“Customer sensing” has become part of the vocabulary of data-driven business. At its core, it describes an organisation’s ability to collect signals from customers, analyse their behaviour and preferences, and use that information to guide decisions.
In a commercial environment, that makes sense. Businesses need to understand changing markets, anticipate demand, retain customers and improve products before competitors do. Research into market-sensing capabilities has traditionally linked these practices with competitive advantage, customer relationships and business performance.
Government ICT operates under a very different set of conditions.
Understanding the people who use government systems is essential, but describing that activity as “customer sensing” imports assumptions from commercial marketing that do not always survive contact with public-sector reality. Government users are not simply customers, government services are not simply products, and satisfaction is only one of several competing measures of success.
A citizen is not necessarily a customer
The customer model assumes a reasonably straightforward relationship. A business offers something, a customer chooses whether to buy or use it, and the business responds to customer behaviour because retaining that relationship has commercial value.
Government relationships are considerably more complicated.
A person interacting with a government system might be applying for a licence, paying a tax, receiving a benefit, reporting an incident or complying with a legal requirement. They may have no practical alternative service provider and, in some cases, may not have chosen to interact with the organisation at all.
The same problem exists inside government. An ICT division may provide mandatory platforms, identity services, networks, security controls, records systems and line-of-business applications to other parts of an agency. Calling those users “customers” does not suddenly create a competitive market.
This matters because terminology influences how organisations think about service delivery. A customer relationship tends to emphasise preference and satisfaction. A public-sector relationship also has to account for rights, obligations, fairness, legislation, accessibility, security and the public interest.
User needs still matter
Rejecting the commercial language does not mean government ICT should ignore its users. Quite the opposite.
Modern digital-government practice places considerable emphasis on understanding user needs, conducting research, measuring service performance and improving services over time. The difference is that these activities are normally treated as part of user-centred service design rather than as a mechanism for optimising customers.
That distinction is useful.
A government ICT team should know where users encounter unnecessary complexity. It should understand why people abandon a transaction, why staff develop manual workarounds, which support requests repeatedly appear at the service desk and whether a system is accessible to the people expected to use it.
Those signals are valuable operational data. They become problematic only when “the customer wants it” is treated as sufficient justification for changing a service.
Government has constraints that customers cannot vote away
A commercial product team can often make a relatively direct trade-off between cost, customer demand and expected revenue. Government ICT has additional constraints that may be non-negotiable.
Security is an obvious example.
Users may prefer fewer authentication steps, longer sessions or fewer restrictions on what they can do from unmanaged devices. Those preferences are legitimate usability feedback, but they cannot be considered in isolation. The organisation may have legal obligations, information-classification requirements, security policies and risk controls that limit what can reasonably be changed.
The same applies to privacy, records management, accessibility, procurement, interoperability and information-retention requirements.
A technically popular feature can still be the wrong decision if it exposes sensitive information, creates an accessibility barrier, produces an unsupported dependency or conflicts with legislation.
Good government technology therefore involves balancing user needs with risk and obligation rather than treating user preference as the dominant input.
Public value is different from customer value
Commercial customer-sensing techniques ultimately operate within an economic model. Better information about customers can help an organisation improve products, increase retention, identify opportunities and strengthen its position in a market.
Government ICT has no equivalent requirement to maximise sales.
Its measures of value may instead include whether a service is reliable, secure, accessible, efficient and available to everyone entitled to use it. It may need to reduce administrative effort, protect public information, support policy outcomes or deliver a statutory function within an allocated budget.
Sometimes those objectives align neatly with user satisfaction. Sometimes they do not.
A security control that prevents an account takeover may add friction. An accessibility requirement may restrict a preferred interface design. A records-management requirement may retain information longer than an individual business unit would otherwise choose. A common government platform may provide fewer customisation options than a bespoke system but considerably reduce duplication and support costs.
None of those decisions can be assessed properly with a customer-satisfaction score alone.
There is also an equity problem
One of the biggest weaknesses in applying commercial customer models to government is that the loudest or most digitally active users are not necessarily representative of everyone the service must support.
Commercial organisations can target particular market segments. Government frequently cannot.
A public digital service may need to work for people with disabilities, limited digital skills, older equipment, poor connectivity or circumstances that make an otherwise straightforward transaction difficult. Some users may rarely provide feedback at all.
If an ICT organisation relies too heavily on surveys, analytics and feedback from highly engaged users, it risks optimising a service for the people who are easiest to observe.
That is why accessibility, inclusion and deliberate user research matter. The absence of a complaint does not necessarily mean the absence of a problem. Sometimes the people facing the greatest barrier never get far enough through a service to provide feedback about it.
Government ICT is also part of a larger system
Customer sensing tends to focus attention on the interaction between an organisation and its customers. Government services frequently cross organisational boundaries.
A single public-facing transaction might depend on identity systems, shared infrastructure, another agency's data, legislation administered elsewhere, outsourced technology and several internal approval processes.
The visible website or application may only be the final layer of a much larger service.
This creates another reason to look beyond customer feedback. Improving the front end will achieve little if the underlying process still requires duplicated data entry, unnecessary manual handling or several disconnected systems.
For ICT teams, operational telemetry can therefore be just as important as surveys. Service-desk trends, application performance, transaction failures, security events, processing times, abandonment rates and recurring manual workarounds can reveal problems users may never describe explicitly.
Politics and policy can change the priorities
Government technology also exists within a policy environment that commercial analogies rarely capture well.
Legislation can change. Machinery-of-government changes can move functions between agencies. Budget decisions can alter programme priorities. Ministers and governments can introduce new policies that require systems to change regardless of existing user preferences.
An ICT strategy built entirely around continuously satisfying a stable group of “customers” struggles with this reality.
The technology organisation has to remain responsive to users while also being capable of implementing lawful policy and organisational change. Those objectives overlap, but they are not identical.
Use the techniques, not the commercial model
There is nothing inherently wrong with many of the techniques associated with customer sensing.
Collect feedback. Analyse behaviour. Study service usage. Identify recurring problems. Speak to users. Examine support data. Test assumptions before investing in a solution.
Those are sensible practices in almost any mature ICT organisation.
The problem comes when the commercial framework surrounding those techniques is imported wholesale into government and the organisation starts treating every relationship as one between a supplier and a customer.
A more useful model for government ICT combines user needs, stakeholder insight and service performance.
User research identifies what people are trying to accomplish and where existing services fail them. Stakeholder engagement captures operational, policy, legal and organisational requirements. Service data provides evidence about how the technology is actually performing.
Those inputs can then be evaluated alongside security, privacy, accessibility, architecture, cost, legislation and public-sector accountability.
Language shapes the problem we think we are solving
Calling everyone a customer can appear harmless, particularly when the intention is simply to encourage an ICT team to become less internally focused.
But language brings assumptions with it.
Government ICT should certainly become better at listening. It should understand its users, measure outcomes and improve poor services. None of that requires pretending government operates like a retailer competing for market share.
The useful part of customer sensing is the sensing: gathering evidence, identifying needs and recognising change.
The part worth questioning is the customer model itself.
For government technology, the objective is broader. The job is to build and operate services that work for the people who depend on them while remaining secure, lawful, accessible, reliable and responsible with public resources.
That is a considerably more demanding target than customer satisfaction, and a much better description of what good government ICT is supposed to achieve.
No comments:
Post a Comment