Digital Personalisation: Convenience or Concern?
Scroll
Digital Personalisation: Convenience or Concern?
When it comes to digital-first government services, Australia has dramatically improved in recent years.
Once a frustrating process, the Australian Government’s myGov portal is now on its way to becoming world leading in its role as the public’s front-door digital experience.
The next step in this ongoing journey? Digital personalisation.
What is digital personalisation?
Digital personalisation places users at the core of service design through the customisation of services and content. By collecting data and utilising communication technologies, service providers are able to learn users’ specific wants and needs, enabling them to tailor experiences to those preferences. This means that users can get what they want, when they want it.
In our increasingly digital world, personalisation is everywhere. Every time we buy something online or choose what to stream on Netflix, our choices are being collected, stored, and leveraged to ensure that what we are presented with next is what’s most appealing to us.
How is personalisation used in government and what are its benefits?
Broadly speaking, digital personalisation in government works just as it does in the private sector. Data is collected and analysed to customise user experiences.
Personalisation in government could be something as simple as personal details prefilling on a form, or localised health, weather and emergency notifications being pushed to your smartphone.
It could also include reminders for health check ups, prompts to enrol in the next election, or nudges to engage with other government services that would be of benefit.
During COVID-19, the NSW Government tested digital personalisation by collecting location data from the IP addresses of its website visitors. By targeting visitors residing in regional NSW, the government was able to surface website content that was relevant to those users.
It did this by replacing information about Greater Sydney (which ordinarily sat at the top of the page) with information that related to regional areas. This resulted in a 60% lift in conversion rates, meaning that regional users who were served regional content were far more likely to click on links and stay on the website longer.
The rationale behind implementing digital personalisation in government is twofold: it increases ease of access for users and promotes service efficiency.
Services can become instantly more accessible when they are able to be used anywhere. While no-one wants to wait in line at a government service centre, for some, attending an office can be physically difficult, traumatising and costly. Removing this physical barrier means that accessing services has the potential to be more inclusive.
Digital personalisation means less time spent filling out forms, waiting in queues and sifting through irrelevant information. Users can access what they want efficiently and do not need to ‘start from scratch’ every time they access a new government service, as their personal information will have already been stored in the system.
Not only does digitisation streamline user experience, it alleviates pressure on government employees and enhances their productivity. Digitising simple processes gives government workers more time to focus on complex tasks, rather than being caught up in the mundane.
The take-up of digital services also means that for those users who still prefer face-to-face interaction, phone and service desk wait times are shortened as there are fewer people burdening the system.
"Though the majority of Australians are comfortable with digital personalisation, about one quarter feel uncomfortable giving away their personal data."
In its Global Citizen Survey, Boston Consulting Group surveyed 28,000 people across 41 different countries (including 2,000 people from Australia) to learn about citizens’ levels of satisfaction when it came to government services.
The results showed that 74 percent of Australian respondents were comfortable with personalised government services, with 53 percent believing that personalisation should only be based on already existing government data, and 21 percent saying that governments should be allowed to piece together information from third parties from both the public and private sectors (for example, through an open data scheme).
Though the vast majority of Australian respondents reported being comfortable with personalisation, the remaining quarter preferred that there be no personalisation of government services, stating that they did not want to give away their personal data.
That number is no drop in the pond. If the Australian Government wishes to implement personalisation to scale, it will first need to mitigate the concerns of those who do not wish to engage with personalised services.
Risk to privacy
Australians’ biggest concern when it comes to personalised services is that their privacy will be compromised. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner’s (OAIC) 2020 Australian Community Attitudes to Privacy Survey found that Australians perceive the biggest risks to privacy as being identity theft/fraud and data security/data breaches.
In light of the recent influx of scams and the colossal data breaches at Medibank and Optus, those feelings are certainly justified.
In Australia, there is no general right to privacy. Instead, privacy is governed by a mishmash of federal, state/territory and sector/topic specific legislation.
The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (the Act) is Australia’s main legislative instrument. The Act promotes and protects privacy in Australia by governing the way in which personal information is handled. In addition to Australia’s overwhelming suite of privacy legislation, last year the government enacted the Data Availability and Transparency Act 2022 (Cth) which established a data sharing scheme between Commonwealth bodies and accredited users.
Australia’s privacy regulations are extremely complex, out of date, and are not fit for purpose in the digital age. This leaves users feeling in the dark about what privacy protections are available to them. In fact, only 7 percent of Australians can name the Privacy Act with 40 percent rating their levels of knowledge about privacy as being fair to poor.
Many Australians are in the dark about data collection/dissemination and do not know what their data might be used for. When accessing services, only one third of users actually read the privacy policy, and only a portion of those are able to comprehend what the policy says.
Australians need to be empowered with knowledge around privacy protection so that they can make informed decisions about how to deal with their data. Privacy legislation and policies must be simple, standard and in plain English so that users feel secure before, during and after sharing personal information.
Exclusion through design
Though digital personalisation can improve ease of access for some, for others, it can feel uncomfortable and impossible to navigate. One quick look at the Digital Identity website reveals that to create a digital identity, a ‘smartphone or smart device’ is required. This is an item that not all Australians own or are able to access.
If governments are to fully embrace a personalised approach to service delivery, it must be fully inclusive, engaging and offer freedom of choice to all Australians. The OAIC reported that older Australians generally place more value on the protection of their personal information than their younger counterparts.
They are also more wary of data practices like location tracking and targeted advertisements. This means that if the government chooses to implement personalised digital services on a national scale, a portion of older Australians may feel excluded from using them.
When personalising digital services, governments need to ask themselves, How is this working for all persons, especially those suffering from poverty or inequality?
Mitigating concern through trust
When it comes to the treatment of personal information, society holds the public and private sectors to different standards. While users may give out their personal information willingly to commercial enterprises (for example, social media), they will often be more discerning before agreeing to government data sharing. This is because citizens generally hold the government to a higher standard than private business.
For a citizen to feel comfortable engaging with digital services, the government must first build trust with them. To do this, the government needs to be proactive in mitigating user concerns by explaining in simple terms what they are doing with their personal data and why they are doing it.
With digital personalisation comes a lot of good – convenience, efficiency and ease of access. However, it is important that both governments and users approach personal data use with care and understanding.
For governments, it is important to build systems that empower the individual to take control of their data. Services must be inclusive, transparent and secure in order to facilitate user trust.
Likewise, it is up to users to remain informed about how and why their data is being used, and the privacy protections that are available to them. As long as users are aware, in control and have the freedom of choice, privacy risks can be mitigated.
