Reducing the gap between rhetoric and reality: Use of Digital Service Standards for public service innovation through digital transformation in Australia

Nearly a decade ago, the Australian Federal Government introduced a Digital Service Standard (DSS) for new and redesigned government services. This was an opportunity to encourage digital services and disruptive innovations to help the government improve citizens outcomes, and indeed there was a significant uptake in the digital services assessments offered by the program with key government agencies across health, human services, taxation, and education on board. However, by the 2020s the number of publicly visible assessments had significantly reduced. The initial broad adoption and recent reduction in numbers present an opportunity to explore the effectiveness of this government innovation management program that was ahead of its time. This paper reviews the impact of the DSS in fostering public service innovation and presents lessons learnt from the program. To perform this analysis, this research evaluates to what extent the DSS applied common private sector innovation management approaches of Innovation Process Management and Innovation Portfolio Management in the public sector. It also looks at the impact of these programs in encouraging specific types of modern digital innovations. The analysis draws on DSS assessments from 2015 to 2021 and considers how the program demonstrated public sector innovation leadership. This paper proposes a framework to improve the DSS by tailoring its approach for new and existing services, adopting specific standards to encourage incremental and disruptive innovations, and promoting more transparent reporting and funding of innovation management programs. This evaluation found that the DSS exemplifies Innovation Process Management in its use of stages and gates, and Innovation Portfolio Management in its use of targeted assessment criteria across innovation portfolios of various government agencies. The analysis also identified design limitations in the DSS as a whole of government innovation management approach due to its limited uptake in multiple large agencies and lack of specific standards to encourage different types of innovation. The impact of this research is to increase the adoption of the DSS and increase the innovation outcomes delivered by this government program. We conclude by reflecting some of the unique considerations in applying private sector innovation management practices in the public sector.

Points for practitioners

• Innovation management techniques are emerging but remain immature in the public sector.
• Australia has shown leadership in Government Innovation Process and Portfolio Management.
• Government must remain committed to innovation management programs and sharing the outputs of these programs.
• Government Innovation Management Programs should build in flexibility to encourage different types of innovation.