Face to face processes were built on top of these existing identity mechanisms. As that model has matured it has come to underpin the delivery of public services. With countries turning their attention to facilitating access to government services online, the e-government agenda has created a new challenge – the need of being confident in the identity of someone who is not physically present.
With an increasing desire to see public services on the internet this has been a priority for many countries with investment in technology to accompany it. Generally the incremental approach of this shift has meant that countries took existing processes, and existing interactions, and digitised them as they were with the result that in those cases where a ‘wet signature’ was still required it produced services that were mostly online, but which would ultimately require offline steps to complete.
Technology has been applied to this problem through creating digital signatures and the increasing adoption of password based account services introduced new modes of service delivery but more often than not these were ad hoc solutions, poorly coordinated and resulting in multiple variants on authentication credentials for government, and citizens, to contend with.
As more and more countries explore how to shift their services online in a way that is digital by design and recognises the importance of providing services that meet the needs of their users these existing interactions have been shown wanting in satisfying the burden of proof required by more advanced public services.
Thus, as countries explore how to implement public services of the internet they have turned to new models of digital identity (DI) to enable the transformation of the experience of the state. Those countries who have attempted to respond to these issues have found themselves subject to the increased expectations of a public who are used to simple, interchangeable identity mechanisms provided by existing accounts created with Google and Facebook. However, such approaches to identity lack the substance required to confidently confirm that the absent party is who they claim to be.
Whilst countries wish to benefit from the digital transformation of their services they must remain mindful of threats from hostile forces, fraudulent behaviour and the errors of their users. The resulting challenge for government is therefore to respond to the needs of their citizens, businesses, and visitors, whilst also balancing the concerns of a public which views government over-reach as a dangerous thing.
DI is required for people to exploit the digital economy and interact with a digital government. It provides the link between authentication and claims about a person’s identity which are a fundamental enabler to transformation in government and business.
DI enables omnichannel services, giving users choice over the most effective service channel whether through a browser, on a mobile device or over the telephone. At the same time, DI supports moving away from analogue experiences of proving identity, and enables the redesign of user experiences to create more efficient organisations and more ambitious services. This is particularly relevant in the case of government where DI enables interoperability, empowers the exchange of electronic data, and can transform processes and services that are better focused on meeting people's needs.
To gather best practices and compare the developed solutions from different cultural, social and economic contexts, 13 approaches for DI were assessed to elaborate the analysis include in this Study1, namely in Austria, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, India, Italy, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom and Uruguay. Following the initial evidence provided by these countries, the OECD followed up with a selection of these (Austria, Canada, Italy, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom) to further develop some of the themes.
The impact of DI on the digital transformation of the public sector is assessed with the scope detailed in Figure 1.1. It considers the context for delivering DI in terms of the initial foundations, DI technical solutions, the level of take-up, and the post-implementation monitoring mechanisms in place.
