Why does the public sector need service design?
Public services are often more complex than typical commercial services. They are used by people of different ages, abilities, educational backgrounds, digital skills and familiarity with administrative procedures. Many interactions with public institutions also happen during difficult moments such as illness, unemployment, housing problems, family crises or the need for social assistance.
A poorly designed public service can therefore do more than cause frustration. It may restrict access to support, lengthen the process, increase errors and deepen exclusion.
Service design helps examine the entire process from the resident's perspective. Instead of asking only whether a procedure complies with regulations, the institution can ask:
- Does the user understand what to do?
- Do they know which documents to prepare?
- Is information available at the right moment?
- Can a person with a disability complete the process independently?
- Do employees have the tools required to help?
- Is the case passed unnecessarily between departments?
- Does the digital channel exclude people with limited technological skills?
From procedure-centred administration to experience-centred administration
Many institutions operate correctly from a legal perspective but not necessarily from a user perspective. A form may be complete yet difficult to understand. A website may contain all required information, but spread across many pages. An employee may perform their task correctly while the overall process remains chaotic for the resident.
Design thinking shifts attention from isolated elements to the complete experience. This includes the moment when a person learns about the service, prepares documents, contacts the institution, waits for a decision and deals with what happens afterwards.
This broader view often reveals problems between departments. Each unit may work correctly, but the user may still have to provide the same information repeatedly, call different people or determine independently who is responsible for the next step.
Empathy as a working method, not a slogan
In public service design, empathy is more than compassion. It is the practical ability to understand a user's situation without assuming that everyone thinks and behaves like an employee of the institution.
This is why design work should begin in the field. A team may observe how residents use a service point, search for information, move through a building, ask questions and request help.
User conversations can reveal problems that statistics do not show. A low number of applications does not always mean low demand. People may not know that support exists, may not understand the conditions or may expect the process to be too difficult.
Empathy creates value only when it affects design decisions. Collecting user stories is not enough if the process remains unchanged afterwards.
Institutionalising design in public administration
A single workshop may improve one form or message, but lasting change requires more. Institutions need design capabilities and awareness that these capabilities can be used to solve public problems.
Organisations that support design in the public sector can act as competence centres, partners for public bodies or sources of methods and standards. Their purpose is not to design everything on behalf of the administration, but to build internal capacity.
Institutionalisation may include:
- training public employees in research and prototyping,
- creating interdisciplinary project teams,
- providing tools and templates,
- involving residents in the process,
- testing services before full implementation,
- measuring experience quality rather than only case volume,
- building a library of good practices.
The role of the professional designer
Public service design does not mean that an external designer should invent a solution alone and hand it to the institution. The strongest results appear when designers work with public employees who understand regulations, constraints, daily exceptions and real user behaviour.
The designer may act as:
- a researcher,
- a facilitator,
- a discussion moderator,
- a process visualiser,
- a prototype designer,
- a link between residents and the institution,
- a person helping organise conflicting needs.
The process should belong to the institution, while the designer should increase its ability to solve similar problems independently in the future.
Field research instead of assumptions
One of the greatest risks in public services is designing on the basis of assumptions. An employee may believe a form is simple because they see it every day. A manager may assume that instructions are clear because they know the complete process. A digital team may expect users to complete an online service without difficulty.
Field research allows those assumptions to be tested. It may include:
- interviews with residents,
- observation at service points,
- analysis of phone calls and messages,
- review of common application errors,
- following a user through the whole process,
- conversations with frontline employees,
- analysis of complaints, appeals and dropouts.
Research should include not only people who successfully use the service but also those who abandoned it, never started or were excluded by the requirements.
Designing with users, not only for users
Public institutions often speak about residents' needs but less often invite residents to help create solutions. Yet service users possess knowledge that cannot be replaced by document analysis.
Co-design may take several forms:
- workshops with residents,
- meetings with community organisations,
- testing new messages,
- jointly creating service scenarios,
- pilots in one district or facility,
- reviewing prototypes with employees and users.
This does not mean that every participant makes the final decision. It means that the decision is informed by real experience rather than only by the institution's internal view.
Prototyping public services
Public institutions may hesitate to test services because they are expected to be complete, compliant and ready for thousands of users from the beginning. A prototype, however, does not have to be a full implementation.
Teams can prototype:
- a new form,
- an instruction,
- a conversation between an employee and resident,
- the order of steps in a process,
- the layout of a service point,
- an SMS notification,
- case handover between departments,
- part of a digital service,
- the way a negative decision is communicated.
Prototyping reveals problems before expensive implementation. If residents do not understand a message, it can be changed before thousands of copies are printed. If an employee lacks access to necessary data, the information flow can be improved before a new system is launched.
Example: redesigning housing support
Consider a service for people at risk of losing their home. A traditional process may require finding the correct form, collecting documents, visiting an office, speaking with several employees and waiting for a decision.
The design team may begin with interviews involving residents and employees. Research could reveal that the biggest problem is not the form itself but uncertainty about where to go first.
A prototype of the redesigned service might include:
- one first-contact point,
- a simple map of available support,
- an initial diagnostic conversation instead of requiring the user to choose a procedure,
- a document list adapted to the person's situation,
- an SMS appointment reminder,
- a coordinator guiding the case across institutions.
Such a solution does not necessarily require immediate legal reform. It may improve the way existing support becomes accessible to the resident.
Design in particularly sensitive areas
Design thinking may be especially valuable in areas such as:
- homelessness,
- domestic violence,
- poverty,
- mental health,
- care for older people,
- disability,
- migrant integration,
- childcare,
- employment activation,
- access to healthcare.
In these situations, users may be under pressure, have limited trust or be unable to complete complex tasks. The design process must account for emotion, safety, privacy and the right to withdraw.
The more sensitive the area, the more carefully research and testing must be conducted. Not every workshop method will be appropriate, and participation should remain ethical and safe.
Why are frontline employees essential?
Employees who work directly with residents know where procedures break down. They understand common questions, exceptions, workarounds and situations not anticipated by formal rules.
Ignoring their perspective leads to solutions that look good in a diagram but fail in daily operation.
Involving frontline employees helps to:
- identify real constraints,
- anticipate workload,
- check whether instructions can actually be followed,
- detect conflicts between systems,
- build acceptance for change.
Design thinking, law and procedures
Public service design cannot ignore the law. This does not mean that every difficulty is caused by legislation. Some problems result from interpretation, internal habits or the way work is organised.
It is useful to separate:
- what the law genuinely requires,
- what comes from an internal procedure,
- what is a technical limitation,
- what is an established organisational habit.
This analysis often shows that a service can be simplified without changing legislation. Sometimes it is enough to improve language, sequence, access to information or cooperation between units.
Common barriers to design thinking in public institutions
Typical barriers include:
- fear of experimentation,
- strong hierarchy,
- siloed departments,
- lack of time for research,
- expectations of immediate results,
- treating a prototype as a finished product,
- lack of ownership after the project,
- measuring only procedural compliance.
Another problem is the belief that design thinking means a creative workshop with sticky notes. A workshop may be part of the process, but without research, testing and implementation it will not improve the service.
How should the effects of public service design be measured?
Evaluation should not be limited to participant satisfaction after a workshop. Depending on the service, institutions may measure:
- time required to complete a case,
- the number of incorrectly completed applications,
- the number of visits needed,
- the number of calls asking for clarification,
- the proportion of users who abandon the process,
- accessibility for people with specific needs,
- employee workload,
- the cost of handling one case,
- whether residents understand the decision,
- trust in the institution.
A strong public service should be evaluated from the perspectives of users, employees and the organisation at the same time.
What can the public sector learn from business, and what should it not copy?
Public institutions can use research methods, prototyping, journey mapping and interdisciplinary teamwork. They should not, however, copy business objectives and language without reflection.
A company may focus on sales growth, loyalty and profitability. A public institution must also protect equal access, accountability, transparency, legality and vulnerable groups.
In the public sector, the user may have no alternative provider. This makes the institution's responsibility for service quality even greater.
Public service design in Poland
There is a strong need for design-oriented thinking in Polish public institutions. Many processes are still created primarily from the perspective of organisational structure rather than the complete journey of the resident.
Large reform is not required to begin. Change can start with a small project:
- simplifying one instruction,
- testing a form,
- observing a service point,
- mapping a complaint process,
- interviewing residents,
- running a pilot in one facility.
Such projects build competence and demonstrate results without requiring immediate reconstruction of the entire institution.
Groundwork and long-term change
The greatest value of design thinking in the public sector does not lie in one spectacular project. A gradual change in the way institutions think is more important.
An institution becomes more design-mature when it:
- regularly speaks with users,
- tests assumptions before implementation,
- learns from mistakes,
- involves frontline employees,
- treats the service as a whole,
- continues improving after launch.
This is long-term work, but its effects can include more than simpler procedures. It may also increase public trust and improve working conditions for employees.
Summary
Design thinking in the public sector is primarily a way to understand social problems more accurately and design services closer to people's real lives. It does not replace law, professional knowledge or institutional responsibility. It helps connect these elements with the resident's experience.
The basic principles are straightforward: go into the field, speak with users, observe the complete process, involve employees, build prototypes and improve solutions through testing.
This approach is particularly important in public services because design failures often affect people in difficult situations. A well-designed service can save time, reduce stress and improve access to meaningful support.
Public service design is not a visual addition to administration. It is a practical tool for building institutions that are more understandable, effective and accountable.
