Home page
> State of the Service reports
> State of the Service Report 2005-06 > Working with the Australian community > Delivering services to the public > Next: Review of administrative action and decision-making
‹ Previous page

Last updated: 30 November 2006

Chapter 11: Working with the Australian community

Abbreviations

A list of the abbreviations used in this report is available in the Glossary

Delivering services to the public

The quality of the services delivered by the APS has an immediate impact on how it is viewed by the community overall.

This section addresses how agencies are improving service delivery—particularly through coordination between APS agencies, feedback mechanisms available to service users, employee training and the use of performance indicators and service standards—and how public satisfaction with service delivery is being measured and reported. It also examines some aspects of professionalism demonstrated by APS employees in delivering services to the public. Changes in service delivery as a result of new technology are considered, together with further developments made in implementing the Australian Government’s new e-government agenda.

Level of involvement in service delivery

The employee survey found that 50% of employees were either directly involved in delivering services to the public or manage employees who do so. This continues the downward trend over the last few years of employees being involved in direct service delivery (from a high of 61% in 2003).

As might be expected, employees who are located outside the ACT (64%) were much more likely to be directly involved in delivering services to the public than those in the ACT (25%).

Of the large agencies, Medicare Australia, CSA and CRS are the three agencies that have the highest proportion of employees directly involved in providing services to the public, with over 80% of their employees doing so. Seventy-three per cent of respondents from Centrelink, the largest APS service delivery agency, report being directly involved in providing services to the public.

APS 1–6 employees continue to make up the vast majority (85%) of employees involved in delivering services directly to the public, or managing the delivery of such services (EL and SES employees represent14% and 1% respectively). As Figure 11.1 shows, however, over the last four years there has been a steady decline in the proportion of employees at all classification levels involved in delivering services to the public. Most of the overall decline in the last 12 months appears to coincide with a decrease in the proportion of employees at the APS 1–6 levels involved in delivering services directly to the public.

Figure 11.1: Involvement in delivering services directly to the public by classification, 2002–03 to 2005–06

Source: Employee survey

Women continue to be more likely than men to be involved in delivering services directly to the public. Despite declines, the representation of women in service delivery (63%) continues to be higher than the representation of women in the APS overall (56%), but is similar to the representation of women at lower classification levels, particularly APS 3–4 (67%).

Service delivery continues to be a key area of employment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees, with 71% involved directly in delivering services to the public. This result from the 2006 employee survey is slightly lower than the result from the 2005 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Employee Census Survey, where 78% of respondents indicated that this was the case.¹ The concentration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees in service delivery positions when the overall proportion of APS employees involved in delivering services to the public is declining may account for some of the decline in the proportion of Indigenous employees in the APS overall.

Professionalism in delivering services to the public

In an environment with an increased focus on delivering high-quality services to the Australian community, it is important for APS employees to exercise high levels of professionalism when dealing with the public. Consequently, employees need to have access to appropriate training to be able to develop the required capabilities, including whole of government coordination.

The following sections examine APS employees’ experiences over the last 12 months in accessing training, their views on coordination between APS agencies in delivering services to the public, and their workplace practices in relation to ethical behaviour and confidentiality.

Employee access to training and/or information in service delivery responsibilities

A large majority of employees (83%) involved in delivering services directly to the public (or managing such employees) reported that they receive appropriate training and/or have access to information that enables them to meet their client service responsibilities. This result is very positive and represents an improvement on previous years’ results, when just over three-quarters of relevant employees reported that they received appropriate training and/or had access to information. Levels of agreement varied between the large agencies, the highest being 91% at CRS.

Coordination between APS agencies

The degree to which APS agencies can effectively coordinate the services they deliver to the public will depend largely on the level of cooperation between agencies. An increasing proportion of employees involved in service delivery believe that better coordination between APS agencies has occurred in the last 12 months. Almost half (47%) of employees involved in delivering services directly to the public reported that over the last 12 months, cooperation between their agency and other APS agencies had improved their work area’s capacity to tailor service delivery to the needs of their clients. This is an improvement on last year’s result (35%).

Results varied by classification and agency size, with SES employees more likely than EL or APS 1–6 employees to agree that cooperation had improved their work area’s capacity to tailor service delivery.

Employees in small and large agencies were more likely to agree than employees from medium agencies. Results for the large agencies ranged from 20% to 64%.

A coordinated response to Cyclone Larry and the Katherine floods

The Centrelink emergency management response to Cyclone Larry in Far North Queensland and the floods in Katherine in the Northern Territory during the months of March and April 2006 and subsequent assistance with transition to recovery to 30 June 2006 proved to be a massive whole of government relief effort.

Cyclone Larry

On 20 March 2006, Cyclone Larry crossed the coast at Innisfail. From then until 30 June Centrelink paid over $160 million in direct government relief assistance, representing more than 57,000 claims. Over 1460 employees from across Centrelink were involved in the provision of assistance within the declared disaster area.

Katherine Floods

Katherine office closed at 11.00am on Thursday 6 April due to the impending flood. The first response staff were flown in on Friday 7 April. The office was open, both for Centrelink business and as the Disaster Relief Centre, from Monday 10 April. In a first for the Commonwealth, Centrelink delivered Natural Disaster Relief Payments to affected citizens on behalf of the NT Government (NT Dept of Health & Community Services). Centrelink paid just under $400,000 in assistance on behalf of the NT Government, representing 859 claims.

Workplace practices

Employees were very positive about the impact of their workplace practices on service delivery. The great majority (86%) of employees who were involved in delivering services to the public agreed that employees in their workplace behave ethically, professionally and fairly when making decisions that affect their clients and customers. Almost all (94%) agreed that confidentiality of information is taken seriously in their workplace, and 88% agreed that employees in their workplace do not abuse their authority or position when dealing with customers or clients. In addition, 84% of relevant employees agreed that employees in their workplace are committed to providing excellent customer service. SES employees tended to have more positive views than EL and APS 1–6 employees, except in relation to confidentiality where results were uniformly high.

These very positive results for confidentiality may, in part, reflect some agencies’ recent proactive approach to implementing mechanisms to detect inappropriate access to client or customer information. The action taken by Centrelink this year, where around 600 employees were sanctioned under the Code of Conduct for inappropriately accessing client records as the result of the implementation of more sophisticated monitoring systems, shows that agencies are serious about protecting the confidentiality and privacy of client and customer records.

Of the large agencies, CRS and Medicare Australia recorded agreement levels that were consistently above the APS average (agreement levels for both of these agencies for the four workplace indicators were 95% or higher).

Employees who agreed that their colleagues, immediate manager and senior leaders act in accordance with the APS Values also recorded higher levels of agreement on the workplace indicators.

Some employees took the opportunity to provide comments on levels of commitment to customer service (the comments are not necessarily representative of all APS employees).

We care, we listen, we get it right! This is written in our Client Service Charter and is taken seriously by my co-workers.

The team is strongly motivated to provide really good customer service.

Staff in my agency are highly committed to providing the best service possible to customers who are often in very difficult circumstances.

Some members are excellent in their dealings with the public, and others leave a lot to be desired.

[agency] has always delivered the highest standards of customer service as reflected in surveys of our customers. In the last year however I think the focus has shifted away from customer service.

Improving service delivery

Agencies have adopted a range of approaches to monitoring public satisfaction. These include mechanisms to measure and report on agency performance, and mechanisms used to obtain, and respond to, feedback from the public.

Use of performance indicators

A key mechanism used by the Australian Government to improve service delivery is agency service charters. A service charter is a public document that describes the standard of service the public can expect from an agency.

The Australian Government’s approach to service charters is based on a common set of principles outlined in the Client Service Charter Principles 2000. These principles contain mandatory elements in relation to service standards, feedback options and reporting on performance. All government agencies delivering services directly to the public are required to prepare and implement such a charter. Agencies with policy development functions are also encouraged to develop charters.

The Client Service Charter Principles 2000 place a strong emphasis on the monitoring and reporting of satisfaction. They also state that, when deciding which service standards to publish, agencies should take into account their ability to measure performance against each standard.

There was an increase in 2005–06 in the use of service standards to measure the quality of services provided to the public. The proportion of agencies that report having quantifiable performance indicators or service standards in place has increased to 67 agencies or 80% in 2005–06, compared to 58 agencies or 71% in 2004–05. Ten agencies reported that they had no public contact.

Increases were particularly evident for small and large agencies, with all large agencies now reporting that they are using these indicators.

There continues to be widespread use of mechanisms to report this information, with agency management structures (94%) and the annual report (96%) continuing to be the mechanisms most commonly used by relevant agencies. Reporting to internal service delivery units has increased over the last three years (84%, up from 74% in 2004), as has the use of balanced scorecards (45% in 2006, up from 34% in 2004).

Following the Uhrig Review, statutory authorities with service delivery responsibilities are required to make their service objectives and goals publicly available, in what is called a Statement of Intent.² Statements of Expectations (issued by the relevant Minister to the statutory authority) and Intent (the response by the statutory authority to the relevant Minister) are designed to clarify the purpose, functions and objectives of the statutory authority. Two of the largest service delivery agencies in the APS, Centrelink and Medicare Australia, entered into their first Statements of Expectations and Intent in 2005–06; these are publicly available on their websites. Further information regarding Statements of Expectations and Intent and other agency governance arrangements can be found in Chapter 9.

Effectiveness of service delivery

There is a widespread use of public feedback mechanisms among agencies with public contact. Figure 11.2 shows that the most common mechanisms used by agencies to obtain feedback from the public were website links, liaison with peak bodies and telephone hotlines.

Figure 11.2: Use of feedback mechanisms to obtain information from the public—relevant agencies, 2005–06

Source: Agency survey

Variation among agencies in their use of feedback mechanisms continues to be related to size, with large agencies more likely to use feedback mechanisms. In particular, large agencies were more likely to use complaints/feedback phone hotlines and website links—although the use here for medium and small agencies was also relatively high. The use of client surveys was more often reported by large agencies than by medium and small agencies.

Large agencies were also more likely to use focus groups and liaison with peak bodies—all large agencies liaised with peak bodies. Differences based on agency size are likely to reflect differences in the nature of the business, of service users, in ways of doing business, and in resourcing.

Most agencies that collect feedback have mechanisms to ensure that it is fed into service delivery improvement. Figure 11.3 shows that relevant agencies were most likely to respond directly to the person/organisation, and to integrate feedback into decision-making processes, with approximately three-quarters of agencies reporting doing so often.

Figure 11.3: Use of feedback collected from the public—relevant agencies, 2005–06

Source: Agency survey

Fewer agencies presented feedback findings in public forums. Greater use of public forums may be a particularly effective way for agencies to engage the Australian community in the discussion on service delivery and to strengthen their relationships with the public.

Reflecting the high use of such measures in agencies, most employees directly involved in delivering services to the public agreed that their workplaces used feedback from their customers and clients to improve the services they deliver (69% of relevant employees agreed and 11% disagreed).

The level of agreement about the use of feedback among employees directly involved in service delivery varied significantly based on classification and agency size. Relevant SES employees were more likely than employees at the EL classifications to agree, who in turn were more likely than APS 1–6 employees to agree. Employees working in small agencies were much more likely to agree than employees working in medium and large agencies. Among large agencies, three agencies had significantly higher agreement levels than the APS average (CRS, DEST and Medicare Australia).

Employees were even more positive about their workplace striving to match services to customer needs. More than three-quarters (77%) of employees agreed that this was the case. As for the use of feedback, employees’ agreement levels with this statement varied by classification.

Service delivery employees who agreed that their workplace used feedback from customers and clients to improve services were also more likely to agree that their workplace strives to match services to customer needs.

Some employees also took the opportunity to provide comments on aspects of service delivery in their agency. Consistent with the results reported above, most employees who provided comments were positive about their agency’s approach to service delivery (these views are not necessarily representative of all APS employees).

My agency prides itself on its service delivery to the client group.

[agency] has always delivered the highest standards of customer service as reflected in surveys of our customers.

Every effort seems to be made to deliver efficient and effective service to the public.

This year, as part of their five key achievements, some MAC agencies outlined some of their achievements in relation to improving service delivery.

DVA finalised a service delivery review which was conducted to develop options and strategies to match its resources to an expected decline in client numbers. A new national structure, known as one DVA, has been implemented without adverse impact on the Department’s clients.

DHS and its portfolio agencies provided greater convenience to customers through a larger variety of contact options, including the increasing use of online services. Centrelink, CSA and Medicare Australia have introduced and/or improved their online services; 329,000 customers have used online services to update their personal details and 634,000 customers accessed family assistance services online.

Centrelink introduced the Single User Workspace to improve the conceptual and physical environment for marshalling workflows for Centrelink Customer Service staff . The Single User Workspace represents a convergence of existing technologies into a single framework. It strengthens and unifies the service delivery environment to support the introduction of new government initiatives like Welfare to Work. Employees will be able to focus more of their attention on the customer rather than on the system in the way they do their work.

Audit Report No. 26 2005–06 Forms for Service Delivery and Better Practice Guide: User-Friendly Forms, Key Principles and Practices to Effectively Design and Communicate Australian Government Forms

Each year, Australian Government agencies issue and receive back millions of forms to establish individuals’ eligibility for services. Well-designed and effectively communicated forms make it easier for members of the public to access these services, and support administrative efficiency. This audit examined how well key Australian Government agencies responsible for the delivery of services to individuals managed form design and review.

The results of the audit were used to develop a Better Practice Guide to help agencies increase the usability and effectiveness of their forms.³ Following are some of the principles for form design that are reflected in the Better Practice Guide.

The key to developing useable forms is to understand clients’ requirements. Processes for form design, issue and review will improve if the agency:

consults with relevant community organisations about the communications needs and preferences of the client groups each represents and takes account of this information in form design and review activities;
strengthens understanding of client preferences and constraints influencing communication channel use
(mode of communication), and facilitates clients’ connection to the mode of delivery most appropriate to their circumstances;
involves design experts with content owners of forms early in the design process to enable more effective and efficient form design approaches;
tests how easily forms placed on its website may be found, including by users with special print handicap, literacy, language and dexterity needs;
undertakes independent market research on customer satisfaction with its major forms and associated information products;
undertakes systematic and regular analysis of customers’ completion patterns for the main forms used for delivering major programmes.

Service users’ satisfaction

Seventeen agencies provided information about their overall levels of client or customer satisfaction, and these are presented in Table 11.1. Direct comparisons between agencies are not recommended as the survey tools used to measure satisfaction are specific to the business of each agency and use different methodologies.

Nevertheless, the results presented in the table paint a positive picture of service users’ overall satisfaction with relevant APS organisations, with the majority of these agencies reporting service user satisfaction levels of 80% or higher.

Table 11.1 Service user satisfaction levels, 2005–06
Agency	Overall satisfaction level (%)	Measure
Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts	96	Customer service overall as satisfactory to excellent
Medicare Australia	96	Community satisfaction with Medicare
National Library of Australia	96	Satisfied overall with their visit
Australian War Memorial	94.5	Somewhat satisfied to very satisfied with overall visit to the Memorial
National Museum of Australia	93	Satisfied to very satisfied with their visit
Department of Veterans’ Affairs	90.4	Overall satisfaction with services
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Passports Customer Survey)	Over 90	Maintain high level of service to clients
Bureau of Meteorology	90	Satisfied to very satisfied with weather services and information
Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources	88.7	Overall customer satisfaction with service delivery
Office of the Employment Advocate	87.2	Clients fairly to very satisfied with OEA products/services
Centrelink	86	Service as good to very good
Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commission	84	Service as extremely helpful
Administrative Appeals Tribunal	4.1	5 point scale of staff courtesy
Comcover	81	Satisfied to extremely satisfied with services provided by ComCover
IP Australia	80	Satisfied, very satisfied or extremely satisfied with the organisation
Office of the Privacy Commissioner	73	Respondents with respect to the complaints handling process who rated service good to excellent
Child Support Agency	3.5	5 point scale of overall client satisfaction
Source: Agency service user survey data

Last year’s State of the Service report outlined a Cabinet Office initiative in the UK that aimed to create a comprehensive ‘Customer Satisfaction Index’—a standard measurement system across public services that could identify, and then track, the degree of customer satisfaction with public services.

A report released in June 2006 outlined the findings of a review examining this proposed initiative. One of the recommendations was that there should not be a central measurement of customer satisfaction (such as a centralised index), but that customer satisfaction surveys should be commissioned and owned by the organisations delivering the services to the public. The report recommended that organisations should, however, be required to include in their surveys certain core questions and to comply with a survey framework and approved robust methodology—these baseline elements would enable benchmarking within sectors.⁴

E-government services

ICT is pervasive in all Australian Government functions, from the delivery of health care and education, to the collection of taxes and the protection of borders. ICT is vital in facilitating the provision of seamless service delivery to the Australian community, and represents an efficient way in which agencies can engage citizens in policy debates. Collectively, online, electronic and voice-based government services are known as e-government services. Australia’s e-government objective is to simplify the Government’s interaction with citizens and business, and improve the efficiency of government administration at the same time.

On 30 March 2006, the Special Minister of State, the Hon. Gary Nairn MP, launched the Government’s 2006 e-Government Strategy, Responsive Government: A New Service Agenda. This strategy represents the next phase for Australia in terms of improved online service delivery and responsive government.⁵ The strategy concentrates on applying ICT to improve and reform underlying government processes, and outlines the Government’s vision for 2010. The strategy also identifies four strategic priorities to guide agencies over the next five years:

meeting users’ needs
establishing connected service delivery
achieving value for money
enhancing public sector capability.⁶

For each of these priorities, the strategy outlines a vision for what can be achieved by 2010, how it can be achieved, and provides a list of actions in key focus areas to deliver the vision by 2010.

AGIMO, led by the Australian Government Chief Information Officer, is responsible for coordinating the implementation of the e-government strategy under the direction of the Secretaries’ Committee on Information and Communications Technology and in collaboration with the members of the Chief Information Officers’ Committee and the Business Process Transformation Committee.

As part of the e-government strategy, the Government will continue to annually measure overall use and satisfaction with its services. The Government will also review and seek to consolidate the number of its websites. The principal Australian Government entry point www.australia.gov.au will be enhanced to offer simplified sign-on and personalised accounts to government information and services.

The new e-government strategy states that e-government is not simply about applying new technologies to existing business and service processes. Rather, it is about integrating ICT to reform and improve government services, and address the challenges that arise in a devolved environment through cooperation and sharing amongst agencies. Privacy and security issues will be central to the successful integration of ICT into future service delivery reform.

AGIMO is developing the Australian Government Smartcard Framework in consultation with a number of key stakeholders—federal, state and territory government agencies and industry. On 29 June 2006, the Special Minister of State released the first two parts of the Framework:

the Overview and Principles module—outlining the key strategic concepts underpinning the Framework
the Smartcard Handbook—a guidance tool on smartcards and related technologies.

The Framework is noted in the e-government strategy as forming part of the blueprint for connected government.

On 8 September 2006, the Online Communications Council agreed in principle that the Australian Government Smartcard Framework become the national smartcard principles; and there is a need to adopt a consistent standards-based approach to smartcard implementation across all levels of government in Australia, as set out in the Framework.

APS e-government effectiveness

Australian Government agencies have made a range of advances in using e-government to improve levels of service delivery.

Agencies’ ability to effectively deliver e-government services is critical in delivering the highest quality services to the Australian community, and providing Australians with choice in service delivery channels.

The Australian Government is a leader in the use of ICT, particularly in implementing and delivering e-government strategies and developing customer-centric models of service delivery. Australia continues to rank among the top performing countries, ranking sixth in terms of e-government readiness by the UN.⁷

Australia also continues to be a leader in customer service delivery. A 2006 report by Accenture observed that the Australian Government has enacted critical technology, process and governance initiatives to increase its level of service sophistication in response to demand for quality customer service.⁸

A UK Government report has also commended Australia, particularly in relation to its advanced integration of information and services.⁹ The report highlights DEWR’s and Centrelink’s ability to integrate with Job Network and other welfare agencies, and ATO’s electronic services.

ABS is providing access to the entire content of the ABS website free of charge via the Internet. This initiative marks an important milestone in the dissemination of statistics in Australia which will ensure decision-makers within the Australian Government and state/territory governments, business and the community have readily available statistical information with which to make informed decisions.

APS agencies are developing innovative and practical ways of applying new technologies to benefit the community, business and government. In recent years technology has played an instrumental role in better connecting government agencies with the community and business. Examples of agency initiatives designed to increase productivity, build internal capability and enhance user services include:

DITR’s business website <http://www.business.gov.au> which offers simple and convenient access to government information, transactions and services for businesses
ASIC’s ‘FIDO’ website <http://www.fido.asic.gov.au/fido/fido.nsf> which provides financial tips and safety checks for consumers and investors
NNTT’s ‘Native Title Vision’ website <http://www.ntv.nntt.gov.au> which provides native title stakeholders with access to geospatial information through an extranet.

In 2006, DITR won a United Nations Public Service Award in the category of ‘Application of ICT in Governments: e-Government for Improving Service Quality for the Business Community by Increasing Access to Information’. The award was made in respect of DITR’s Business Entry Point Transaction Manager Initiative, which helps businesses find, manage and complete government forms online without having to understand the structure of government or individual agencies.

Audit Report No. 29 2005–06 Integrity of Electronic Customer Records

e-government and data integrity

Many departments and agencies rely on extensive and complex IT systems to manage the workflow across various business areas and to support the delivery of government services. Large databases hold personal and financial information on millions of Australian citizens, residents and visitors—including details of customers’ identity, claims, entitlements, income and health records and, where they exist, customers’ obligations.

The information stored in these databases must be accurate, reliable and up to date if the various departments and agencies are to rely on that information to effectively and efficiently administer these programmes. In order to facilitate the vision of e-government, or joined up government, there must also be a high degree of consistency of customer information held on various databases.

Over recent years, ANAO has examined various aspects of data integrity in a number of databases including those operated by ATO, Medicare Australia, AEC, DVA and Centrelink. Its analysis has identified some common risks associated with a lack of integrity in large databases.

ANAO work in this area highlights the importance of departments and agencies monitoring the accuracy and reliability of their database holdings. Straightforward analysis can reveal a number of anomalies in data integrity.

Review and evaluation

The challenges of an emerging information society mean that agencies must embrace ICT and prepare for increasing levels of, and faster interactions with citizens. Australia’s continued success in meeting the challenges of e-government builds on its citizens’ high uptake of technology-enabled services and the provision of ICT infrastructure. Australians’ Use of and Satisfaction with e-Government Service—2006, the second annual study of citizen use of government services, showed that the uptake of e-government services is rising:

the level of usage of e-government services has increased significantly, with the percentage of those who accessed government services using the Internet rising from 39% in 2004–05 to 48% in 2005–06
the percentage of people who conducted almost all of their dealings with government over the Internet increased from 14% in 2004–05 to 19% in 2005–06.

The report found that overall satisfaction levels with e-government services remains high, with over 80% of respondents indicating they were satisfied with telephone and Internet services. These results indicate that the public is generally satisfied with e-government services, although the report also noted that some barriers remain that limit its use, including concerns about privacy and security and not being aware that the contact could take place online.

Reported barriers to public engagement with e-government indicate that, although ICT provides new opportunities for government service delivery, integrating it with existing processes and maintaining choice is central to its implementation. Agencies should be mindful that technological developments in service delivery may isolate sections of the community based on their access to and/or preference for certain technology. Agencies will need to ensure that they have the systems in place to support multi-channel service delivery.

Further information on the results from the Census Survey can be found in Australian Public Service Commission 2006, Census Report: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander APS Employees <http://www.apsc.gov.au>
It should be noted that highly independent bodies, Government Business Enterprises (GBEs) and agencies closely linked to departments are exempt from this reporting requirement.
ANAO 2006, Better Practice Guide, User-Friendly Forms: Key Principles and Practices to Effectively Design and Communicate Australian Government Forms, <http://www.anao.gov.au>
B. Herdan 2006, The Customer Voice in Transforming Public Services: Independent Report from the Review of the Charter Mark Scheme and Measurement of Customer Satisfaction with Public Services, <http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/publications/reports/chartermark/cm_review.pdf>
The Hon. Gary Nairn MP (Speech at the launch of the Australian Government’s e-government strategy, 30 March 2006), <http://www. agimo.gov.au/media/2006/march/50097.html>
AGIMO 2006, Responsive Government: A New Service Agenda, <http://www.agimo.gov.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/51499/e-gov_strategy.pdf>
United Nations, Global e-Government Readiness Report 2005: From E-Government to E-Inclusion, November 2005, <http://www.unpan.org/egovernment5.asp>
Accenture, Leadership in Customer Service: Building the Trust, (2006) pp 62–63, <http://www.accenture.com>
UK Government, Beyond e-Government—The World’s Most Successful Technology-Enabled Transformations, 2005 <http://www.egov2005conference.gov.uk/publications/index.asp>