DGME – Innovation service Users, drivers of simplification and modernisation of service delivery

Françoise Waintrop,

head of the Mission Methods

2

Identify top priorities in improving user service, a core DGME mission

DGME

HUBS

TO CATALYZE AND PROMOTESTATE MODERNIZATION

A GOAL

3SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RGPP

The General Review of Public Policies (RGPP) provides fresh impetus for State modernization, it renovates methods and sets a new pace.The challenge: transform the State to improve user service and achieve a better cost-quality ratio

DGME staff is organized in teams to assist ministries in implementing transformation measures and to bring innovative interministerial projects to a successful conclusion

Identify top priorities in improving user servicethrough a proactive relationship with businesses, local authorities and citizens and by compiling and analyzing best practices in France and abroad.

That is the mission of the Innovation hub.

Assist ministries in achieving far-reaching transformation by providing expertise on the key drivers (e.g., change management or organizational, process, information system optimization).

That is the mission of the Advice hub.

Act as an incubator for key projects in the areas of simplification, reception, e-government prior to handover to a management administration.

That is the mission of the Projects hub.

INNOVATIONINNOVATION

Imagine the administration of tomorrow at the public’s service

ADVICEADVICE

Support implementation of the RGPP in ministries

PROJECTSPROJECTS

Steer innovative interministerial projects

Responsiveness to users Assistance for ministries

3

A segmented organisation focused on users’ types and a transversal methods mission

Service Innovation

Individuals Department

EnterprisesDepartment

Local authorities and non for profitorganisationsDepartment

Surveys and polls

Users’ relationship with the administration strategy

Collaborative Innovation

Operational Benchmarking

Key activities for the service

Methods Mission

Elaborating a global services strategy for the 3 users’ types concerned. Analysing and exploiting the surveys’ results in order to infer reform projects.

Ranking and selecting reform ideas

4

The innovative approach taken by the DGME is based on a conviction: listening to users should be the motor driving the improvement, simplification and modernisation of service delivery.

Users should be spoken to in terms they themselves use. A life event approach (e.g., I am getting married; I am having a child; I am starting a business) enables us to engage clients using their own logic and to propose concrete situations which correspond to clearly identified administrative procedures.

The DGME has undertaken a study (2008) for each user segment (Individuals, Businesses, Local Authorities and Associations) in order to respond to the question:

“What are, for users, the life events for which their relations with the administration are the most complicated?”

The level of complexity which the user feels exist permits the DGME to rank its priorities for action.

The user at the heart of modernisation

5

A quantitative survey conducted in 2008 as a starting point

Survey purpose:

Identifying, for each user segment (private citizens, businesses and regional authorities), the priority "life events" for which simplification, improvement or modernisation actions need to be taken.

Size and representativeness of sample:

3,000 French or foreign users resident in France

1,000 businesses established in France

Data collection method:

Telephone

Survey target:

Contact with the administration for less than 2 years

6

A quantitative survey has pointed out the most complex and frequently occurring citizens life events

Size is proportional to the priority expressed

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

I am an immigrant (out of the EU)

I am disabled

One of my close relative is dead

I find an accommodation

I pay my tax

I live in couple

I am preparing my retirement

I am an immigrant in the EU

I choose my study options (university)

I protect the environment

I provide my children with schooling

I take care of my health

I give birth to a childI draw up or renew my ID

I become a car driver

I have been muggedI divorce / separate

I am working in a foreign country

% o

f exp

ress

ed c

ompl

exity

+-

% of users concerned +-

Source: BVA / DGME Survey October 2008

Priorisation line

I am ageing, I lose my independence

I am searching for a job priority life events

Process judged simple Frequent process judged simple

Process judged complex

7

% of enterprises concerned +-

+-

Priority preoccupations for the enterprises%

of c

ompl

exity

felt

Taxes

Social cotisations

Recruiting

Personal training

Income issues

Enterprise creationEnvironmental norms

Buying materials for my enterprise

Working conditions

Firing someoneProducts

sellingEnterprise cession

Import / Export

Construction

Payment denial

Legal procedure

Brand protection

Public financing

New subsidiary

Frequent process judged simple

Process judged complex

Process judged simple

Closing the accounts

Frequent process judged complex

Size proportional to the felt complexity

Priorisation line

8

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Étrangers non UE

Handicap

Période sans emploi

Décès

Logement

Vieillesse

Paiement des impôts

Listes électorales

Vie de couple

RetraiteÉtrangers UE

Études supérieures

EnvironnementScolarisation

Santé

Naissance

DéménagementPapers identité

Véhicule

AgressionSéparation

Travailler à

l’étranger

% d

e co

mpl

exité

ress

entie

+-

% d’usagers* +-

Ligne de priorisation

Démarches fréquentes jugées plus simples

Démarches peu fréquentes jugées plus

simples

Démarches peu fréquentes mais jugées

compliquées

1

3

45

2

Each focus allows to identify:

the key difficulties endangering the administrative process

the users expectations

best practice examples to follow

Focus on the priority life events

9

Customer journey mapping

Customer journey mapping is the process of tracking and describing all the experiences that customers have as they encounter a service.

In walking in customers’ shoes and helping bring their stories to life, the customer journey mapping can challenge preconceptions and help change perceptions.

Through qualitative studies, we ask people to tell their experiences, taking into account not only what happens to them, but also their feelings to their experiences.

We make them explain the satisfactions and dissatisfactions corresponding to each step.

From all these stories, we draw a standard journey mapping.

10

DE S

ATIS

FACT

ION

RA

TIN

GLife event : Losing a loved one

Need for explanation and empathy with regard to formalities which the bereaved may find upsetting

Based on the experience of Marc, 33, widower, customer service representative, Paris

Sudden death of my wife at home

I ring the undertaker’s

Doctor’s death certificate

I have to go to the Police because the

doctor wants an autopsy

Dissatisfaction « I had to get a document from the police before being able to declare the death »

I contact the undertaker’s to deal with formalities and arrange the

funeral

Satisfaction : « I gave the doctor’s certificate to the lady at the undertaker’s and she took care of the declaration to the local council and the death certificate for me »

« They also took care of permission to transport the body, etc. I was relieved not to have to handle that »

« I have to use a standard letter »

« There are a lot to do and I have to be careful not to forget any »

I want to notify the various authorities of the

bereavement

I want to cremate her and I want a tomb for her

urn

Satisfaction :« The undertaker’s took care of the tomb and contact with the cemetery »

Death certificate

I go to the district court for guardianship of the

children

Satisfaction : « I was well received, excellent, no complaints. They told me it was just a formality »

Dissatisfaction « It’s mandatory. I didn’t know that. I thought you had to have problems to go before the guardianship judge. It’s the judge who is going to manage the children’s accounts. I felt I wasn’t really someone with social problems. I’ve accepted it, but it’s not something you expect »

Time

Number of bodies to notify !

11

SATI

SFAC

TIO

N

RATI

NG

Losing a loved one (ctd)

I declare the bereavement to the family allowance office

(CAF) to claim the single parent allowance

Satisfaction « I was very well received. They told me what it was all about . »

Dissatisfactions : « I was told that I needed a grant of probate since I had under-age children : apparently you can get it from the local council, but they aren’t obliged to provide it. I had to use a notary and it cost 300 euros. »

« I filled out an application for a widower’s allowance, but they only paid me on July and so my family had to help me in the meantime »

Dissatisfaction « After the bereavement, I became a single parent. It took me a long time to go to the CAF because I didn’t want to go to the complaints office »

I declare the bereavement to the health insurance

office

I declare the bereavement to the tax authority

Dissatisfactions : « I went there and they asked me why I had come. Now was not the time. I had to come back when I was submitting the return. It was only once I’d finished queuing that they told me that I had to write and I couldn’t do it this way »

« The return has to be made six months later!!! It plunges you back into mourning ! »

I declare the bereavement to the

bank

Disatisfactions : « We each had our own passbook and it was quite something. I had to use a notary to release the money in my wife’s name ».

I declare the bereavement to her

employer

I receive numerous reminder letters

Satisfaction : « The employe was sorted out quite quickly with a certificate. Within a week I got a cheque for the full settlement with a document for the tax authority, and they dealt with the mutual health insurance company themselves »

Dissatisfaction : «I keep receiving letters from the bank and social insurance bodies telling me I owe them money. I sent them all the documents. They acknowledged receipt but keep on asking.

I have to visit the tax authority

Dissatisfactions : « I have to do my tax return and it’s only now that I can declare the bereavement although my wife died 6 months ago !! ».

Three-month psychological threshold !

Area of legal uncertaintyGrant of probate

Late registration of notification by the tax authority

Reminders owing to failure to register notification of the death

12

« Losing a loved one » : customer journey mapping

Une approche programmatique permettant d’aborder l’ensemble des insatisfaction des usagers. L’urgence, la multiplicité et la

simultanéité des démarches à réaliser est source de stress.

Désagréable nécessité de relancer différents organismes au-delà du

seuil psychologique des 3 mois

Un temps administratif au détriment du temps affectif

conduisant à un besoin d’allégement des démarches

Pistes 1,2,4

Pistes 3,5,6Pistes

7,8

13

« Losing a loved one » : Improvements expected

· free provision of a reminder or checklist of all the formalities to be completed· …or even a detailed checklist for the specific situation: e.g. "If you are a widower with a child,you can claim a single-parent allowance, etc.

· incidently, information on the deceased's rights/assets pending settlement of the estate

…trough a single declaration (sent to one authority, which would be responsible for forwardingit to the others)· … or a one-stop bereavement service combining a number of administrative services (tax,family allowance office, etc.)· abolition of requirement for certified copies· abolition of certain documents: death certificate for a death at home, grant of probate (familyrecord book enough?)· Provision of standard online letters/forms that simply need to be completed· …and option of tracking (acknowledgement of receipt by authorities?)

· …Ideally, computerisation of exchanges for forwarding all the necessary documents to all theauthorities as promptly as possible (computerised death certificate?)· authorities that actually register the notification of bereavement in order th avoidunnecessary reminders

Reduction in time spent on bereavement formalities (tokeep them under the acceptable three-monthpsychological threshold

Main users expectations

· a contact to whom questions can be put while completing formalities, particularly in specialcases

Examples,

Easier access to information

Centralisation and simplification of formalities

Un accompagnement dans les démarches

14

« Losing a loved one » : fields implemented

Offering online formalities · online procedure for notifying several authorities of the bereavement at once (pension fund, health insurance, job centre…)

· online procedure for cancelling the deceased's entitlements and claiming those of other eligible parties (applications for assistance, pensions…)

Eventually, automatic forwarding of notification in the event of a bereavement

Removal of th need for users to notify public bodies of a bereavement, and automatic suspension of payments using the INSEE Channels

Limit the administrative burden on users by making maximum use of the authorities' internal channels

3rd quarter 2011

Automatic completion of bereaved spouses' tax return

Remove the requirement for a "provisional" return in the simplest cases [1] and the following year send a ready-completed tax return, or two returns, clearly including notification of the death. [1] Apart from special cases relating to acceptance of an estate without liability to debts beyond the assets descended

Bring tax service procedure closer into line with the needs of the bereaved in terms of simplicity and immediate registration of notification of the bereavement.At present, even if the deceased’s spouse informs the tax authority of his or her situation, this is treated simply as a provisional return, only confirmed with submission of the normal tax return, for which the spouse must also obtain a blank form to declare his or her own income for the period subsequent to the bereavement.

2011-2012

· By removing the need for grant of probate, tobe replaced by:

· A civil-status certificate for direct heirs (70% ofsuccessors) stating that there are no testamentarydispositions to the best of their knowledge, or

An affidavit in other cases.

Reducing the number of formalities prior to the funeral

Reduce the number of formalities by replacing some applications for permission by simple declarations (preservation treatment, transport of the body before and after coffining)

Less stress for families and smaller bills from the undertaker’sFeasibility study in progress

Easier proof of status as heir 3rd quarter 2010

Gain usagers et/ou AdministrationDescription Délai de mise

en œuvre

Simplify such routine bereavement formalities as consultation of the medical record, transfer of correspondence, use of the deceased’s bank account requiring production of a grant of probate (at the discretion of local councils) or an affidavit (at not inconsiderable expense to the user)

Setting up an online service Simplification of notification of death by centralising formalities 3rd quarter 2010

15

“The CROUS organisation really gives us good guidance.” (A student with a salaried job – Rennes)

“I finally received my answer just before classes started. I was beginning to wonder if I should look for

off-campus housing” (C1,L1)

“This year I got the grant money in September, then nothing in October. A friend said, “Oh didn’t you know? You don’t get anything in October.” (Student with a salaried job - Paris)

“To get the application, we have to request it over the Internet then return it within a week. Even so,

they send it out by slow post which actually gives us only 3 days to return it. They take their time

sending it out, and we have to race against time to meet the deadline.”

(A student with a salaried job – Paris)

“The housing application deadline of 30 April is too

early. It should be set for 30 June, when the school year

is over.” (C3,M2)

I submit my application for a study grant and/or student

housing

I receive the decision letter by post from the commission

charged with grant approvals and housing assignments

I complete the paper application for the study

grant and/or student housing

Until mid-May

“I am starting my higher education” Applying for a study grant and/or student housing

September / OctoberBetween 15 January and 30 April

I move into the housing / I receive the funds for my study

grant

Between June and September

I receive the application package to apply for a study

grant and/or student housing

- Insufficient information (study grant: eligibility criteria ++)

- Time frame and deadlines are too early

About the CROUS website:

- satisfactory on the whole, provides clear information (housing ++)

- (study grant): the availability of a financial simulator is a good idea

Housing:

Taking possession of the housing unit is facilitated by the presence of a custodian at the student residence, who provides support.

- Decision notice sometimes arrives very late (September!), and sometimes not at all in the event of rejection, which is a major problem:

- When waiting for housing- When the student on study grant must advance

tuition fees- “Overbooking” problems: the CROUS sends out more

housing acceptances than the number of spots available in student residences.

Study grant:- Payment delays/ disbursements

take place at random dates: little visibility over schedule for receiving payments

- No disbursement in September or October (a period with lots of expenses)

Housing: Formalities for taking possession of the housing unit are cumbersome and tedious due to the lack of a custodian in the student residence

- Too many documents are required

- It is not possible to track the status of the application online

- There is not enough time to complete the file

-(French provinces only): Friendly, competent staff is on hand to answer questions and deal with special cases

No possibility of keeping track of the status of the application

- Dispatch method (slow post) shortens the amount of time students have to complete and return the file

- Improve pre-application information on eligibility criteria and the way the CROUS organisation operates- Extend the time-frame for application: from March to June.

- Shorten the wait for notice of grant approval and/or housing assignment- Systematically inform applicants of decisions, including in the case of rejection of request (housing ++)

Make it possible for students to track their application status online

16

The means to listen the users: Building a panel of users

5 600 individuals

Representative panel of individuals

Individuals

2 400 entreprises

Repesentative panel of entreprises

Entreprises

Focus group

Phone Poll

on line surveys

Internet forum

Having a users group questionable at any time in order to bring reliability to

a study.

17

The means to listen the users: Ensemble-simplifions: from a suggestion box to a « co-design » process

Three goals for www.ensemble-simplifions.fr: – Directly engage the users through votes on proposals, suggestion and

comment boxes, quick surveys– Provide information

• Updates on the ongoing simplification program• Publish the results of the studies and surveys carried out

– Coordinate and stimulate our network of correspondants

A communication tool consistent with our comprehensive methodology of life events and CJM

– Quantitative survey– Qualitative studies.– Some actions are then the object of feasibility studies and are

proposed for implementation – The web site gives a visibility to this process and gives the public the

opportunity to express their opinions.

18

Development of the “Adm’innov” Programme: overview of initiatives undertaken

Ministerial initiatives Interministerial initiatives

Staff innovation initiatives (innovation award, best practices management, etc.)

Staff/user co-design initiatives (two operations in 2011)

Community of Adm’innov practicescomprising ministries, operators and local and

regional authorities

“Carrefour Adm’innov” Forumon innovative administration

Adm’innov website (repository of proposals and staff discussions) and capitalization of best

proposals

A valider

19

From simplifying to public service quality improvement

The 2008 survey underlined another dimension of the relation between users and public services : public service quality improvement.

The users satisfaction and the level of complexity both have to be taken into account.

20

4 key axes settled in order to improve the quality of public services

A better access A better process

A better way to complain

1 2

3

• Developping unique reception desk

• Having the same quality standard everywhere : the Marianne Charter

• Taking responsibilities in time limits

• Simplifying the processes and creating new on- line services

• Allowing any citizen to easily complain

• Systematically answering

• Making complainers satisfied of the complaining process

Measuring to improve4

• A barometer measuring quality of key public services and user satisfaction published bi-annually

• Identifying levers for action to improve satisfaction

21

Improving the public service quality: Building a quality service barometerThe public service quality barometer: Conceiving a high stakes barometer

Stakes for the citizens

Stakes for the state public services

Being taken into account

Being able to form their own judgement through full disclosure on data

Restoring the confidence and improving the relationships with citizens.

Creating an improvement fulfilling process based on the main citizens’ concerns.

22

Improving the public service quality: Building a quality service barometerThe barometer conception follows the main users’ steps for an administrative procedure.

Objective indicators

The service access

The service process

The service ability to complain

5 indicators

15 indicators

1 indicator

Citizens satisfaction indicators

5 indicators

13 indicators

1 indicator

Based on the ‘Marianne’ user engagement charterBased on the ‘Marianne’ user engagement charter

Based on surveys and focus group to identify service quality criteria

Based on a 4 steps process enabling the main public services to reach high quality

in managing citizens’ complaints.

Based on a 4 steps process enabling the main public services to reach high quality

in managing citizens’ complaints.

23

Improving the public service quality: Building a quality service barometerProcessing the service

Quantitative surveys on the

priority life events for

users

Quantitative surveys on the

priority life events for

users

Survey on 3000 users Survey on

3000 users

Focus groups (qualitative

surveys))

Focus groups (qualitative

surveys))

Studying the feasibility with

the central departments

Studying the feasibility with

the central departments

Strategic positioning

choices

Strategic positioning

choices

Staying attentively tuned to the citizens Studying the feasibility

20 priority life events 10 priority life events

• I have been rushed to the emergency dpt (hospital)

• I have been mugged • I have to renew my ID (passeport or national

ID)• I am searching for a job• I am preparing my retirement • I choose my study option(university) • I provide, my children with schooling • I find an accomodation • I pay my tax• I receive allowances• I take care of my health

Criteria identified

Main criteria occuring when it comes to quality of service:

- Reliability- Access- Responsiveness- Personalization etc

1 indicator for each life event

Quality service Barometer

1 indicator choosen to be published for the first edition.

24

The second edition of the public service quality barometerObjective indicators

25

The second edition of the public service quality barometerUsers satisfaction indicators

26

The public service quality barometer. Objective Indicators

I have been rushed to the emergency dpt % of patients borne by the emergency service in less than 4 hours

I have been mugged Average necessary time for the police to intervene

I draw up or renew my ID % of users getting their passports in less than 2 weeks

I drive a car (motorcycle…)Average necessary time between the first and the second presentation to the practical test (driving license)% of registrations made after the first contact with the unemployment centre made in less than 5 days.

% of decision made on unemployment benefit in less than 15 days

% of users declaring having received a complete carrier receit

I am preparing my retirement % of users declaring having received a right carrier receit

I pay my taxes % of users’ modification requests proceeded in less than 30 days

I receive social allowances (child benefit, house benefit...)

% of requests proceeded in 15 days or less

I provide my children with schoolingRate of missing elementary school teachers immediately replaced (from the 1st day)

I choose my study options (university) % of first wishes satisfied when a student register to the University

Average necessary time of compensation for a medical expenses claim form sent by post. Average necessary time of compensation for a medical expenses claim form electronically sent

ABILITY TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE SERVICE

% of complaining users satisfied of the complaining process

I lost my job

I take care of my health

% of administrative organisms having a dedicated complaining process

% of users’ calls answered in less than 5 ringtones

% of users correctly oriented to the dedicated service and borne by the service

% of users benefiting from a courtly administrative reception centre by identifiable civil servants

PROCESSING THE SERVICE

ACCESSING THE SERVICE

% of users’ posts answered in less than 15 working days

% of users’ mails answered in less than 5 working days