Data and evaluation in Government services, Part II: Mapping the requirements of the Data and Digital Strategy

This article is Part II of a four-part series on data and evaluation in government services – see Part I, Part III and Part IV for additional information on this topic. 

In Part I of this series of articles we discussed the Data and Digital Government Strategy (DDGS) and Implementation Plan and we gave an overview of its requirements and the challenges faced by Australian Government entities. We also gave an overview of the appropriate steps to implement the DDGS, which included an initial DDGS mapping. 

DDGS mapping is a good way to determine requirements

As previously discussed, the DDGS and accompanying Implementation Plan set out five missions plus a broad set of commitments that apply across all Australian Government entities. The Implementation Plan sets out specific Initiatives to support the missions (including programs to be implemented in various government agencies) and sets up a governance and reporting framework requiring entities to report outcomes and metrics to the Department of Finance. There is a symbiosis in the DDGS between embedding evaluation processes and uplifting data and digital capabilities. Evaluation of programs and services is supported by internal data capabilities and the evaluation of programs and services likewise supports planning for data and digital uplift. Proper implementation of the DDGS therefore requires strong skills in data and digital processes, but also strong skills in economic modelling and evaluation. 

An important first step in the process of implementing the DDGS is a DDGS mapping, which maps the commitments, initiatives and reporting requirements in the DDGS to the specific operations of an Australian Government entity. Using our expertise in data science and economic evaluation methods, ACIL Allen has developed a framework for DDGS mapping to aid government entities in understating the impact of the DDGS on their operations, planning to meet the commitments and reporting obligations, and embedding evaluation processes with uplift of data and digital capabilities. An overview of the structure of the ACIL Allen DDGS Mapping Framework is shown in Figure 1 below. (Further details of our mapping framework and how it adapts to the operations of particular government entities are available during consultation.) 

Figure 1: Overview of ACIL Allen DDGS Mapping Framework

Our mapping process involves internal stakeholder consultation with line areas inside a government entity to identify core deliverables, requirements, operations and processes of the entity. We use a systematic mapping process to map the missions, commitments and initiatives in the DDGS (plus broader requirements of the APS reform agenda) to the operations of the entity. This mapping process elucidates how the requirements of the DDGS impact the operational requirements of the entity – in short, it provides the “what to do” in the process of data and digital uplift. 

Once we have mapped the impact of the missions, commitments and initiatives in the DDGS, we then map the required uplift and post-uplift operations of the entity to the reporting and governance obligations in the DDGS. Reporting and governance obligations are informed by the Commonwealth Evaluation Policy and Commonwealth Evaluation Toolkit, both administered by the Australian Centre for Evaluation (ACE) in Treasury.1 We use a systematic mapping process informed by our deep knowledge of these policies and tools and our broader expertise in economic modelling and evaluation. This mapping process elucidates how data and digital uplift will impact the reporting and governance obligations of the entity – in short, it provides the “how to report what we do” in the process of data and digital uplift. 

Summary 

DDGS mapping provides a good starting point for data and digital uplift under the DDGS. It tells an entity what to do and how to report what they do in their data and digital reform. Because of the extensive nature of the DDGS requirements, and the complexity of its interaction with related economic evaluation processes for reporting and governance, this mapping requires expertise in data and digital processes, plus expertise in economic modelling and evaluation. The DDGS mapping is the first step in the ACIL Allen approach to services for DDGS described in Part I of this article series. In Part III we will examine the next step of the process.