Mapping the user’s journey to improve service to the public

1sGmAp’s books

! put YourselF iN the users’ shoes – AND

iNsiDe their heADs…

Our life events

6

“In the users’ shoes” to identify their needs

and expectations

9

“Inside the head” of users to understand what makes

them satisfied

13

$…to improve

service to the public

Involving all the people concerned

16

Defining solutions that respond to what users

need and want

17

Determining how to take the most effective action

18

Measuring the scope of the actions taken

21

%three eveNts

iN our lives

I’ve lost a close relative

22

I’m setting up a business

26

I’m running an association

28

iNtroDuctioN 3

this is the storY oF mrs murAt 4

methoD 5

coNclusioN: At the service oF the public 30

Summary

3

Mapping the user’s journey to improve service

to the public

Our society is changing at a rapid pace, and expectations of public services have never been so high nor so numerous.

Successfully meeting this challenge means rethinking public action based on citizens’ expectations and the needs of users, who, together

with public servants, are the players in relations with government departments. They have first-hand experience of government complexity

and they are well-placed to identify how it can be improved.

Relevant public decision-making is based on our capacity to make users a part of the process in designing tomorrow’s public

service. Added benefits include improved user satisfaction with the service provided and more effective use

of public resources.

I am pleased to offer you this first publication, a symbol of the fresh impetus given to government modernisation efforts. It sets out

the benefits of systematically and professionally listening to users as well as the tools necessary for the operational design of service

improvement projects.

We shall adapt to this changing world and respond to the demands for renewal and effectiveness of public action by working together to offer

our fellow citizens the public service of tomorrow – one that is fairer, simpler and more effective.

4

This is the story of Mrs Murat.

She is 56 and has worked all her life. First as a freelance nurse and then as a hospital nurse.

She has a husband of the same age, and two grown-up children. And retirement is approaching.

She’s giving it more and more thought. Of course she wants to prepare for it as best she can. In particular, she would like to have a clear idea how much

her future pension will be.

It’s all the more important as her husband has been unemployed for a year and will no doubt find it difficult to get another job. It makes her worry about her

future standard of living, and what she may or may not have to give up.

Of course she’s already had letters telling her about her pension. But it has to be said that she’s not really sure she has fully understood how her pension is

calculated, what early retirement would mean for her, or even what steps she has to take, who to speak to about it, etc.

Mrs Murat’s story is a very common one.

Whether it’s preparing for retirement, setting up a business or simply renewing an identity card, users are faced with Administration with a capital “A”.

And, every time, it turns out to be complex, and there is often a sense that things could be simpler.

This ambition, to “make things simpler”, lies at the heart of the government’s modernisation initiative. It is all part of the desire to improve the quality

of service provided to the public. With this in mind, the Secretariat-General for Government Modernisation decided to “turn administrative logic on its head” by placing users’ needs at the centre of government services. Put simply, rather

than deciding for users what they found complicated, perhaps it would be simpler and more effective just to ask them.

The government has taken the first steps towards systematically improving the administrative journey that users take, making their needs its central focus.

The process has been a gradual one, progressing from the Secretariat-General’s “listening” phase to designing specific projects to improve government relations with users. Discover more about this process

in the following pages.

Enjoy!

method

basic principleThe real “expert” in relations with the administrative authorities is the user, who is often the only person with an overall view of the administrative journey taken, which does not involve one simple action but rather interactions with a number of government agencies, documents to be provided, case files to be opened, time limits to be complied with, etc.

phases and tools– Recording experiences and measuring expectations. – Identifying and evaluating pathways to improvement. – Proposing and implementing an action plan for streamlining or improving the quality of service.– Evaluating the actions taken.

scope This approach offers a framework that can be applied to a wide range of situations and has already been applied to many life events and journeys. From preparing for retirement to setting up a business, dealing with the death of a close family member or enrolling on the electoral register, it has already, and in many ways, helped to improve the quality of the administrative journey that users take. The challenge now is for it to filter through the public sphere to assist in setting up projects to streamline and improve user journeys, whether this involves enhancing the quality of reception within a public building or identifying the precise reasons why customers clearly feel dissatisfied with the service provided, the real causes of which are unclear or inadequately defined.The feedback already available from experience of this approach proves that a phase of listening to users helps to quickly identify specific ways in which the service provided can be improved. And the most effective improvements are not always the most complicated to put in place.

5

! put YourselF iN the

users’ shoes – AND iNsiDe their heADs…

1 our liFe eveNts Why do users call upon government agencies? To obtain a form? To open a case file? That is how the government agency may see it. But users take a radically different view. They are often motivated by a change or new event in their personal lives, such as a marriage, birth, search for work, retirement, tax returns, etc. These events, some more recurrent than others, mark the course of their personal – and administrative – lives.

The difference between the two points of view is one of scale. The government agencies’ viewpoint is fragmented and often takes no account of the reasons behind the the whole procedure.By contrast, the user’s viewpoint shows the whole picture, which often consists of a number of contacts with government agents over a period of time but for the same reason. For example, when documents have to be gathered and a file opened and submitted,

the aim is to stop focusing on the internal limitations of government agencies and start seeing things from the users’ point of view. this is the starting point and key feature of the approach we would like to see implemented: listen to users to improve the service they receive. in this way, we will base our approach on all the procedures users actually go through. putting yourself in the users’ shoes means retracing their steps to identify their needs and expectations in light of the difficulties they may have encountered. Getting inside their heads means understanding what makes them satisfied or dissatisfied and identifying the underlying reasons.

on average, 1 in 4 French citizens finds relations with government agencies complicated when using government services.

Four user groups To define its improvement priorities, SGMAP identified four user groups in its initial survey in 2008: individuals, businesses, local authorities and associations. The 6,000 telephone interviews were therefore split between 3,015 individuals, 1,029 businesses, 804 local authorities and 805 associations. A quota sampling method was used to ensure that each sample was representative.

6

acknowledged and considered. From the user’s point of view, the main consequence of this difference is a feeling of complexity which grows if there is no consistency in dealings with the various administrative agencies. For example, the user may be asked to produce the same document on several occasions by different government agents, or may be given contradictory information by several agents.From the government agency’s point of view, the main consequence is that it prevents them from delivering the best possible service within the shortest timeframe. But it is hard to see how they could actually do so. The different entities that make up the government departments or agencies are all distinct units operating separately from the others with no real knowledge of each other because they belong to different authorities. They are therefore unaware of the constraints and possible inconsistencies imposed on users in the course of their overall procedures. Examining the experiences of users who get married, look for work or decide to retire means looking at the entire administrative process in a new light and anticipating some of the inconveniences for the user. One of the simplest examples is the requirement for users to notify several different government agencies of a change in their personal circumstances. In terms of assessing the quality of service, the user’s perception of the service received is an invaluable resource. And it is this resource that will be put to use by the new approach, which sets out to improve the relationship between users and government agencies by placing users’ needs at the centre of government services.

prioritY AreAsThe decision to think in terms of “life events” rather than, as in the past, forms or administrative actions, allows us to speak the users’ language and make use of their expertise in dealing with the government agencies or departments. It is therefore users who, by identifying the life events felt to be the most complex, will set the priorities for action. To this end, in 2008 SGMAP launched a huge quantitative survey of 3,000 individuals, 1,000 businesses, 800 local authorities and 800 associations. The aim of the survey was to identify the life events that could be identified as priorities for improvement. How could this be achieved? By measuring the degree of complexity perceived by users for each life event. This “complexity indicator” was multiplied by the number of French citizens affected by that life event in the last two years prior to the survey.

thousands of users First aim: focus on complex life events affecting thousands or even millions of people every year. Three examples: • I’m disabled, one of my close relatives is disabled: over 2 million people receive assistance or an allowance linked to a disability or health problem and have to reapply at regular intervals. Every year, over 800,000 applications are filed with the local authority responsible for disabled people.

• I’ve lost a close relative: every year there are over 500,000 deaths in France. Of French citizens, 10% state that they have gone through administrative procedures following the death of a close relative in the last two years.

• I’m applying for or renewing my ID card: over 2 million ID cards are lost every year. Around 40% of French citizens state that they have applied for or renewed their ID card in the last two years. In 2008, this life event could, in some cases, result in 5 visits and 12 procedures involving different government agencies.

7

! put YourselF iN the users’ shoes – AND iNsiDe their heADs…

8

ActuAl experieNcesAdopting the idea of listening to users to identify ways of streamlining government services is based on the assumption that their words will not fall on deaf ears. User surveys and studies are the first steps in implementing the approach, which sets out to

improve the relationship between users and government agencies by placing users’ needs at the centre of government services. Putting this approach into practice requires skill and expertise. It involves not only conducting interviews and holding meetings, but also selecting representative samples when conducting surveys. It also

I’ve lost a close relative

I’m unemployed

I’m going to work abroad

Infrequent proceduresperceived as complex

I’m disabled /One of my close relatives is disabled

I’m an immigrant (non-EU national)

20%

40%

60%

80%

I need housing

I’m getting old, I’m losing my independence

I’m divorcing/separating

I’ve been attacked

I’m retiring

Prioritisation of individuals' life events

I’m in higher education

I’m having a baby

% of users*

0%

0%

20% 40% 60% 80%

I have just learned to driveI’m an immigrant (EU national)

Frequent procedures perceived asmore straightforward

My child is starting school

I’m cohabiting

I’m applying for or renewing my ID card

I’m looking after my health

I’m doing my tax returnand paying my taxesI’m acting to protect the environment

Since 2008, “I’ve lost a close relative”, “I’m disabled” and “I’m applying for or renewing my ID card” have been identified as the three most important life events. Others, considered more straightforward by users but much more frequent in most people’s lives (paying taxes, looking after one’s health, etc.), have been integrated in the work programme.

Size proportional to %of priority perceived

* Persons who have gone through administrative procedures linked to a life event in the last two years.

- +

% o

f com

plex

ity e

xper

ienc

ed

Infrequent procedures perceived asmore straightforward

9

requires tools and resources. The increasing desire of various government agencies to listen to their users and measure their satisfaction levels cannot be met without them.The idea is to build on users’ stories of the steps that they actually had to take to complete their administrative procedures. These surveys are therefore nothing like opinion polls. The aim is not to find out what users think of the government agencies but to learn from their actual experiences and their reactions in order to optimise efforts to streamline and improve the quality of service provided. This is why, during the survey phases, only users affected by a particular life event in the last two years were questioned. Their experience of the service offered must be identified as having happened on a particular date and sufficiently recent to remain fresh in their memory. the user pANel, A FrANce iN miNiAture…To take this approach further and bring professionalism to listening to users, SGMAP has set up a user

panel that is representative of the French population. It now has 5,000 members, each documented in detail as regards geography, socio-demographic criteria and most recent life events experienced. The 5,000 users on the panel have agreed to give their opinions and report on their experiences with the aim of improving the quality of government service. In the longer term, the panel also provides a link for communication with users, who are asked from time to time to respond to surveys but also, more often, to share their experiences and make suggestions for improving the service. The panel may be questioned at any time, within a reasonable time limit, and so provides an effective and efficient way of advising users, particularly when the aim is to question specific target groups. It also makes it easier to become involved in other projects, which may be local or national, in the government service, that are based on measuring users’ reactions. It is now the largest streamlining project in the French public sector.

Customer journey mapping, which is already used by the UK Government, is the tool SGMAP has chosen to identify precisely where and why dissatisfaction occurs when users are using government services. It is the ideal tool to describe complex journeys, identify the most important steps and provide solutions.

complex jourNeYsOne of the most original aspects of this approach is that it takes account of the entire administrative journey, that is to say all the steps the user has to take. From this point of view, the problem is not “I’m going to the police station to report the theft of my wallet” but “I’m going to the police station to report a theft, then to the

2 “iN the users’ shoes” to iDeNtiFY their NeeDs AND expectAtioNs

“By giving life to users’ stories, customer journey mapping allows us to identify the most important problems to be tackled.„

! put YourselF iN the users’ shoes – AND iNsiDe their heADs…

various other government agencies for my driving licence, my ID card, etc.”. Thus, very often, the complexity experienced by the user is not just a particular “contact with a government agent” but results from the sheer number of such contacts. Added to that, there may be some overlap (having to explain the same thing four times, finding the right person to talk to, finding the right counter, etc.) or the agencies may make conflicting demands.

criticAl steps When exactly do users feel dissatisfied and why? To answer this question, it is essential to understand very precisely the procedures that users have to go through. Customer journey mapping allows us to identify the different stages (some of which follow on from each other and

some may be completed at the same time). This is clear from separate interviews with a sample of individual users, each of whom is asked to comment on each of the steps to describe the reasons why they are satisfied or dissatisfied. Putting the mapping and the comments together allows us to identify the main hot spots that are found again and again. As well as identifying users’ expectations and dissatisfactions as they go through the necessary procedures, this mapping allows us to identify all the different types of dissatisfaction, some of which relate to poor quality of reception at the counter, lack of information, a process that is too complex to complete a procedure, inconsistency between different services within the government agency, etc.

GIPGIP

GIP

ARRCOCNRACL

CNAV

“It’s the start ofthe retirement process.”

“I went to the hospital management,they gave me a list.”

Letter from GIP[public interest group]

received in 2006.

I’m not sure I understandthe information

in the GIP Info Retraite[pension information] letter.

I go on tothe GIP website.

I write to ARRCO[supplementary pensions agency]

for a career statement.

I ask at the hospitalabout making an application.

I call the CNAV[national pension fund]

about a missing contribution periodbeginning in 2006.

I contact the CNRACL[local authority pension fund]

for an explanation of howcontribution periods are calculated.

I’m looking forthe missing documents

for a supplementary pensionwhen my husband dies.

“The lady was very nice, she sent mea letter with my statement.”

8 months

Satis

fact

ion

scal

e

CNAV

Contribution

periods

Supplementary

pension peopleSupplementary

pension people

CNAV letter listing mycontribution periods.

Letter notifyingamount of pension.

I have to start again,applying to the supplementary

pension people.

I’m makinganother application

for supplementary pensionsso that I can get

the right pensionsbackdated.

I’m not makingadditional contributions.

“This amount is much lower than the estimate. It doesn’t take account of

the supplementary pensions!”

“It’s confusing because the CNAV is in touch with

the CIPAV about my career statement but doesn’t pass on my pension application

to them.”

Once I’ve reachedretirement age,

I retire.

2 years Additionalcontributions ?

Amountof pension

Procedure loosely based on the life of Mrs Murat, who worked as a freelance then a hospital nurse

Satis

fact

ion

scal

e

“They say they’re reassessing some years, but I don’t know

on what basis, I’ve no wayof checking.”

“I think it’s easy only if you’ve always

been under thesame system.”

“I don’t think much of this.You should have a career

statement so as to know roughly what you’ll get. There’s a points statement, but it doesn’t cover

everything.”

“I had two periods on one side and some days on the other although I’d worked all year.

I sent a letter because it’s not worth phoning anyway.”

“It’s very complicated, especially when firms

have closed.”

“I don’t understand the periods. They’ve sent a notice that’s very hard to read.”

“When I wanted to do it, I had to write to my nursing college, and when I thought about it, it was costing me too much. I would

have had to make the additional contributions right away,

when I was 20!”

Contributionperiods

10

11

AND solutioNs Are AlreADY emerGiNGEach life event dealt with so far has been covered by interviews aimed at developing a map of the user journey, in other words a summary of the various experiences of the people interviewed. It very quickly became clear that, in itself, this map can result in sometimes very straightforward improvements. For example, at the start of a procedure, recommending that all necessary documents should be produced. At times, more complicated examples of things that do not work are found, for example pointless government rules. More generally, the map allows us to compare the procedure as it should be with what actually happens to the user. We can clearly see the differences, identify when they occur and see how much they affect the users’ feelings of

satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Thus customer journey mapping provides a detailed picture of a procedure that allows us to decide how to go about improving the service.

so where is mrs murAt iN All this? Throughout the steps she takes to prepare for retirement, which will last several years, Mrs Murat will write many letters to the various government agencies responsible for dealing with her. She will get information, she may notice some mistakes and ask for them to be corrected. Sometimes she will even have to pass on information from one agency to another.

GIPGIP

GIP

ARRCOCNRACL

CNAV

“It’s the start ofthe retirement process.”

“I went to the hospital management,they gave me a list.”

Letter from GIP[public interest group]

received in 2006.

I’m not sure I understandthe information

in the GIP Info Retraite[pension information] letter.

I go on tothe GIP website.

I write to ARRCO[supplementary pensions agency]

for a career statement.

I ask at the hospitalabout making an application.

I call the CNAV[national pension fund]

about a missing contribution periodbeginning in 2006.

I contact the CNRACL[local authority pension fund]

for an explanation of howcontribution periods are calculated.

I’m looking forthe missing documents

for a supplementary pensionwhen my husband dies.

“The lady was very nice, she sent mea letter with my statement.”

8 months

Satis

fact

ion

scal

e

CNAV

Contribution

periods

Supplementary

pension peopleSupplementary

pension people

CNAV letter listing mycontribution periods.

Letter notifyingamount of pension.

I have to start again,applying to the supplementary

pension people.

I’m makinganother application

for supplementary pensionsso that I can get

the right pensionsbackdated.

I’m not makingadditional contributions.

“This amount is much lower than the estimate. It doesn’t take account of

the supplementary pensions!”

“It’s confusing because the CNAV is in touch with

the CIPAV about my career statement but doesn’t pass on my pension application

to them.”

Once I’ve reachedretirement age,

I retire.

2 years Additionalcontributions ?

Amountof pension

Procedure loosely based on the life of Mrs Murat, who worked as a freelance then a hospital nurse

Satis

fact

ion

scal

e

“They say they’re reassessing some years, but I don’t know

on what basis, I’ve no wayof checking.”

“I think it’s easy only if you’ve always

been under thesame system.”

“I don’t think much of this.You should have a career

statement so as to know roughly what you’ll get. There’s a points statement, but it doesn’t cover

everything.”

“I had two periods on one side and some days on the other although I’d worked all year.

I sent a letter because it’s not worth phoning anyway.”

“It’s very complicated, especially when firms

have closed.”

“I don’t understand the periods. They’ve sent a notice that’s very hard to read.”

“When I wanted to do it, I had to write to my nursing college, and when I thought about it, it was costing me too much. I would

have had to make the additional contributions right away,

when I was 20!”

Contributionperiods

! put YourselF iN the users’ shoes – AND iNsiDe their heADs…

12

And it is only at the end of this long, tiresome and perhaps even worrying procedure that she will be able to decide what to do about retirement: decide on a date, possibly make additional pension contributions, etc. The survey conducted by SGMAP in 2008, aimed at identifying the most important life events, had already shown that French citizens think retirement is one of the “10 most complex life events in terms of government procedures”.The journey mapping carried out to record users’ expectations in order to produce a better quality of government service reached the same conclusion. Preparing for retirement is a difficult time, which often makes people anxious, particularly when they think of how much money they will have to live on. The first important lesson from journey mapping of retirement is that, although the government agencies generally provide a high quality of service, it is the number of agencies and the length of the procedure that make it much more complicated.In particular, this journey mapping allowed us to identify the three main types of difficulty the user experiences.

I. Lack of information and unfamiliarity with how pensions are calculated Very often, users know little or nothing about how the pension system works, including basic pension and supplementary pensions, how to calculate a pension, how to make sure you get everything you are entitled to, and so on. Many people do not even know the name of the agency that pays out their pension, they have not kept all their pay slips, etc. Although they get letters with information from their pension funds or from GIP Info Retraite [public interest group providing pension

information] they often do not understand them.

II. Too many different agencies France has 35 pension administration agencies. On average, each user is covered by three of them. For the same reasons (lack of information and unfamiliarity), many users have difficulty finding their way around them despite the fact that, for several years now, the agencies have been sending out statements containing pension forecasts.

III. Chasing up contribution periods Users have to check that the information on the career statement is correct. This is time-consuming, tiresome and often very difficult. In addition, the pension administration agencies take a long time to make any corrections. It often takes several months.As a result of identifying these three main types of difficulty, improving the quality of the information sent out comes top of the list of improvements users would like to see. They definitely want more readable information at the right time.Other improvements include guidance on taking the necessary steps and support in the form of documentation (providing specimen letters online) and also in the form of advice throughout the process.Finally, the amount of time devoted to all the necessary steps also has an effect on users and makes them want change.

13

looking for drivers of satisfaction – the 18 factors testedInitial information• Identifying the people

involved • Understanding the

different stages • How easy is it to

find personalised information?

• How consistent are sources of information?

• How reliable is the information?

Reception • Waiting time • Number of visits or calls • Being passed on to the

right contact • Is the application

accepted? • Are users told how long

it will take? • How friendly is the

agent? • Opening hours

Service provided• Follow-up (information

on progress)• Processing time• How efficient is the

agent? • Does the agent

understand the user’s situation?

• Does the agent believe what users say?

• Does the agency offer help without being asked?

Why do we bother about user satisfaction? Quite simply, so that we can design satisfactory services and provide them to users. More and more government departments are listening to users and measuring their satisfaction. But few of them are making full use of the results obtained: what does a satisfaction rate of 70% or 80% mean? What are the most important factors affecting satisfaction? Which factors make users dissatisfied? The first thing to do is to identify the most important factors. This means more than just looking at what users see as good or bad. The idea is to understand the reasons behind satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

uNDerstANDiNG user sAtisFActioN meANs…Understanding the logic of a particular life event, in other words being able to identify what users expect of the procedure: they may expect a little, a lot, or one thing in particular. Identifying the drivers of satisfaction, in other words, what makes users most satisfied and what makes them less satisfied, and placing them in order of importance, as well as understanding how these drivers contribute to overall satisfaction.

iDeNtiFYiNG AND DistiNGuishiNG Drivers oF sAtisFActioN For each life event, a series of criteria (reliability of information provided, number of visits, finding

the right contact person, time spent on the procedure, etc.) are tested to work out how much each of them contributes to satisfaction. In fact, depending on the life event, each criterion may be more or less important in building a picture of how users react. Traditionally, measuring quality of service focuses on how people are received and treated. However, listening to users and analysing their stories about the administrative procedures they have gone through shows that they are often dissatisfied with the information-gathering phase, before they actually start the procedure.

DetermiNiNG how these criteriA AFFect overAll sAtisFActioN Following the surveys of quality of service conducted for each life event, the method we are using allows us to work out how important each of these criteria is in terms of satisfaction but also how it contributes to satisfaction (basic factor, key factor, factor of excellence, etc.). In fact, satisfaction does not work in a straight line. Some factors, in certain situations, influence only satisfaction, while others have an impact only on dissatisfaction.

3 “ iNsiDe the heAD” oF users to uNDerstAND whAt mAkes them sAtisFieD

! put YourselF iN the users’ shoes – AND iNsiDe their heADs…

14

caption:

Aspects rated good Aspects rated average Aspects rated poor

Basic factors(clean cup)

Key factors(taste of coffee)

Factors of excellence(biscuit)

DRIVERS OF SATISFACTION FOR RETIREMENT

Time-consuming aspect Time required

Contact

• Number of visits or phone calls

• Waiting time or time taken to make contact

• Do your contacts believe what you say?

• Consistency of information sources

• How easy is it to identify services?

• Are lists of documents accurate?

• Clarity of steps to be taken

• How easy is it to find personalised information?

• Being passed on to the right contact

• Information on how long the process will take

• Information on how the application is progressing

• How long will it take to process your application?

• Efficiency of contact

• Involvement of contact with the case

• Confidence in the fact that your application has been looked at

• Ability of the service itself to offer you services or solutions that are appropriate to you

Secondary factors (colour of cup)

• Friendliness of contact

• Opening hours

Aspects rated goodAspects rated averageAspects rated poor

Legend :

Information before andduring procedure

Helping withoutbeing asked

Let’s take the example of a coffee drinker. If the coffee is served in a dirty cup, drinkers will be displeased. But they will not be more satisfied if the coffee is served in a clean cup, because they expect that minimum level of service.The cleanliness of the cup is therefore a basic factor in its contribution to overall satisfaction; it influences only dissatisfaction and does not create satisfaction.

If the coffee tastes good, satisfaction will grow. If it tastes bad, dissatisfaction will grow. The taste of the coffee is therefore a key factor or driver which affects both satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

If the coffee is served with a biscuit, this will have a positive effect on customers’ perception as they do not expect it. Satisfaction will therefore grow. The lack of the

15

what are the main satisfaction or dissatisfaction criteria?The drivers of satisfaction are specific to each life event. Nevertheless, if we analyse them altogether, a lot can be learnt.

Basic criteria:The time-consuming side of the administrative procedures generates a lot of dissatisfaction among the users: with around one third of dissatisfied people, these criteria are considered as the most irritating.

Key criteria:All the criteria that are part of the procedure (delay, communication on the delay) are the key elements of satisfaction. If they are performed well, they increase satisfaction and if they under-perform, they increase dissatisfaction. It’s very true when criteria related to communication and information are at stake, whether these are given before or after the user gets in touch with the public services.

Excellence criteria: Contrary to received opinions, interlocutors’ position and competence are often positively evaluated elements and vectors of excellence. Hence, the quality of relationship with government agents is a stamp of approval of the high standards of French publics services.

biscuit will in no way spoil the impression made by the quality of the coffee served.Here, the biscuit is a factor of excellence: if there is a biscuit it is a plus factor, but if there is no biscuit customers are still satisfied.

Whether the coffee is served in a coloured or white cup, the impact on satisfaction is neutral.The colour of the coffee cup is therefore a secondary factor that is less sensitive to different levels of service.

This breakdown of satisfaction criteria into secondary, basic, key and excellence criteria is in itself a notable step forward in analysing satisfaction. It gives government agencies an initial indication of the actions they need to take to ensure quality of service and satisfaction for their users.

returNiNG to mrs murAt…The example of the life event “I’m preparing for/taking retirement” shows how working out what produces satisfaction allows us to measure the impact of each of the criteria on Mrs Murat’s overall satisfaction. The drivers of satisfaction where retirement is concerned are, above all, being kept informed (consistency of sources of information, personalised information, offering help without having to be asked) and how easy it is to understand the procedure (identifying services and contacts, providing information on time limits, reporting on progress).The friendliness of contacts has little effect on overall satisfaction. This can no doubt be explained by the fact that retirement is a very complicated process, where the contacts’ efficiency is much more important than their friendliness. Believing what users say is something that is expected as a basic factor. It makes users dissatisfied if they are not believed, but it does not make them more satisfied if they are believed. An excellent service has more to do with how long it takes and how efficient the contact is.

$

… to improve service to the public

1 iNvolviNG All the people coNcerNeD

Each improvement project has its own special features. Some will need to be tested at a pilot site before being put into practice; others may mean that directorates or ministries have to negotiate with each other. In both cases, people will need to be convinced of the reason “why” the change is necessary and to come reach agreement on “how”. Streamlining is never introduced against the people involved, but always with them. Taking the time to persuade in order to build consensus is an essential stage in the process. The phase of listening to users must be followed by listening to staff and the various departments in order to

For each administrative procedure, customer journey mapping has enabled us to identify what users expect and the most important points for improvement. this may involve providing better information to users, speeding up the process, reducing the time needed to issue a document, correcting an inconsistency between different administrative entities or streamlining a set of rules. we now have to work out a plan for the most effective action and convert it into projects to produce concrete results.

16

Listening to users to identify what they expect and the points in the procedures they go through which are most in need of streamlining is one thing. Using that information to create a validated, structured action plan, put it into practice and monitor how it works is something different.To progress from one to the other, the first stage means identifying all the people involved in the course of the procedures described by users. Depending on the administrative procedure, this stage may result in a long list of services and other instructions from ministries and various authorities.

understand any problems and whether there is any resistance to change. This stage may result in the improvement priorities being

Depending on the ways in which users feel dissatisfied and what they want to change – identified during the listening phase – the responses required in terms of actions for improvement may vary.The most frequent source of dissatisfaction for users is, for example, having to provide the same information to different government agencies: whether dealing with a birth, a change of contact details, losing a job, the death of a close relative, etc. Any change of circumstances in users’ lives means they are obliged to provide information to several government departments. To respond to this, several streamlining measures have been identified and are being put in place so that users no longer have to provide so much information; public authorities are making arrangements to exchange that information among themselves.One of the main things that users expect also involves easy access to administrative processes by setting up services online, and so many processes are now accessible on the internet (application for enrolment on the electoral register, grant applications for associations, applications for housing benefit, death registration, declaration of transfer of head office for businesses, etc.). One dissatisfaction regularly expressed by users has to do with the lack of information on the steps

redefined, on the basis of the difficulties and perhaps impossibilities encountered.

they need to take. In this case, improvements are aimed at providing better information to users by creating guides (death guide, social security declarations guide) or by setting up dedicated portals ensuring comprehensive information and support during administrative processes (domestic employers’ area, school guidance portal). The constraints encountered by users may also lead to the elimination of redundant steps and documents. The most symbolic measure in this area is abolishing the requirement to provide copies of civil status records, which is now replaced by verification of information between government agencies. A number of documents considered to serve no purpose have also been abolished for procedures following a death or linked to school enrolment. Listening to users also brings out other reasons for dissatisfaction relating to delays, lack of advice and empathy. In other words, users expect more than just streamlining. They would like to be offered greater support by the public authorities and to have a better relationship with staff (in addition to friendliness, they would like to see some empathy, expertise and involvement in their individual case).

17

2 DeFiNiNG solutioNs thAt respoND to whAt users NeeD AND wANt

“The most frequent source of dissatisfaction for user sis having to provide the same information to different government agencies.„

“Users expect easy access to administrative processes by setting up services online.„

$… to improve service to the public

18

Once the points of satisfaction and dissatisfaction and the reasons behind them have been highlighted, improvement actions become clear. But how can we be sure that these improvements will genuinely raise the level of satisfaction among users? Are we sure we are applying the most effective levers? From the point of view of user satisfaction, not all improvement measures are equally important. It may be assumed from the outset that, in the eyes of users, some measures will be more satisfactory than others. But which ones and why?To answer these questions, we need to develop tools to identify the most important levers in order to respond to what users expect and thereby increase their satisfaction. Our aim is to assess how much satisfaction grows for each scenario.

uNDerstANDiNG the user’s reAsoNiNG to Act As eFFectivelY As possible Identifying what drives users’ satisfaction allows us to understand the logic that underlies user satisfaction. Once that has been done, it is possible to rank the actions to take in order of importance, simulating the most effective action scenarios, i.e. those offering the maximum increase in user satisfaction. This involves examining the interconnectedness of drivers of satisfaction and how they contribute to overall user satisfaction. Identifying how the different

drivers relate to each other is particularly important as it allows us to simulate how different actions affect overall satisfaction. It is then possible to define different strategies, which will be evaluated on the basis of the constraints (feasibility, budget, availability of people concerned, etc.) within each project. If we act on a criterion, how will it affect overall satisfaction but also the other criteria? Answering this question means examining the actual conditions for implementing action plans. For instance, if we improve information on the progress of a case, not only will that criterion be less irritating, it will also have a positive effect on how the processing time itself is perceived.

DetermiNiNG the best strAteGies For ActioNThe optimal scenario for each life event will be the one that brings most benefit in terms of satisfaction, respects users’ most important expectations and can be put in place at little cost. For each life event, three populations are identified: those who are satisfied, those who do not feel strongly one way or the other and those who are dissatisfied. Using this balance, two types of strategy are possible: reducing dissatisfaction by shifting dissatisfied people towards the neutral zone (in other words the “soft underbelly”) or creating excellence by shifting not very satisfied people (soft underbelly) towards very high satisfaction.

3 DetermiNiNG how to tAke the most eFFective ActioN which is the most

effective strategy to improve the overall satisfaction level? Taste of coffee or biscuit? To explain the options, let’s return to the coffee shop and its customers. In scenario 1, the group who are generally dissatisfied with their coffee is the largest. It will certainly therefore be worthwhile investing in a key factor by, for example, changing the coffee supplier and/or the coffee machine. In scenario 2, it is the neutral group that is the largest. The thinking might therefore be that it will be difficult to migrate significant numbers of dissatisfied people towards neutral or satisfied, and the coffee shop may prefer the strategy involving the biscuit, a factor of excellence which we know will have far more impact on the shift of neutral customers towards satisfied.

19

whAt About mrs murAt?Which action scenarios should we select to offer the best possible satisfaction to Mrs Murat, who is retiring? Reduce dissatisfaction or create excellence? The choice of strategy to implement clearly depends on how satisfaction is distributed among three groups of people: the dissatisfied, the “soft

underbelly” and the satisfied. In terms of preparing for retirement, where overall user satisfaction is relatively high, the two strategies may be combined to both reduce the “pocket” of dissatisfied people (19%) and increase the number who are highly satisfied (42%).

"I retire": two strategies may be combined to improve satisfaction

Satisfied*

42%36%

19%

Neutral zone** Dissatisfied***

Satisfied*

42%

19%

Neutral zone** Dissatisfied***

36%

Create excellence

Reduce dissatisfaction

Strategy 1

Strategy 2

* Users declaring themselves very satisfied. ** Users declaring themselves fairly satisfied.*** Users declaring themselves not really satisfied + not at all satisfied.

$… to improve service to the public

20

Scenario 5 Scenario 6

-1.9 pt

+1.6 pt

<-0.5 pt

+1.5 pt

Scenario 4

-2.3 pt

+2.8 pt

-2.4 pt

+1.5 pt

-3.7 pt

+1.7 pt

-3.5 pt

+1,9 pt

Scenarios for reducing dissatisfaction

Scenarios for creating excellenceKey factorsLegend :

Factors of excellenceKey factors

15.9%

Dissatisfied

19.6%

Dissatisfied

17.1%

Dissatisfied

Scenario 1

Improved consistency between different sources of information

1

Improved access topersonalised information

2

16.1%

Dissatisfied

19.6%

Dissatisfied

17.3%

Dissatisfied

Scenario 2

Clarifying stepsto be followed

1

Improved clarity of information in terms of processing time

2

17.2%

Dissatisfied

19.6%

Dissatisfied

Scenario 3

Improved access topersonalised information

1

Satisfied

45.1%

Improved processing timefor application

2

Improved clarity of stepsto be followed

1

Satisfied

42.3%

Satisfied

44.1%

Satisfied

43.9%

Satisfied

42.3%

Satisfied

43.8%

Satisfied

42.3%

Improved processing timefor application

1Improved involvement

of contact

1

21

Looking at these six scenarios, it is the second – clarifying the necessary steps in the administrative process and more effectively communicating how much time is needed – that appears most attractive. Firstly because it is the one that offers the greatest benefits in terms of reducing dissatisfaction and creating excellence (5.4 percentage points of cumulative benefit). Next, because it combines action on the two main user expectations, namely that

Although the drivers of satisfaction make it possible to define the best action strategies at the outset, downstream assessment of service improvement measures is important. In fact it is essential at this stage to ensure that the actions taken do indeed make it possible to meet the expectations originally expressed by users. It is essential to inform users of the progress made and the efforts of the various departments to improve the quality of service provided. That is best achieved by developing a barometer scorecard,etc., and making it public. This does not mean publishing all the pilot indicators but selecting those which are most high-profile and meaningful to users.

A bArometer bAseD oN user expectAtioNs The quality of service barometer designed by SGMAP meets these objectives and allows us to communicate about how the government service performs by means of key indicators. The fact that this barometer provides an objective measure of both the quality of service provided and the satisfaction users experience from this is one of the major levers for

information sources should be accessible and consistent. Finally, it is the least costly scenario to implement: it does not require any real intervention as regards the process but focuses on better communication.To move further towards excellence, scenario 4 is also interesting in terms of greater satisfaction: in addition to better information on the time required, it recommends working on timescales.

government departments seeking to improve their dealings with users. It is designed on the basis of the life events considered by French citizens to be the most important, with the dual purpose of acting, first, as a lever for modernising government and, second, as a tool enabling us to account to French citizens, completely openly, for the quality of service provided. For both citizen-users and businesses, it guarantees that they will be heard, and proves the government’s willingness to improve the way it works. It also ensures that information will be transparent since it enables them to be informed, at regular intervals, of the trend in quality of service in the form of straightforward, readable and immediately comprehensible information. Thinking in terms of life events allows us to adopt the users’ point of view by offering specific situations that generate clearly identified administrative procedures: “I’m going to A&E”, “My child’s starting school”, “I’m setting up a business” or “I have to make my declarations”, etc. The life events on the barometer are those considered by users to be most important, either because they generate high levels of complexity or because they involve a very high number of users.

4 meAsuriNG the scope oF the ActioNs tAkeN

% three eveNts iN our lives

1 i’ve lost A close relAtive

Each year, there are 500,000 deaths in France, and some 11% of the French population have to make death-related arrangements within a two-year period. This is a painful event, with users hoping for many improvements.

pAiN mAkes the complexitY uNbeArAble The survey conducted by the BVA in 2008 at the request of SGMAP highlighted this. The level of complexity experienced by the user is all the greater the more pain is generated by the circumstances of the administrative procedure. The death of a close relative thus counts as one of the events considered to be “very complex”: 40% of users were of that opinion in 2008, compared with 28% on average for all life events considered by the survey.

three objectives That finding was the basis for carrying out an in-depth qualititative study to:• Understand the reasons for the complexity experienced by users as regards actions relating to death; • Identify precisely the stumbling blocks and sources of satisfaction in the administrative procedure;• Gather users’ expectations with a view to improving these procedures and identifying the levers that will improve user satisfaction.

“i’ve lost a close relative”, “i’m setting up a business” and “i’m running an association” are three examples of specific situations, and of streamlined and improved administrative procedures.

22“You are asked to complete a ton of red tape while you’re not feeling well...„

cAuses oF complexitY experieNceD: urGeNcY, lArGe Number oF ActioNs to be tAkeN At the sAme time, lAck oF GuiDANce DocumeNtAtioN In the event of a death, certain actions have to be taken immediately (registration, authorisation for funeral, etc.) or very quickly (informing pension funds). Not to mention the many letters to various government agencies and private companies. In themselves, these various actions are not very complex. It’s easy to write a letter. But it is important not to forget anyone. And that is the problem: there is no official checklist telling the deceased’s family what they have to do and within what timescale, depending on the professional and family circumstances of the deceased. It is this uncertainty and the fact that actions have to be taken at the same time that generates stress and the feeling of complexity.

moNitoriNG AND chAsiNG up cAse Files Of course, undertakers offer lists and paid services that cover the various letters to be written and who they are to be sent to. Ready-to-sign letters are even available. Although this service is considered rather expensive, it does relieve the feeling of complexity. However, it does not cover follow-up and therefore does not protect close relatives against delays that may occur in certain agencies before they act on the information. Such delays often mean more chasing-up, final notices, or even incorrect payments being taken. In fact, users are most often involved in an administrative management process that will last over three months, which, on average, is the period they consider acceptable for completing the administrative formalities of the death. One good example of this “never-ending process” is tax. The tax authorities do not consider the process complete until the declaration period has ended. This sometimes goes well beyond the three-month threshold.

23Hospital

Caisse de

retraite

Undertaker

Work

Public

agencies

Magistrates’

court

CAF

[family

allowances

fund]

CPAM

[sickness

fund]

Tax office

Tax office

Bank

Notary

Sudden loss of a close relative

Day of death

Daysfollo

wing

death

Weeks

and months

following

death Psychological

threshold

three months

after death

Simple steps

Simple steps

Complex steps

Complex steps

Time taken on journey

I’ve lost a close relative

Crematorium

Organisationof funeralActions involvingundertaker

Post-mortemrequest

Magistrates’ court for application for guardianship of children

Declarationto CPAM

Statement to employer

Declaration to CAF(lone parent allowance)

Tax return

Tax return

Statement to bank

Action relating to inheritance via notary

Follow-upactions

I’ve lost a close relative“ i’ve lost A close relAtive ”

% three eveNts iN our lives

24

whAt support, AND From whom?Who can you turn to for help and assistance in these circumstances? Users mention two key players in this connection: the undertaker and the town hall. Where it is mentioned, the town hall is almost always highly praised. It deals with people effectively and offers comfort and a personal touch. It takes account of the fact that the circumstances are exceptional and painful. The only problem is that, when listing the key players “who must be contacted”, users very often do not mention the town hall. There are many who do not even make contact. The town hall “reflex” does not exist.

expecteD improvemeNts AND users’ suGGestioNs The methods and suggestions for improving the administrative process that are mentioned by users meet four main needs:

I. Need for better information, which is all the more pressing when the deceased’s professional and/or family situation is a special case The suggestion most frequently made is to provide a checklist covering all the actions to be taken. This checklist could take the form of a summary and therefore deal only with general cases, taking no account of special cases; but it could also be targeted, designed to deal with different situations. One example is where there are children involved, which may entitle the spouse to lone parent allowances. Another method mentioned is to provide information on the deceased’s circumstances (rights, assets, commitments etc.) to enable successors to react more quickly. II. Need to group actions together and make them easierWhy not have a single declaration to a

single administrative agency that would take responsibility for forwarding it to others? This suggestion sometimes takes the form of a “one-stop shop”. In terms of easing the burden, the main point made is to abolish requests for certified copies of documents, as well as documents that do not seem necessary to users and may involve a number of actions. For example, the death certificate if the death occurred at home. Also the heredity certificate. Isn’t the family record book enough?

III. Need for guidance when taking actionsWhy not have a general portal offering all the specimen letters online? Some users even suggest that the services of a “reference adviser” be used, in other words an expert who is able to deal with special cases.As regards monitoring case files, why not also require government agencies to acknowledge receipt of letters? This suggestion is linked to the real need to monitor case files in order to avoid information being acted upon too late and the inconvenience involved in chasing it up.

IV. Need to shorten the time required for actionsWhy not make the death management process entirely paperless? Some people definitely expect a paperless death certificate. This suggestion is also echoed in relation to possible problems that may arise several months after the death, which often highlight the fact that the event has been managed very differently in the various government agencies: sometimes fast and reactive, sometimes slow, particularly when it comes to acting upon information.

“People are required to send emails to many different organisations, and there is the constant fear of forgetting something... „

“Nobody came to explain what to do. I obtained the information through the internet and my relatives…„

25

the methoDs useD bY sGmApI. Creating an online serviceA list of actions to be taken and supporting documents to be produced, taking account of individual profiles, specimen letters for downloading, etc. The online service recommended by SGMAP not only responds to one of the principal reasons for dissatisfaction and stress mentioned by users, the information it provides is comprehensive. It includes the principal “special cases” and offers users an overview of the entire procedure.Another important change that is highly valued is centralising the procedure. The service enables users not only to notify several government agencies (CNAV [pension fund], CNAMTS [employees’ sickness fund], CNAF [family allowances fund] etc.) at the same time, in a single step, but also, after closing down the deceased’s entitlements, to trigger the successors’ entitlements.

II. Automatic forwarding of information in the event of death The INSEE [National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies] system could act as a starting point to provide information to the entire public sector. The user would no longer be responsible for making declarations or acting to suspend entitlements. This progress would significantly lighten the administrative burden.

III. Making it easier to prove status of heir Replacing the certificate of heredity by a civil status document (for heirs in the direct line, who account for 70% of successors) or by a sworn affidavit in other cases would greatly streamline a number of urgent actions such as consulting the medical file or using the bank account.

IV. Pre-completed income returns for spouses At present, even if spouses notify their circumstances to the tax authorities as required, that is only a provisional return. It will not be finally validated until the standard tax return, which may be almost a year after the death. Users must then obtain a blank form to declare their income for the period after their spouse died. This is a burdensome procedure, demonstrating a failure to react on the part of the government agency, and is particularly painful for the user. One notable improvement would be to abolish the requirement to make a provisional return (in the most straightforward cases) and to send out a pre-completed return the following year (or two returns) taking account of the death.

“Grieving is not something that you do easily, as long as there is red tape and outstanding procedures, you can’t move on.„

26

Over 300,000 businesses are set up every year. An administrative procedure characterised from the outset by its length. When customer journey mapping was applied to it, it revealed numerous sources of dissatisfaction but also many opportunities for improvement.

Of all the administrative procedures studied by SGMAP as part of its mission to improve user satisfaction, setting up a business is one of the longest and most complex in terms of the number of steps and the number of documents to be obtained.

Customer journey mapping, or recording the event from the user’s point of view, allowed us to see these two realities in a new light, revealing, for example, that administrative pressure grew (reaching its peak during the first few months the business is operating, just when the entrepreneur needs to devote all of his or her energy to helping it grow), but also, of course, that there were a number of administrative inconsistencies.

A business that has been formed in legal terms still has to obtain an operating licence (covering equipment, receiving the public, etc.) in order to start up its activity (this is true of at least a hundred types of activity). In concrete terms, this sometimes means waiting several months before actually being able to launch operations.

This finding is very important in focusing improvement efforts since the users’ progress clearly shows that, even though some problems remain, the effort made to improve the “legal” company formation phase has improved the situation, by setting up one-stop shops in the Business

Registration Centres (CFE). By contrast, issuing operating licences has not so far been covered by the streamlining initiatives, in particular the paperless process.

This second phase in setting up a business, from legal formation to operational activity, is a difficult and, by its nature, very dissatisfying period for entrepreneurs, who thought or hoped they would be able to launch their activity but find themselves confronted with new government agencies, new contacts, etc.

This is the second major lesson from the study. While entrepreneurs feel that they have plenty of support upstream, where it is simply a question of developing their project, as soon as the company has been formed in legal terms, they are subject to multiple obligations, repeated declarations and all sorts of red tape. Faced with these difficulties, they find that the government, as a partner, also becomes the source of all the irritation. Having to comply for the first time with requirements they didn’t know existed, entrepreneurs find themselves drawn away from the heart of their activity and, either alone or with their accountant, rapidly have to take on this new management role.

It is therefore necessary to allow commercial activity to start up more quickly and, as far as possible, to give the project founder the means to respond to government requirements, which must be clarified and rationalised.

pAthwAYs to improvemeNt • Ensure applications are complete when filed with the Business Registration Centre and guarantee

2 i’m settiNG up A busiNess

% three eveNts iN our lives

commercial activityChristiane is setting up her beauty salon...Christiane goes to the Business Registration Centre (CFE), where she is asked for documents proving she has a commercial lease in order to apply to form her company. As she doesn’t yet have one, she goes back to see her bank. The bank explains that it cannot release the funds until she has a Kbis (company registration certificate). Christiane returns to the CFE, who tell her that she can’t have a Kbis until her company formation file is complete.Christiane feels like hearing her hair out!Finally, Christiane gets her Kbis and, delighted, thinks she will be able to launch her business. But, surprise, surprise, she discovers that she needs to apply for a licence for her UV cabin. The CFE hadn’t pointed this out to her. She has to fill in several paper copies and the agency doesn’t know when it will be able to give her a response.Then she receives a letter from the tax authorities asking her for a great deal of information and saying that she should have registered her articles of association with them. “But I gave them to the CFE,” she tells the tax authorities. “It’s not the same thing,” they reply…

“ i’m settiNG up A busiNess ”

27

ASSEDIC

INPI

BankBank Insurer

School

CFE

ACCRE

[aid to

unemployed

setting up

businesses]

CFE

[Business

Registration

Centre]

CGA

[approved

management

centre for

traders]

Business link

Prefecture

of Police

Chartered

accountant

Store

Pension

fund

Tax authorities

Paris

Registry Tax authorities

Social

Security

Legal

announcements

journal

I’m setting up a business

I’m launchingmy activity

STAGE 2: From legal business registration to first few months of activity

STAGE 1: From project to business registration

Time ta

ken by procedure

Simple steps

Simple steps

Complex steps

Complex stepsVisit Assedic [employment office]

Apply for financial assistance

Obtain advice

Protect brand

Open business account

Buy equipment

Documentary evidence of domicile of head office

Publish notice of registration

Comply with rules of sector of activity

Declaration on setting up business

Business account goes live, start activity Take out professional

indemnity insurance

Join supplementary pension fund

Make VAT declaration

Complete business registration file

Recruit a trainee

Consult approved management centre

Consult a chartered accountant Make

corporation tax declaration

Complete social security formalities

I’m setting up a business

formation times (48 hours for CFE + registry, i.e. 48 hours to obtain Kbis).• Allow activity to start up quickly by also guaranteeing the time required to obtain all operating licences. • Abolish requests for unnecessary documents that act as stumbling blocks. Example: evidence of lease, which can only be obtained once the Kbis has been issued!• Offer a completely paperless process right to the very end (legal notice), with a single online payment. • When the business is launched, abolish all duplicate requests for information by making the business registration file available. The corollary of this streamlining is: abolish the need to register the articles of association with the tax authorities, abolish start-up declarations, self-employed status (RSI) requests, etc. • Offer a different form of administrative treatment to entrepreneurs and promote access to public markets for young VSEs (very small enterprises). • Harmonise the guidance offered to young entrepreneurs and make guidance generally available during the first year’s activity.

We have been gradually introducing this programme since 2010. Some important examples of streamlining are already operating. For example, opening the “paperless one-stop shop for businesses”. The formalities relating to forming a company and obtaining an operating licence are completed at a single point, either “physically” or by a totally paperless process. As regards the business’s first few months of operation, interministerial efforts with respect to data exchange will soon prevent the entrepreneur from being asked for the same information several times. Finally, different ways of dealing with entrepreneurs, depending on their experience, are being phased in within various public networks.As the process of setting up the business continues, the stages that generate satisfaction (in the top half) become few and far between. This demonstrates that, so far, we have not taken enough account of the problems relating to operating licences and the first few months of activity.

28

3 i’m ruNNiNG AN AssociAtioN France has over one million active associations, 40% of which have fewer than 50 members. In 30% of cases, the administrative tasks they have to take on are considered to be complex. The 16 million volunteers running them are desperate to “avoid wasting time on administration”.

“i hope it’s quick”All the people involved themselves generate stress factors that reinforce the feeling of complexity attached to any individual administrative step. In the case of someone who has lost a close relative, it is triggered by pain and grief. In the case of an association, it is exacerbated by the feeling of “having better things to do” and the hope that “it’s quick”.

In fact, the members of an association, even though they are paid by the organisation, remain, first and foremost, activists. Even more than for others, their priority is not to deal with “bureaucracy” but to be “on the ground”.

This reality is further reinforced by the fact that, very often, these actions are undertaken by volunteers or even by paid members who very often have a career elsewhere. That is true, for example, of 30% of association presidents. For them, the time they devote is all the more precious as it is “on top of” other things. Another factor specific to associations, which also reinforces the feeling of complexity, is that the tasks to be undertaken are one-off rather than repetitive. Declaring a new employee, applying for a grant or

publishing annual accounts are tasks and actions that have to be undertaken by “non-professional” managers, who take them on without, very often, being able to fall back on significant experience gained from repeating the task.

DiFFereNt proceDures AND multiple coNtActs Very many public players are involved in the lives of associations. Whether it is setting up an association, applying for a grant, amending its statutes, obtaining a Siret [statistical code] number, there are so many administrative procedures and so many different public agencies that more often than not operate independently of each other, with, for example, their own information system, which is not always consistent with and may even contradict that of the next agency. Which information is correct? Which is up-to-date and which is obsolete? For associations, this problem of rapid, guaranteed access to correct information is an important source of stress that artificially feeds the feeling of complexity.

the mAiN expectAtioNs • Centralised information: a single access point for all information on the management and life of associations.• Reliable information: associations must be able to benefit from an official, up-to-date source of information.• Personalised information: information should be organised such that each association can rapidly gain access to the

“I don’t have much time, I’m always running everywhere, and I like things to happen quickly.„

“We try to concentrate on work on the ground rather than on administrative work. Our mission is not to fill in forms!„

% trois évéNemeNts De Nos vies

29

information relevant to it, given its specific nature in terms of size, purpose, etc. • Paperless processes: the range of paperless services must be expanded, especially for the most frequent actions, in order to avoid visits, letters, etc.

solutioN ADopteD bY sGmAp: creAtioN oF “votre compte AssociAtioN” (Your AssociAtioN AccouNt)Introduced in 2009, the programme of streamlining administrative procedures for associations became a reality in October 2010 with the opening of Votre compte Association (www.compteasso.service-public.fr), a single, personalised access point reserved for associations.

A single accountThe website offers secure, streamlined access to the various government services linked to associations. With a single password and user name, associations can access a range of digital services that is regularly expanded. The most recent additions include: online establishment of an association and application for French grant.

Simpler and faster online services With pre-completed forms and supporting documents submitted in electronic form.

Monitoring actions The association account control panel allows users to monitor how actions are progressing, with the option of receiving alerts by email.

Confidential storage Storage space earmarked for each association enables them to save paperless documents and

supporting documents exchanged with the public authorities. “A single access

point for different online services: a single website for all the actions to be taken. It’s more practical. In particular it would mean not having to manage multiple user names, passwords, etc.„

30

conclusion: at the service of the public

The desire to modernise public action, to improve its effectiveness, is neither new nor specifically French. For several decades now, there have been an increasing number of initiatives of this kind throughout the world, either dictated by the desire to make best use of public resources or simply in order to adapt to a changing world, even if only encouraged to do so by new technologies. What makes this approach, which places users’ needs at the centre of government services, so special? It is based on a simple statement: users are often the best “experts” in the administrative procedure they are going through. This is because they will always be the only people to follow it through from beginning to end, to experience any delays and inconsistencies, to get to know all the ins and outs. The methods and tools described here stem from this statement and this observation. The fact that the government is designating its users as “experts” is in itself somewhat revolutionary. But this statement is also a very important turning point in terms of government modernisation. Firstly because it involves reformulating the relationship between public services and users, with users now being placed at the centre by an approach based on studying government procedures which aims to improve the service provided. Of course, some people will say there is no urgency. After all, all the surveys show that the French have a good opinion of their public services and are generally satisfied with them. But there is significant room for improvement.It is specifically this scope for streamlining/optimising procedures and ultimately improving the quality of service that the approach described here allows us to identify and convert into “pathways to improvement”, leading to genuine change. All this follows from asking users to tell us their “user stories”. It’s a kind of blueprint for building public services together, between the government and its users. A blueprint whose outlines are becoming clearer and clearer. Thanks, for instance, to the website ensemble-simplifions, which allows online users to submit their suggestions and also to comment on those made by others. The approach involves improving how the government deals with users by listening to users, and the ensemble-simplifions website, the user panel, the barometer of quality of public services, etc. are tools and mechanisms inspired by this desire to put the user at the centre. It is a work in progress and has already proved its worth. It is now being used as

31

an important tool for fostering innovation. Now we need to go further and faster by rolling it out throughout the public sphere.

How? By developing mechanisms for listening to users within government agencies, ministries, directorates, social operators, etc., but also by encouraging all civil servants to get involved, and in particular those who, having direct contact with users, are best placed to put it into practice. They are the people who, on a day-to-day basis, have to put the user at the centre. This is how innovative “building together” actions have to be developed. Building together is a method that allows all the people involved in a service (staff, users, partners, etc.) to express their points of view to each other and propose solutions so as to design new services collectively.Inspired by mechanisms developed in the private sector (Apple, Starbucks, Boeing, etc.) and experiences in foreign government services (such as MindLab in Denmark), the original concept of building together harnesses not only the potential of users, who have the opportunity to express their needs, but also that of staff, who can supplement them and point to issues of practicality. Having staff and users work together makes it possible to combine their individual interests and to quickly find operational solutions by telescoping the listening phase within a limited period.This method has already proved its worth in designing and developing online services. The Ministry of Agriculture has used it to revamp its “Mes démarches” [My actions] portal, while the social security service has used it to design the future portal for domestic employers and employees. Between 200 and 300 new ideas emerge from this type of operation, effectively feeding into the work of the ministry teams. As for users, they feel they have a part to play in improving public service from the outset, and may also be involved in key stages of the project. Going further, building together must be more than a one-off mechanism and be seen as a new way of constructing projects to modernise government.

Should the best ways of improving procedures relating to retirement not naturally follow from sharing Mrs Murat’s experiences and the expertise of the staff responsible for handling cases within the pension funds?