This chapter presents findings on how OECD member countries are implementing the fourth pillar of the OECD Recommendation on Human-Centred Public Administrative Services, “Measurement, Engagement and Improvement”. It examines the work they are doing to gather feedback from users, set and track performance targets, and how they use this information to build better services.
Serving Citizens 2026
Delivering Better Public Administrative Services
Abstract
The final pillar of the Recommendation is “Measurement, Engagement & Improvement”. Fundamentally, public services should aim to meet user expectations and achieve targeted programme objectives. This requires governments to measure service performance and user satisfaction accurately, allowing them to prioritise and improve these outcomes over time. Accordingly, the Recommendation calls on governments to “measure and report on user experience with, and perceptions of, service design and delivery, and use this information to identify ways to improve satisfaction with public services”. By encouraging regular performance measurement, structured user feedback and engagement with diverse stakeholders, this pillar helps to create a continuous improvement feedback loop. Through repeated assessment of user experiences and perceptions, public administrations can identify areas for improvement in service design and delivery, enhance transparency, and create meaningful opportunities for public participation, leading to more responsive and inclusive public services.
The Recommendation indicates that governments should “undertake regular, robust surveys of users and the public to understand needs, expectations, experiences and satisfaction with services, and to examine the aspects of user experience which influence satisfaction”. User experience surveys are a central instrument in this regard. They collect feedback from users of a public administrative service, asking them to reflect on their experience and level of satisfaction with different aspects of service delivery, as well as with the service overall. Typically, these surveys ask respondents to rate dimensions such as accessibility, clarity of information, staff interactions, timeliness, or ease of use, among others. By capturing users’ perspectives at the point of service interaction, user experience surveys help governments to better understand citizen needs, preferences and expectations, and to diagnose specific operational or design issues that need to be fixed to improve service quality and satisfaction.
Encouragingly, user experience surveys have already used in many OECD countries. A majority of responding OECD countries (16 out of 31, 52%) have conducted a national-level survey to assess user experience, with several of these being regular and repeated exercises (Figure 7.1). These surveys are typically led by a central government body and are often based on nationally representative samples of the population or of service users. National user surveys have the advantage of gathering comparable information across different services, helping governments to identify those with which users are more and less satisfied, and targeting resources towards those requiring most improvement. User surveys can also help identify frequency of use and collect information on application and delivery channels and practices.
Distribution of countries by the type of user experience surveys undertaken by national government, 2024
Note: The figure presents the responses to the question “Q24 Does your government run any survey which asks service users about their experiences with public administrative services provided by the central/federal government?” Figure shows the highest level of government which undertook a survey.
Source: (OECD, 2026[1])
Rather than simply a data collection exercise, user surveys should be analysed to understand key achievements, gaps and issues and for prioritisation for action. A leading example is Chile's annual User Satisfaction Survey (MESU), which evaluates user satisfaction across a wide range of public services and agencies and feeds directly into performance management and improvement processes. Similarly, Australia's Trust in Australian public services survey regularly measures public satisfaction, trust and experiences with government services, offering a comprehensive view of user’s perceptions and guiding reforms in the Australian Public Service (Box 7.2).
Chile: The User Satisfaction Survey (MESU) as a system-wide accountability tool
Chile’s User Satisfaction Survey (Medición de Satisfacción Usuaria, MESU) is an annual, centrally managed survey designed to measure user satisfaction across a wide range of PAS and agencies. The survey is overseen by the Ministry of Finance. Participation in MESU is required for institutions covered by the Quality of Service and User Experience System (SCSEU) that provide PAS to final users and have a sufficient volume of transactions for the survey to be methodologically feasible.
MESU is one of the largest user experience surveys across OECD member countries. In 2024, 78 agencies took part, including providers of PAS in health, education, pensions, welfare, revenue, housing and regulatory functions. Around 60,000 service users across Chile responded to MESU, each answering questions about a specific public service they had used in the previous 12 months. This scale allows the survey to produce results which are representative of a wide range of users, while also enabling detailed performance assessment at the level of individual agencies.
The headline output of MESU is an overall user satisfaction score for each participating agency, allowing higher- and lower-performing organisations to be identified and compared. The survey also captures users’ experiences across specific service dimensions, such as accessibility, infrastructure quality, and treatment of users, providing actionable insights into where service improvements are most needed. All institutions participating in MESU complement the quantitative findings with qualitative research to deepen their understanding of user experience, and some agencies also conduct additional user surveys.
Chile is progressively strengthening the link between survey results and service improvement. As part of the national performance management framework, participating agencies develop improvement plans informed by MESU results and other sources of user experience and service performance data. Performance-related pay is linked to compliance with the requirements of the Quality of Service and User Experience System.
Australia: Measuring trust and experience through the TAPS Survey
Australia’s Trust in Australian public services (TAPS) survey provides a complementary perspective by measuring public satisfaction, trust and experiences with PAS across the Australian Public Service. The survey is led by the Australian Public Service Commission, with the Australian Bureau of Statistics responsible for quality assurance and methodological robustness.
TAPS targets adults (aged 18 years or older) who may access Australian public services with quotas for age, gender and location. In 2024, the survey collected more than 11,000 responses. It captures respondents’ experiences from the most recent period while also enabling trend analysis through comparison with previous survey waves. The 2024 results showed that trust in the Australian Public Service remained stable at 58%, with no significant change from the previous year. Levels of trust in specific services used and overall satisfaction with public services also remained broadly stable.
A distinctive feature of TAPS is its emphasis on demographic disaggregation. The survey reveals systematic differences in trust and satisfaction by gender and age group, for example, higher levels of trust (63%) among men than women (53%), and among younger adults (18-34) and older people (65+), compared with middle-aged cohorts. The survey also examines five core aspects of PAS experience: staff, information, access, process and outcomes. In 2024, respondents reported the highest levels of satisfaction with respectful interactions with staff and the accuracy of information provided.
While national surveys have many advantages, they also have a broad scope and may not always provide detailed information to diagnose specific problems which users experience with individual services or achieve representativeness in small localities or in small groups. 7 out of 31 OECD countries (23%) do not conduct national user experience surveys but do conduct surveys at the level of individual ministries or agencies (many of those conducting national surveys are also likely to conduct some agency-level surveys). 2 out of 31 (6%) run surveys at regional or local levels rather than nationally. Surveys conducted at the level of individual agencies or regions may allow for more information to be collected which is specific to diagnosing issues which users experience with that specific agency or delivery region. As such, these different forms of evidence can be strong complements to each other. A few countries rely on other methods (3 out of 31, 10%) such as qualitative assessments, which can also add significant value when used in combination with surveys. Only 2 out of 31 OECD (7%) countries did not report collecting any form of user experience survey or information.
The usefulness of user experience surveys could be improved by more systematically collecting detailed demographic data about service users (Figure). User experience surveys should always be designed so that analysis can be disaggregated by demographic, socioeconomic and user variables. That is, they should collect information on characteristics such as respondents’ age, sex/gender (exact terms vary by country), education, income, disability, geographical location, and channel used to access service. This information allows the experiences of different groups of users to be examined, and problems which are specific to particular groups to be diagnosed and solved. Age and sex are commonly collected (15 out of 16 countries, 94%), as are geographical location and channel used to access the service (12 out of 16 countries, 75%). Less common is data on service users’ income levels (8 out of 16, 50%) and disability status (7 out of 16, 44%). Only 4 out of 16 OECD countries (25%) with national surveys collect information on all of these demographic variables. OECD countries could deepen their understanding of user experience by collecting a wider range of demographic data and analysing the experiences of different groups more systematically.
Demographic data collected on respondents to user surveys, 2024
Note: The figure presents the responses to the question “Q25. Does the national survey provide information on how user experience differs by any of the following characteristics?” This question was only answered if a country indicated “Yes, a central/federal government ministry / agency / department runs a national user experience survey which covers services from multiple central government entities” in response to Q24. Choices as to how to record sex/gender in surveys vary across countries. No data for Estonia.
Source: (OECD, 2026[1])
In addition, as noted in the Recommendation, “regular, robust surveys” of the public are also useful to understand not only service users’ experiences, but the experiences of non-users in the rest of the population. This is critical information for understanding why some people are unable to access public administrative services for which they should be eligible. It is important that the sample design for these surveys allows non-users opportunities to respond, and to gather information to help identify any real or perceived access barriers which they may be facing.
OECD / EU Citizen Satisfaction Survey: Users’ views on public administrative services
The OECD undertook a survey in 2024 to measure satisfaction with public administrative services and understand the drivers of satisfaction with public administrative services. Financed by the European Commission, the Survey covered 10 EU countries (Austria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia and Spain). The survey measured the overall satisfaction level of people who used these public services during one of 15 Life Events. These were: (i) Filing income taxes, (ii) getting or renewing an official ID document, (iii) buying or replace a vehicle, (iv) getting or renewing a driving licence, (v) losing/looking for a job, (vi) moving to a new house or a new city, (vii) losing a loved one, (viii) becoming a student, (ix) retiring, (x) starting/closing a business, (xi) having a baby/adopting a child, (xii) getting married/entering into a partnership, (xiii) experiencing a natural disaster, (xiv) getting divorced/separating, (xv) coming to live in the country.
The survey enables participating countries to gather data on overall satisfaction with public services in the country, satisfaction with specific Life Events experienced, types of channels used to access public services, frequency of Life Events over a 12-month period and areas of improvement identified by users. Moreover, the survey identified nine key drivers of satisfaction with public administrative services.
OECD Risks that Matter Survey: Population-level perspectives on social services and benefits
Under the supervision of the OECD Employment, Labour and Social Affairs Committee (ELSAC), the Risks that Matter survey explores satisfaction with social protection systems across OECD countries. The survey includes questions on the social and economic risks people face, perspectives of government performance delivering social services and benefits across domains (e.g. health, unemployment support, pensions, social housing, family supports), and desires for future government action in the area of social protection. The survey covers 27 OECD countries and has been carried out every two years since its launch at the 2018 Social Policy Ministerial. Risks that Matter enables cross-nation comparisons on the accessibility, affordability and quality of public social services and benefits.
Source: (OECD, 2023[4])
Indonesia’s SP4N-LAPOR! portal
Indonesia's SP4N-LAPOR! is a national complaint handling system designed to accommodate public aspiration and input. The system allows people to communicate directly with public service providers anywhere and anytime, as well as monitor the progress of their reports in real-time. Several channels are available, such as the website www.lapor.go.id, the mobile application 'LAPOR!', and SMS via 1708. All reports submitted through these channels will be connected to all government agencies in Indonesia.
The 'No Wrong Door Policy' principle used in the management of SP4N-LAPOR! ensures that every report is delivered to the intended agency for appropriate follow-up. There are two mechanisms that can be used: 1) reporting directly to the intended agency by selecting from the list of agencies, and 2) reporting through the National Administrator for those who do not know where to submit their reports. In this case, the National Administrator will review and deliver the report to the relevant agency. Every complaint received will be handled by the agency within the specified time frame and will be jointly monitored by the Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform, the Ombudsman, the Presidential Staff Office, the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Ministry of Communication and Digital. In terms of privacy and protection, the reporter can select the ‘Anonymous’ feature if they want to hide their identity and select ‘Confidential’ if they do not wish their report to be read by the public. They can also respond to the follow-up from the agency through a discussion feature that allows two-way communication. If they are not satisfied or feel that the matter has not been fully resolved, the report will remain open until the issue has been proven to have been completely handled. Automatic closure occurs if there is no feedback within ten days of the follow-up being submitted by the agency.
SP4N-LAPOR! aims to enable the government to manage complaints quickly, simply, thoroughly, accurately and in a well-co-ordinated manner, as well as providing easy access for the public to submit complaints. It also aims to encourage active public participation in order to jointly achieve better public services. Complaints are viewed as constructive feedback for the government, helping to build the public's confidence in their role as partners in shaping better public services.
While user experience surveys offer an overview of user experience, and representative population surveys can take a broader perspectives, surveys may lack the depth needed to identify precise actions and improvements. User survey’s findings can be combined with other sources of information, such as performance metrics, measures of service complexity or burden, and analyses on how to simplify services, to provide a fuller picture detailed insight on improving individual services. The Recommendation encourages governments to “regularly gather other sources of user feedback, such as complaints and user interviews, to further identify issues affecting satisfaction with services”. Information gathered from these portals can assist governments in identifying priority areas for improvements. Improvements could be made in this area. Across OECD countries, national portals for feedback and complaints are available in only 11 out of 31 countries (35%). Agency-level complaints or feedback portals are much more common, being available in nearly 20 out of 31 countries (65%). However, relying primarily on agency-level portals is likely to leave gaps in coverage, with no feedback channel available for some PAS. This finding suggests that some OECD countries should exert greater efforts to provide systematic, accessible and effective feedback channels for service users. Once feedback portals are in place, it is important to also actively promote their availability to ensure that people are aware of these channels and understand how to access them. The example of the SP4N-LAPOR! portal in Indonesia (Box 7.3) shows how portals can service a large country with a geographically and regionally diverse populations and service needs.
To complement user experience information, the OECD also recommends that governments “set service delivery standards, with inputs from stakeholders, and regularly tracking performance against those standards, using defined and transparent methodologies”. Performance targets are measurable, observable goals for service delivery, such as targets for waiting times. They can include a wide range of measures such as completion rates for services, processing times, cost per service provided, abandonment rates by users, and many others. They are a mechanism for evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of public services and promoting transparency on results for the public. Targets can help public administrations to gauge whether improvements are taking place, to examine the efficiency and responsiveness of service delivery, and to identify and act on priority improvements. Information on performance against targets is commonly collected by using administrative data from public sector agencies.
While performance targets are a core instrument of effective public service delivery, their impact depends on how they are designed and used. Well-designed target regimes set shared goals across parts, or the whole, public administration, creating a common reference point for performance expectations and achievements. They provide a solid foundation for structured performance dialogue between political leaders, senior managers and civil servants, supporting problem-solving and improvement during the implementation phase. At the same time, targets should be sufficiently balanced to reflect the multiple dimensions of service quality. When targets focus too narrowly on a single aspect of performance, such as speed or volume, there is a risk of unintended trade-offs, for example at the expense of service quality or user experience. This mandates a necessity for robust, multi-dimensional target frameworks that combine efficiency, quality and user-centred outcomes. When integrated with user experience data and qualitative insights, performance targets remain a powerful tool for improving PAS, communicating results to the public and driving continuous improvement.
Encouragingly, performance targets for public administrative services are common across OECD countries, with almost three quarters of OECD countries (23 out of 31, 74%) having some form of delivery targets in place. The manner in which targets are employed varies very substantially across countries, both in terms of the range of agencies which are covered by targets, and in terms of which agencies they are mandatory for. In 11 out of 31 OECD countries (35%) all central government ministries, departments and agencies have performance targets. A further 12 OECD countries (38%) have performance targets only for some central government ministries, departments and agencies. 4 OECD countries (13%) set performance targets at sub-national level, rather than for national government, and a further 4 OECD countries report having no delivery targets at the central or federal government level (Figure 7.3).
Beneath the categorization in Figure 7.3, the details of how countries operate targeting systems varies substantially. Some use these systems as performance management tools, making performance targets mandatory for all central government agencies; others operate systems in which targets are mainly voluntary and are primarily support transparency. Many lie between these two poles, and vary which agencies are subject to performance targets, and also use a mix of mandatory and voluntary targets. As countries move towards the implementation of the recommendation, they will need to consider how to create the most effective sets of incentives through the targets they set and the agencies which are covered.
Box 7.4 provides examples of some mature performance target systems for PAS within OECD countries. One leader is Canada, which maintains a comprehensive Service Inventory and a consolidated database of all services. This inventory supports a system of mandatory delivery targets, which enhance analysis of performance, and also transparency and accountability to the public. Estonia maintains a more streamlined system with a minimal, mandatory set of indicators for all central government agencies.
Estonia’s standardised national performance indicators and targets
Estonia has established a cross-government standard for developing performance indicators and targets for public administrative services through the Guidelines for the calculation and central listing of quality indicators for direct public services. The guidelines establish a common methodology for defining, calculating and reporting PAS outcomes. They are updated iteratively and embedded in routine performance management processes, ensuring comparability across institutions.
The guidelines require all ministries and agencies providing services directly to the public to report annually to a central registry using a minimal, mandatory core set of indicators:
Number of services provided (instances): Measures actual demand and target group size, validating forecasts and supporting decisions on redesign, automation or consolidation.
User satisfaction: Captures the lived experience of service recipients, interpreted alongside qualitative feedback to identify specific drivers of quality.
To ensure comparability, the guidelines lay out detailed rules on what counts as a service instance. Institutions are encouraged to track demand monthly to detect seasonality and channel-specific patterns, but only aggregate annual totals are required for central reporting. This distinction allows ministries to maintain richer internal dashboards while aligning with national standards for comparability.
Canada’s service catalogue and platform for service performance data
Canada has institutionalised system-wide visibility of service performance through the Government of Canada Service Inventory, a mandatory catalogue of service performance data maintained by federal departments and published annually by the Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada. The inventory is required under the Policy on Service and Digital, which obliges departments to define service standards, collect performance data and update their service inventories each year.
GC InfoBase functions as the public-facing visualisation and analysis platform for this data, consolidating and displaying service performance information across 82 federal departments and agencies, enabling cross-government comparison of indicators such as service availability by channel, processing times, adherence to service standards and client satisfaction. Interactive dashboards are complemented by narrative explanations and downloadable reports, making the data usable for both internal management and for parliamentary and public scrutiny.
Distribution of countries by the prevalence of performance targets for public administrative services in central government agencies, 2024
Note: The figure presents the responses to the question “Q29 Do public service ministries/agencies/departments in central/federal government have delivery targets for administrative services?”
Source: (OECD, 2026[1])
Agencies delivering PAS commonly play an active role in setting their own performance targets, either by defining them directly or by doing so jointly with / under the guidance of, a central body responsible for PAS implementation. Among the 23 OECD countries that use performance targets for PAS, this applies in 13 countries (57%) (Figure 7.4). In 8 of these countries, ministries and agencies delivering PAS are solely responsible for defining their targets. This decentralised approach can support operational realism and ownership, as delivery organisations are often best placed to set targets that reflect service complexity, user demand and resource constraints. In all other countries there is some central involvement in target-setting. In 5 countries, targets are defined jointly by PAS-delivering agencies and one or more central government bodies. These arrangements combine frontline knowledge with system-wide oversight. In 9 countries, targets are set centrally, with limited or no direct input from delivery agencies (Colombia also involves a wider range of institutions). These more centralised arrangements can help ensure coherence across services, set comparable performance expectations across agencies and strengthen alignment with national priorities.
A range of institutions may be involved in central or joint target-setting arrangements (Figure 7.4). Most commonly, this includes the ministry responsible for public administration (6 out of 23, 26%) and/or the digital government agency (5 out of 23, 22%). In some cases, the Ministry of Finance (4 out of 23, 17%) or the Centre of Government (3 out of 23, 13%) also plays a role (Figure 7.4). The involvement of these actors usually reflects an intention within government to integrate service performance targets with broader reform agendas, such as fiscal oversight, digital transformation or whole-of-government performance management. While institutional arrangements vary, target-setting is mandatory in 19 of 23 OECD countries (83%), underscoring the central role of targets in improving PAS.
Agency setting delivery targets for administrative services, 2024
Note: Figure presents responses to the question “Q30 Who sets the targets? Please select all that apply.” The answer options were: a) Centre of Government; b) Ministry of Finance / Economy; c) Ministry of Interior; d) Ministry of Public Administration or equivalent; e) Digital government ministry / agency / department; f) Ministries/agencies/departments set their own targets. Countries which answered only f) are shown as “agencies set own targets”. Countries which did not answer f) are shown as “targets set centrally”. Countries which answered only f) are shown as "Agencies set own targets". Countries which answered f) and any other answer option are shown as “Targets set jointly”. Countries which did not include f) in their answer are shown as "Targets set centrally". Q30 was only answered by countries which responded “Yes” to “Q29 Do public service ministries/agencies/departments in central/federal government have delivery targets for administrative services?”
Source: (OECD, 2026[1])
To deliver on targets, the Recommendation emphasises the importance of “instituting management practices to help ensure user experience and service performance data is used to identify potential improvements in service delivery”. Targets are most effective when embedded in broader performance management processes that support learning, dialogue and corrective action. Such practices range from regular performance reviews and structured discussions between central authorities and delivery organisations, to more formal incentive mechanisms linked to service outcomes.
Among the 23 countries which have performance targets for central government agencies, 13 offer incentives for meeting them. These almost exclusively use positive reinforcement for meeting targets rather than sanctions for failing to meet them (Figure 7.6.). Recognition or awards programmes for high-performing teams or staff are the most common approach (7 out of 23, 30%). Performance-based pay for civil servants delivering PAS is applied in 6 out of 23 OECD countries (26%), while 4 out of 23 countries (17%) link service performance to promotion or career advancement opportunities. Performance-based pay for senior officials managing PAS is used in a similar number of countries, reflecting the importance of leadership accountability. Other incentive mechanisms include access to training or professional development opportunities (3 out of 23, 13%).
At the same time, 10 out of 23 countries (43%) report having no formal incentives linked to performance targets. This suggests that, in many contexts, performance targets function primarily as tools for monitoring, dialogue and improvement rather than as strict levers for reward or sanction. Beyond formal incentives, there remains considerable scope to strenghten complementary management practices, such as peer learning, benchmarking and structured follow-up reviews, to ensure that performance information is systematically translated into service improvement, in line with the Recommendation.
Countries with incentives in place to ensure delivery targets are met, 2024
Note: Figure presents responses to the question “Q33 Are there any incentives in place to ensure delivery targets are met? Select all that apply”. Response options were a) Yes, performance-based pay for civil servants delivering public administrative services, b) Yes, performance-based pay for senior officials managing public administrative services, c) Yes, recognition or awards programs for high-performing staff or teams, d) Yes, promotions or career advancement opportunities based on service performance, e) Yes, penalties or sanctions for not meeting service standards, f) Yes, other, g) No. Countries which selected at least one of options a) to f) are shown in the Figure as having performance incentives in place. Q33 was only answered by countries which responded “Yes” to “Q29 Do public service ministries/agencies/departments in central/federal government have delivery targets for administrative services?”
Source: (OECD, 2026[1])
Types of incentives in place to ensure delivery targets are met, 2024
Note: Figure presents responses to the question “Q32 Are there any incentives in place to ensure delivery targets are met? Select all that apply”. Response options were a) Yes, performance-based pay for civil servants delivering public administrative services, b) Yes, performance-based pay for senior officials managing public administrative services, c) Yes, recognition or awards programs for high-performing staff or teams, d) Yes, promotions or career advancement opportunities based on service performance, e) Yes, penalties or sanctions for not meeting service standards, f) Yes, other, g) No. Only answered by countries which responded Yes to “Q29 Do public service ministries/agencies/departments in central/federal government have delivery targets for administrative services?” answered this question.
Source: (OECD, 2026[1])
As the end point of the service process, the OECD recommends that adherents to the Recommendation “should use experience and service performance data as a core input and guide on how to improve services, building an effective feedback loop to improve service design and delivery”. However, OECD countries are not fully exploiting the potential of user experience and service performance data in processes to improve public services. Across OECD countries, a majority use such data to communicate results to the public (19 out of 31, 61%) and to publish service performance reports (17 out of 31, 55%) (Figure 7.7.).
However, critically, only around half incorporate this data into their decision-making process to improve services (17 out of 31, 55%) or to shape policy (14 out of 31, 45%). Data of this sort is also used relatively infrequently in other processes where it may potentially add value, including reporting results to the national legislature (11 out of 31, 35%), measuring the impact of reforms (9 out of 31, 29%), and incorporating data into public consultations (8 out of 31, 26%). Public administrations should continue use such data to improve public service efficiency and effectiveness. More regular usage of user experience and performance data could enhance the efficiency and responsiveness of public services, in addition to promoting accountability and transparency in public service delivery. For instance, Korea conducts a satisfaction survey every year and uses the data to identify public services which are performing less well. These are subsequently categorised by the government to take actions to improve specific public service (Box 7.5).
Distribution of uses of experience and performance data in central government, 2024
Note: Figure presents responses to the question “Q36. What are the uses of the user experience survey and performance data by the central/federal government”. Responses were: “a) draft reports on service performance; b) improve specific public services; c) measure the impact of past reforms; d) shape policy; e) report to Parliament or parliamentary commissions: f) consultations with stakeholders or the public on service improvements; g) performance appraisals for service managers; h) performance appraisals for staff delivering services; i) communicate results to the public; j) other; k) None of the above”
Source: (OECD, 2026[1])
Finally, the OECD recommends that governments “should engage with stakeholders to improve service performance”. Stakeholder engagement is a significant factor in enhancing service performance, and the publication of data from user experience survey and on public services performance is essential in ensuring transparency, accountability, and the continual improvement of services. There is significant scope for OECD countries to improve in this area, both in terms of making data available to the public, and in using this information effectively to help improve service design and delivery. Progress in this area can support major achievements in measuring and improving the effectiveness of services.
All 16 countries which collect national-level user experience surveys publish the findings or data from the survey (Table 7.1). The simplest and most common format are national or agency level reports on findings, which are used in 13 out of 16 OECD countries (81%). However, only a small number of OECD countries (5 out of 16, 31%) have begun to publish data from their user experience surveys as open data. This practice is underdeveloped among OECD countries. While open data may not be as user-friendly for non-experts as a dashboard, it does encourage relevant government agencies to identify their strengths, address their weaknesses and make evidence-informed improvements in public service delivery. It also provides full transparency and allows data to be re-used and analysed by the public and civil society. Australia, Chile, Norway, and New Zealand publish data from user experience survey in all three formats, maximising transparency and scope for engagement.
The Recommendation also advises that adherents should “publish complete and transparent information on service performance”. OECD countries can improve in making service performance data available to the public. Only 18 of 31 OECD countries (58%) make information on public services performance available in some form of published report Of these, it is most common that either different public agencies publish their own reports (13 out of 31, 42%) or that a single government agency publishes some form of national report (9 of 31, 29%). Other forms of reporting of performance information are still rarely used across OECD countries. Publication of performance information in open data format (6 out of 31, 19%) and on a publicly available dashboard (4 out of 31, 13%) both remain very rare (Figure 7.4). Notably, all countries that publish data on user experience also publish some form of performance data.
More comprehensive and accessible publication of performance data would provide more transparency and accountability for government agencies delivering PAS, and would better enable the public and civil society to benchmark the performance government agencies with others, and identify areas to improve public service delivery. Service performance data is also an important asset for governments seeking to make their delivery more efficient and cost-effective (in some cases, governments may collect service performance data, but not make this public). Less commonly, 8 of 16 countries (50%) have begun presenting findings from the survey in a public dashboard. This format can be more effective for enabling feedback, as it allows for more interactive exploration of findings and information.
The Recommendation also advises that adherents should “publish complete and transparent information on service performance”. OECD countries can improve in making service performance data available to the public. Only 18 of 31 OECD countries (58%) make information on public services performance available in some form of published report (Table 7.1). Of these, it is most common that either different public agencies publish their own reports (13 out of 31, 42a%) or that a single government agency publishes some form of national report (9 of 31, 29%). Other forms of reporting of performance information are still rarely used across OECD countries. Publication of performance information in open data format (6 out of 31, 19%) and on a publicly available dashboard (4 out of 31, 13%) both remain very rare (Table 7.1). Notably, all countries that publish data on user experience also publish some form of performance data.
User experience and service performance data released to the public, 2024
Note: Figure presents responses to the questions “Q27 Are data from your user experience survey available to the public?” and “Q35 Is service performance data available to the public?”. Q27 was asked only to those countries which had responded “a) Yes, a central/federal government ministry/agency/department runs a national user experience survey which covers services from multiple central government entities” to Q24 “Does your government run any survey which asks service users about their experiences with public administrative services provided by the central/federal government?”, others are marked as not applicable.
Source: (OECD, 2026[1])
More comprehensive and accessible publication of performance data would provide more transaprency and accountability for government agencies delivering PAS. It would better enable the public and civil society to benchmark the performance of government agencies, and identify areas to improve public service delivery. Service performance data are also an important asset for governments seeking to make their delivery more efficient and effective (in some cases, governments may collect service performance data, but not make this public).
Korea illustrates how user experience and performance data can be actively used to support reporting, service improvement, policy shaping and public transparency in PAS. The central government, led by the Ministry of the Interior and Safety (MOIS), operates a dense ecosystem of national user surveys and systematically integrates their results into decision-making processes.
Using data to report on service performance and reform progress
User experience and performance data are routinely used to inform official service performance and digital government reports. Survey findings and metrics feed directly into strategic policy documents, including the 2022 Digital Platform Government Implementation Plan and the 2021 Second Plan for E-Government, published by MOIS through its Digital Government Office. At the operational level, performance data are also used to document concrete service changes, and to provide publicly accessible records of system updates and technical improvements linked to service performance monitoring and user feedback.
Korea also uses user experience and performance data to communicate results transparently to the public. Survey findings are published through MOIS channels and broader usage, and satisfaction data are disseminated via the Korean Statistical Information Office. This supports public accountability and reinforces trust in service delivery reforms.
Translating survey results into policy and service improvement
Korea places particular emphasis on using user experience data to improve specific public services. Each year, satisfaction surveys are analysed to identify underperforming services. These services are then categorised for follow-up action, using a structured improvement framework: immediate actions, short-term actions, and mid-term actions. Beyond individual services, user experience and performance data are used to shape policy priorities, particularly in the area of digital government. Survey findings inform strategic planning and reform initiatives led by MOIS, as reflected in national digital government plans and implementation documents published by the Digital Government Innovation Office.
Source: (OECD, 2026[1])
References
[3] Australian Government (2024), Australian Trust in Public Services Annual Report 2024, https://www.apsreform.gov.au/resources/reports/trust-australian-public-services-2024-annual-report.
[9] ESDC (2025), Backgrounder: The state of service 2025, https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/news/2025/03/backgrounder-the-state-of-service-report-2025.html?.
[8] Government of Canada (2025), Introduction to services, https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/ems-sgd/edb-bdd/index-eng.html#infographic/gov/gov/services.
[10] Government of Canada (n.d.), Infographic for Government of Canada, https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/ems-sgd/edb-bdd/index-eng.html#infographic/gov/gov/results/.-.-(panel_key.-.-'gov_drr) (accessed on 10 February 2026).
[5] Government of Indonesia (2026), SP4N-LAPOR! Portal, https://prod.lapor.go.id/ (accessed on 10 February 2026).
[6] Government of Indonesia (2025), Regulation of the Minister of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5 of 2025 concerning the Implementation of the National Public Service Complaint Management System, https://jdih.menpan.go.id/dokumen-hukum/peraturan-menteri-pendayagunaan-aparatur-negara-dan-reformasi-birokrasi-republik-indonesia-nomor-5-t-1999.
[7] Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communication (n.d.), Guidelines or the calculation and central listing of quality indicators for direct public services, https://digiriik.eesti.ee/juhend/otseste-avalike-teenuste-kvaliteedinaitajate-esitamise-juhis.
[2] Ministry of Finance (2025), User Satisfaction Measurement, https://satisfaccion.gob.cl/medicion-de-satisfaccion-usuaria/resultados.
[1] OECD (2026), “OECD Serving Citizens 2026: Delivering Better Public Administrative Services database”.
[4] OECD (2023), Main Findings from the 2022 OECD Risks that Matter Survey, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/70aea928-en.