ongoing focus on gathering and acting on information on how services could better meet the needs of the public. In many countries, efforts to upgrade skills across the public sector in areas such as user research, service design, customer service, digital technology, and evaluation will be beneficial.
A first step to improving skills and competencies is to identify and codify the skills required by civil servants. Most countries already undertake some form of assessments of skills gaps among public sector workers in service design and delivery (19 out of 31, 61%) (Figure 5.4). This is more frequently done by individual agencies (11 out of 31 countries, 35%), than on a government wide basis (8 out of 31 countries, 26%). There are benefits and drawbacks to each approach; agency-level assessments could potentially offer more easily actionable information to managers in those agencies, and cross-government assessments may offer more strategic information to support changes in skills profiles and hiring procedures.
Distribution of countries by efforts to identify skill gaps for service design and delivery
Note: The figure presents responses to question "Q15 Does your central/federal government identify skill gaps for service design and delivery? a) Yes, a cross-government assessment is made, b) Yes, assessments are made by individual Ministries/Agencies/Departments, c) No"
Source: (OECD, 2026[1])
The recommendation also advises governments to “continuously develop and update the skills, competencies, behaviours and mindsets of public servants involved in service design and delivery”. Providing public servants with training on human-centred design is an essential first step to doing so. Encouragingly, 25 out of 31 OECD countries (81%) make training on human-centred design available to public servants (Figure 5.5). In most cases, training is voluntary (21 out of 31, 68%), though it should be noted that not all staff need high-level skills in this area.
Distribution of countries by availability of training on human-centred design to civil servants
Note: The figure presents the responses to the question “Q16 is training on human-centred design available to civil servants? A) Yes, training is available and mandatory, b) Yes, training is available on a voluntary basis, c) No"
Source: (OECD, 2026[1])
As governments move to implement the Recommendation, a more sustained focus on workforce skills will be important. More systematic use of skills assessments is a starting point which can help governments to consider their needs. Beyond this, governments can implement a range of good practices to improve the availability of skills in human-centred service design and delivery, including: building relevant skills into competency frameworks; employing recruitment processes to attract and assess people with the right skills, competencies, behaviours; using incentives and rewards that authorises risk-taking and encourages innovation; and encouraging upskilling in the use of relevant digital tools. Indeed, the 2024 OECD/EU Survey of Public Servants in ten countries finds that only half (52%) of public employees feel they have regular opportunities to build their digital skills. Training mechanisms will also require the right focus in training curricula, the use of communities of practice and mobility opportunities to improve lived experiences.
Digital public infrastructure (DPI) refers to a set of shared, secure, and interoperable digital systems designed to support access to public and private services at scale. DPI systems include digital identity, data sharing, digital payments, core registries, digital post, digital notifications and single digital gateways (OECD, 2026[5]; OECD, 2024[6]).
High-quality DPI is fundamental to governments’ capacity to deliver human-centred PAS. It provides the structure that allows governments to deliver services that are simple, consistent, secure and accessible across channels (OECD, 2024[6]). It also supports digitally enabled services regardless of preferred channels, integrating administrative siloes to provide more convenient and seamless public services (OECD, 2020[7]; OECD, 2024[8]). Online services are already the most commonly used channel for members of the public seeking to use PAS, and this is likely to intensify as digital technologies advance.
The OECD recommends that adherents should “ensure the availability of reliable and inclusive digital public infrastructure that supports human-centred service design and delivery”. Strong digital public infrastructure provides the backbone that allows governments to deliver services that are simple, consistent, secure and accessible across channels (OECD, 2024[6]). To meet the Recommendation, governments need to develop and deploy digital public infrastructure that enables high-quality user experience while ensuring that access to PAS is not restricted by gaps in connectivity, accessibility or digital literacy. This includes removing barriers that affect the availability and use of digital public infrastructure, for example, limited broadband coverage, inaccessible interfaces, or insufficient identity verification options, and putting in place data governance frameworks that facilitate secure data sharing and interoperability between service providers. Effective interoperability remains a critical enabler: without it, citizens continue to carry the administrative burden of repeatedly providing the same information or navigating fragmented systems.
Governments will also need secure digital public infrastructure that is scalable and interoperable and can operate across sectors and levels of government. This involves making key building blocks and common business rules, available widely, and equipping service teams with common resources, standards and reusable digital components (OECD, 2020[7]). Such shared platforms allow agencies to focus on improving user experience and solving policy problems, rather than duplicating digital solutions that already exists elsewhere in government. As digital services increasingly operate across organisational boundaries, the ability to leverage shared infrastructure becomes essential for delivering coherent, end‑to‑end PAS.
Finally, the OECD recommends that governments reinforce the governance of digital public infrastructure to enable human-centred services. This requires establishing a common long-term vision, defining national leadership roles, clarifying institutional arrangements and ensuring oversight for the management and evolution of digital public infrastructure. Governance also depends on flexible and sustainable digital‑investment frameworks that enable long‑term planning rather than fragmented, project‑based funding (OECD, 2024[6]). Without robust governance, even advanced technical infrastructure risks being underused or inconsistently applied across government.
Digital public infrastructure (DPI) is a core foundation for public service delivery. The OECD defines DPI as shared digital systems that are secure and interoperable and that support the inclusive delivery of, and access to, public and private services across society. Its core building blocks (digital identity, digital payments, data sharing systems, digital post and notifications, and core government data registries) are increasingly the precondition for public sector transformation and responsiveness in the digital age (OECD, 2024[6]). Governments play a central role in designing, implementing and overseeing this infrastructure. The most widely adopted digital public infrastructure components are single digital gateways, available in 31 out of 36 countries (86%), data-sharing systems, available in 30 out of 36 countries (83%), and digital notifications, available in 29 out of 36 countries (81%). Digital post systems have been implemented in 27 out of 36 countries (75%), digital identities that provide access to at least 50% of public services in 25 out of 36 countries (69%), and digital payments in 24 out of 36 countries (67%) (Figure 5.6).
Percentage of OECD countries adopting digital public infrastructure systems, 2023 and 2025
Note: Data not available for Germany or the United States. Single digital gateway: availability of a catalogue of services accessible to users. Data sharing: availability of a data interoperability system. Digital identity: at least 50% of national online public services can be accessed through a digital identity solution with two-factor authentication.
Source: (OECD, 2026[5])
Digital identity plays a key role in enabling access to public services. For individuals, it provides a simpler and more secure way to access services. For businesses, it reduces the cost and complexity of verifying who they are dealing with. Beyond these immediate advantages, digital identity is central to making digital government work reliably over time. By providing a trusted, consistent way for users to authenticate across institutions, it allows services to work steadily as processes evolve, new channels emerge, or technologies change. Nearly seven in ten OECD countries (25 out 36, 69%) report that more than half of their online public services can be accessed using digital identity, which is a significant achievement that reflects sustained investment in digital identity infrastructure.
The breadth of services that can be accessed using digital identity is reflected in the share of the eligible population actively using these systems. In 9 of 36 OECD countries (25%, Belgium, Chile, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Korea, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden) more than 90% of the population uses digital identity. This success is largely attributed to strong collaboration across different sectors, including the private sector, which has helped create trusted, convenient and interoperable solutions used across both public and private services. This wide applicability increases incentives for citizens to adopt digital identities, reinforcing a virtuous cycle between service availability, user demand and system maturity.
However, in 15 of 36 (58%) of OECD countries, uptake varies between 90% and 50% of eligible population, and in the 12 of 36 (33%), fewer than half use it. These disparities show that making digital identity available across services is necessary but not sufficient. Low uptake can stem from a combination of factors, including low numbers of services that require digital authentication, lack of trust in government systems, concerns about data privacy, insufficient collaboration between public and private actors, or gaps in connectivity and digital literacy. These challenges highlight that the existence of a digital identity solution is not sufficient: widespread adoption depends on user trust, strong governance, clear incentives, and integration with high-value services that people rely on frequently. Overall, the disparities in both service coverage and user uptake underscore the importance of continued investment in secure, interoperable, and widely accepted digital identity systems. Without such systems, governments may struggle to offer truly seamless, human-centered PAS, and people may remain subject to fragmented, time-consuming or insecure processes when interacting with public authorities.
References
[3] Australian Government (n.d.), Secretaries Board, https://www.pmc.gov.au/about-us/accountability-and-reporting/corporate-reporting/secretaries-board (accessed on 10 February 2026).
[4] Gouvernement de France (n.d.), Plans ministériels de simplification, https://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/simplifier-la-vie-des-usagers-et-des-agents/plans-ministeriels-de-simplification (accessed on 10 February 2026).
[2] Government of Ireland (2025), Public Service Leadership Board, https://shorturl.at/1ey0g.
[5] OECD (2026), Digital Government Outlook 2026: From Foundations to Transformational Impact, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0496b2bc-en.
[1] OECD (2026), “OECD Serving Citizens 2026: Delivering Better Public Administrative Services database”.
[8] OECD (2024), “2023 OECD Digital Government Index: Results and key findings”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 44, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1a89ed5e-en.
[6] OECD (2024), “Digital public infrastructure for digital governments”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 68, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ff525dc8-en.
[7] OECD (2020), “The OECD Digital Government Policy Framework: Six dimensions of a Digital Government”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 02, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f64fed2a-en.