00:12 JAMES GAMAGE, HOST:
Welcome to Responsible Disruption. I'm your host, James Gamage, Director of Innovation and the Social Impact Lab. Today, we're exploring how technology and design are reshaping government systems. Joining us are two people who have given this a lot of thought. Fouad Jallouli, Director of Service Design, and Sheldon Bauld, Director of User Experience, both key figures in the Government of Alberta. Their work involves leading a team of over 100 CX and UX designers spearheading initiatives to improve our public systems in Alberta through a human centered lens. So welcome to the show Fouad and Sheldon.
00:50 SHELDON BAULD, GUEST 1:
Thanks for having us.
00:52 FOUAD JALLOULI, GUEST 2:
Thanks for having us.
00:52 JAMES: Great. So just to kick this off. I want to talk to you about the digital government space. So Fouad, can you tell us a little bit about your work? But I'm conscious in the intro we use the acronym CX and UX. Can you also in your response just tell us what CX and UX mean for listeners who might not know?
01:14 FOUAD: Yeah, absolutely. So, CX referring to customer experience and UX, referring to user experience, are kind of both terms we use in the design space to talk about how we work and engage with users. So, in our perspective, in terms of government, that would be citizens as well as staff who are the users of our system and government across Alberta. So, when we're thinking of government services and that kind of transformation and that work there, I think one of the key things we're looking at is how we begin to infuse user-centered design or design thinking in our work. So, the idea of us being responsive and understanding our customers, which are Albertans and public service staff, as well as ensuring that the government can deliver on its mandates as required as programs and services that it needs to offer to its citizens.
And so, it's also the complex environment where we come together. But, you know, I think we've done a great job from a scale perspective. So, we've worked quite closely over the last kind of five years really focused on building out these little maker teams that are focused on delivering government services. And currently, we have a very large operation of over 80 teams working on different things across all of the different issues within.
02:37 JAMES: OK, so you're the CX guy Fouad and Sheldon, you're the UX guy. So can you tell us how UX plays into this team? And yeah, how your teams work together?
02:53 SHELDON: Yeah, it's funny. I think, like us, designers love our acronyms, our two-letter, three-letter. The government space is interesting, I think, for a lot of reasons. It's, you know, the stakeholder groups that we're working with are vast. I mean, yes, it's citizens, yes, it's users, but the variety in there is so great. We're dealing with businesses, we're dealing with other countries, we're dealing with other provinces. It's not always the citizen experience; it might be people just migrating, just moving to Alberta, you know. Multinational companies — like, there are so many different audiences that the government has to consider and has to work with.
And so, that's kind of what makes it fun, I would say. The complexity is there to navigate. I think, for us as a UX practice, we're there to kind of reinforce that human-centered design aspect of the work. So, we've got a product model, as I just mentioned. Every one of our teams has a UX designer on the team, so they're there to really help with the production side of the house. I would say it's a lot of usability, making sure products work for folks, making sure that things are tested, making sure they're accessible, you know, really doing that hands-on work, either in the field or remotely, to make sure that the stuff we're building actually truly does work for people and that these services that we're reimagining, reshaping, rebuilding — whatever — meet the needs.
04:29 JAMES: Yeah. So my understanding is that you're the largest multidisciplinary design team in Alberta, which I think is quite significant, but why...
04:39 SHELDON: We never fact checked it. I think so, though you know, it's like...
04:43 JAMES: Let the truth get in the way of a good story.
04:45 SHELDON: Yeah. Yeah, I mean like a shop fire, somebody's probably much larger, but...
04:50 JAMES: Yeah, but anyway, it's still a significant sized team, so why did the government of Alberta choose to deliver its services in this way and go down this path?
05:01 FOUAD: Yeah, maybe I could just speak to that a little bit. So, one of the ideas or methodologies around service delivery is this concept of maker teams. The idea is that instead of spending a lot of time and money, you know, focusing on hiring very large vendor contracts, can we put together these smaller, more cross-functional kind of maker teams that are able to focus on smaller problems and break things down into smaller pieces, right? And so, the idea is that if we have a lot of transformation to do within government, it makes sense by working on the small-T transformations, as opposed to trying to do very large programs and services with very large, very high-risk, high-visibility, high-cost type of initiatives. Well, let's figure out a way to break things down into smaller pieces that we can actually tackle and deliver. And with that comes the benefits of being iterative, having agility in terms of the changing market and the changing needs of our users and customers, as well as being able to deliver quickly, right? And so, the concept of us releasing stuff early and often allows things to be tested, value to be achieved, and outcomes to be had quickly, as opposed to waiting for these more traditional, multi-year, very large programs.
06:31 SHELDON: Yeah, because I think the timing is good too. I mean, delivering this way — the sort of agile teams, the iterative development, the human-centered design — we're at a point in time now where these aren't new concepts. There might be some new concepts there for government in the way that we work, but they're not generally new concepts. And we're lucky in Alberta that we're not the first jurisdiction to do this, not in Canada, and certainly not in the world. I think other jurisdictions have been really good at communicating the journey — how it started, how it went, what the outcomes are — and really sharing a lot of that stuff. There's so much good information and history, you know, from places like the UK, Estonia, Austria, all over the world. There's just really good, clear examples of government acting, performing, and delivering a little bit closer to how a startup would think and act. So, we're lucky in the fact that many other jurisdictions have kind of come before us, and the investment, I think, appears by default a little less risky, right? So, there's a little bit more eagerness to jump in. I think the current government understands the space. The Minister is really active and engaged. I think he's got a good understanding of the space, and so we're just kind of fortunate.
08:02 JAMES: OK. And to bring this to life, you mentioned the Minister there. So where do you report in Government of Alberta and what kind of challenges just to bring this to life for our listeners, what kind of challenges are you trying to solve for in the work that you do?
08:21 FOUAD: Yeah, so from a reporting perspective, we report within a centralized industry called technology and innovation. So, you can think of us as a centralized hub for this way that we're working, as well as the way that we spend our money when it comes to new technology initiatives. In terms of, you know, challenges or things we're working on, we're working essentially with all our other ministry partners. So, working within justice, within social community services, within children's services, within jobs, economic trade, you name it. We're in pretty much most of the ministries of the government, and we're working directly on programs and services that are mandated items for that. So, services that they have to deliver within their ministry — to the public, or to staff, or to companies, or to whoever — we're working directly with them to help them modernize and solve their problems and help them on their path to transform.
And I think, just looking back to the idea of the challenges, the biggest thing is just getting our ministry partners used to the idea of working in a new way, where they're more involved. They're more like partners at the table, working more closely and iteratively in this concept of design — building things, testing them, and getting feedback. Whereas, I think in the past, like I mentioned earlier, sometimes government has a culture of really outsourcing as much risk as possible through the hiring of very large contracts and big vendors, which is very much a waterfall-type of approach. We've seen many case studies where big difficulties arise — by the time the thing gets released or the program gets delivered, it's already out of date, it's over budget, over time, and it doesn't meet the expectations that people want. And so, I think that's the biggest challenge — just that mentality.
10:20 JAMES: Mindset and the solutions that you create to these challenges or problems are they, are they all apps or how do they manifest them?
10:31 SHELDON: Yeah, most of what we do is a digital service. So much of government, you know, historically, and I think what most people, you know, when they think of government services, you think about lining up, you know, taking a day off of work, lining up at an office somewhere. You know, the person at the wicket sort of points to a wall. There are forms, you get your stamp, you mail it away, that sort of thing. And, you know, a lot of what we're doing and a lot of the work is making a lot of those digital experiences that help us open up access. It helps us create services that are always on. You know, I spent a lot of time working on alberta.ca, and it was really interesting just looking at the analytics. People are engaging with government literally 24 hours a day. You know, three in the morning, four in the morning, five in the morning — it's so active all the time. And I think when we're doing digital service delivery, you can be available. There aren't store hours, right? You don't have to book time off work and miss a day or miss pay, or whatever your situation might be. You can go online when you need it to work for you and process it that way. And then, of course, you get all the benefits — the communication, you get emails, all these things that kind of give you a glimpse into status and updates and fixing things, where historically that maybe was through the mail with, you know, 30-day, 90-day timelines for processing. I mean, digital delivery has really opened up, I think, a lot of — well, it has defeated a lot of barriers to access that were traditionally there before.
12:18 JAMES: Yeah. And that makes me think of is that you're doing this sort of end to end digital. You're trying to create an end to end digital experience as opposed to just digitizing a front end, which makes me pleased as a consumer of services from the government. But I'm guessing that that can also be very tricky. As well, do you have to link into some sort of clunky back end ERP system?
12:44 SHELDON: Always. Always. Yeah. And I think that's why the model is set up the way that it is with the product teams — you've got a little bit of everyone on there. So, there's like a base template we use: there's always a service designer, there's always a UX designer, you know, a handful of developers, and an architect. I think we set it up that way because you're right — government has existed a long time, and there are many, many, many systems, legacy systems in place, and that's part of the complexity. Sometimes you get to dream up something new and fresh, or, you know, a minister might say, ‘Here's a new service that we're going to offer,’ and it's a clean slate. But often, operationally, these programs have been in place for a long time.
So, you know, that makeup of the team, that maker team I talked about, is really arming us to be able to deal with whatever we're going to get into. The service designers are looking end-to-end: are there physical locations? Are there policy considerations that we have to look at? How do we navigate those conversations? Once we build an app, the user experience people are sort of taking over and saying, ‘OK, well, how do we make sure this works for people? What devices are they using? How's their Internet connectivity?’ All those sorts of considerations. And, of course, the architects are really wrangling the systems, the APIs, the integrations, the legacy stuff that's there.
You know, one of our other designers, Jess, always talks about how government is more archaeology than anything — there's always something new to dig up. And so, we really make these teams in a way that helps them navigate that complexity, work through that end-to-end service, and really be able to think of all aspects of it. Not just maybe, you know, I think the traditional way is to think of things as technology products, right? Technology solutions, technology is always driving it. We don't think that way. You know, we're human-centered in our approach. We really try to understand human needs, human preferences with these products, and really look at the whole picture. It's not just the technology solution.
15:04 JAMES: Yeah, good answer. And I'm thinking about these projects and they sound as though they're quite disruptive internally for those in innovation, that's a very positive term, but it also can be, you know all about change and changing the way that we deliver the way that we do projects and people can feel that is quite threatening. Fouad, how do you manage that internally within the GOA that the sort of disruption or the disruptive nature of the work that you're doing or how you're doing the work can still embed within the organization?
15:39 FOUAD: Yeah, it's a great question. I think one of the key aspects is building trust early, right? And so, the idea we often talk about in this type of work is 'no surprises.' It means that 'no surprises' doesn't mean that we can't go out and build all things and have great conversations, but everybody should be kind of on board, right? Like, we need to have this idea of regular connection and regular communication with everybody that's important around the problem space so that they understand kind of what's happening and what's going on. And so, you know, the only way you can really build trust is by including people, by creating an environment that enables trust. So, things like co-creation, things like facilitation, and getting people involved in the conversation, taking their points of view, and understanding that it's not just one point of view that's going to make something successful; it's going to be multiple points of view. We do need the points of view of the folks that we work with because oftentimes they're the ones that are actually doing the work — like, they're processing the application, or they're releasing the money, or whatever that is. And so, we need their perspective on how they work because we do want to provide them benefits. Not just Albertans, but the actual people working in government, right? We're trying to reduce costs, improve efficiency, and focus on higher-order, higher-needs things. And so, that requires us to work together quite often. This concept of regular working really fits into agile and how we work with the agile methodology. You know, often we work in these two-week sprints. These two-week sprints allow us to come back often and communicate all the time about where things are at, to get more input, set up our working groups, and get the feedback and involve folks. And, in turn, that builds trust in the organization.
17:45 JAMES: And how does that work with those higher up in government, say the Minister, who you know is really just looking for the result as quickly as possible? You're talking about a sort of an agile development shop, which is iterative design, and the minister might not get what they want as quickly as they want it. How does the agile process work in that context?
18:09 FOUAD: Yeah, also a great question. So, I like to say that I think, you know, the 80/20 rule applies in a lot of this work. There are some things that are priorities at the upper levels that we need to deliver on and we do need to deliver on as quickly as possible. It's kind of a well-bounded, well-scoped idea where maybe we don't need as much iteration, as much discovery, or like trying to understand or figure out the problem space, you know. But the majority of our work is in the space where we really don't want to define our solution set prior to actually understanding our users. So, I think there's always going to be a balance there of like ministerial priorities that are always going to hit the top of the list, and they're going to be relatively on rails in terms of kind of the scope and the size of them and what the outcomes are. But, I would say the vast majority of the work is not like that. The vast majority of work is kind of iterative, human-centered, discovery-based, and there's still ways to inject human-centered design in even work that is relatively well-understood. Like Sheldon mentioned earlier, have we tested these things with users? Are these the right experiences that people want to use? Even if we want to drive that solution space with something that's pretty well known, it still needs to be tested with users, still needs collaboration, and there needs to be work around getting to the detail of how things should work. I think there's always a place for that. Maybe it's just a little bit less, yeah."
20:00 SHELDON: Go ahead. No, I think, too, like each ministry is different. There's such a maturity curve working with everybody. The way that we get to, I think, there are, you know, each ministry's got their mandates, right? Like the things that they're going to try and get done, you know, in this quarter, this year, this cycle, and they all have, you know, sort of backlogs of things they've been asking for years and years and years. Part of our job is helping them navigate that space. But each ministry is sort of on their own journey. Like I talked about trust — well, the way we work is different. It's new, it's iterative, it's about learning, it's about involving outside voices and perspectives. To some industries, that's a little bit new, a little bit daunting, a little bit scary. To some, we've been working with for years, and like this is old hat. They're like, yeah, you know, the expectations are set. People know what to expect. They know how the work rolls out. They know what outcomes they can expect to see.
I think one of the interesting things is, you know, when someone's asking for something, I think they know the itch they're looking to scratch, right? And they're often referred to as like these technology products. Well, we need a case management — uh, we need a whatever. And I think one of the great things about this model is that we can take those as our prompt, right? OK, cool. This sounds interesting. It's a worthwhile problem, it's important, big citizen impact, whatever it might be. But then we really work through it, and we start to go out and do some research, and we engage, you know, real users in the process. We do that citizen engagement piece, and you know, we set our designers off to really explore that space. But what comes back out of that process is often something different. I think that's really the big difference. Yes, they know what they want. They know what they've promised. They know what they should be expecting from a project perspective. But once you really dig into the work and you start exploring the space and understanding the space, oftentimes you have to kind of course-correct or pivot, as they say, right? Like, there's often a navigation going on with that change in scope, a change in direction, things we didn't know about come to the forefront. And, you know, you've got to be able to build that trust with your partner sort of early on so that you can navigate that together because, again, people are held to account on a lot of this stuff. It's a really interesting process, I think, to go through. Everyone kind of handles it a little bit differently. You know, we're, as a centralized office, I think our dream is that all ministries are sort of doing this to the fullest extent that it can be done. But, you know, it's going to take time and it takes work.
22:59 JAMES: Yeah. And just a quick question. My assumption is that this isn't dependent on the colour of the government at the time. This is background work that's accepted is sort of apolitical work that is gonna always be there as far as the government is concerned. Is that true?
23:19 SHELDON: I think largely that's the case. Yeah, like the mechanics of government, you know, release — like the programs might change, the budgets and where they sit in the ministry might change. I think, too, like the government in charge at the time certainly has their priorities, so there are new things that always kind of get added into the space. But a lot of it doesn't tend to get disrupted too, too much as things kind of change. And even with the same party coming in, you know, there's always a little bit of a change and a little bit of a shake-up, but a lot of the mechanics are still there. The backbones are still there.
23:57 JAMES: Yeah. OK. And so we've talked a lot about how this work is done within government and the perceptions of the colleagues that you're working with across different ministries. Talk to me about how the users or the citizens and how they receive this work. What do you hear from them and how do you cater for those with no access to technology, for example? And what do you know about that?
24:30 SHELDON: Yeah, it is interesting when you really start to get out there. You know, there's a variety of ways we do it. With the start of a project, I think the service designers are really going out and doing that generative research, getting their thoughts and perspectives of people. From my side of it, we're focused more on usability. So, things have been aided, we have a general sense if it's the right thing, and we put it into people's hands, and it's always surprising to me what comes up. I think anyone in the design space, in the UX space, they're always talking about the interfaces, right? Can I click? Can I scroll? You know, people don't read, that sort of thing. What's been really exciting for us as we get more products out in front of more people is where the holes are. So, generally their response, I think, when citizens see a new experience or a new way of interacting with the service, they're generally happy. They're glad to see progress, that sort of thing. The thing that always trips me up is how much work you can put into trying to make a service easy to understand and navigate. But because services have to cater to so many people, you really have to do a lot of outreach, right? You think about people with no Internet access; like, we work with a lot of vulnerable populations. Maybe they're using cell phones. A lot of government services don't cater to cell phones. They might be able to get to it, but will it work and perform? Maybe not. Or, you know, other things we've seen is like if you're an English language learner, you've moved here and you struggle with the language or there's a language barrier of some sort, you know, calling into a service can be troublesome. They much prefer e-mail so they can take their time to craft responses. They can take their time. They don't have to repeat themselves. There's threads. Like, there are all these little things that come up that we're always learning and we're always sort of discovering as we as we do more and more of this work.
But I think the citizens are generally happy to see improvements. A lot of the times, they're frustrated with the process, you know, especially those older analog ones. So, you know, I think the thing to always keep in mind is something our teams always keep in mind is, like, the expectations out there are different. Right? People are used to Facebook. They're used to Ubers and food delivery services and grocery shopping without having to go to the grocery store. And then why should interacting with government really be or feel any different than that? And so I think there's a real pressure and a real drive from folks to get up to that level, to get up to that expectation. But again, government is so big, there are so many services, it will take time. I think we're taking steps in that direction.
27:21 FOUAD: Yeah. I just wanted to add just something really quickly about that. Even though we are on the path to digitization and we're doing a lot of that, it's not the only channel. There always needs to be secondary channels to access government services because there will always be people who cannot access government services digitally. I think that's a common thing, and one of the things we hear is, 'Well, are you going to isolate these people or reduce their level of access to services and government?' You know, if you're somebody in a bad office with no Wi-Fi or in a place where there's no Wi-Fi, no signal, no cell signal, there always needs to be multiple channels to get government services. We're just trying to do our best to grow the impact and reach of these channels to be able to serve more of the population.
28:16 JAMES: Yeah. So I'm reminded of a thought that I had a few, you know, certainly something was around a few years ago, which was people judge you on the last best experience they'd had digital experience they had. So that could be, you know, Amazon it could be social media, you know if you'd run a shopping cart. Whatever industry you're in, they're going to judge you against the efficiency of the shopping cart experience. And when they last went to Amazon, for example. So, yeah, that really resonates from a digital point of view, but just to push on that for those who don't have access could. In your discovery, could the outcome be maybe a digital interface with a more efficient and effective sort of back end service delivery? But could it also be do you have to also cater for those who want to access that new service through a form or something like that? So is that a digital interface sometimes as well as a new form?
29:21 FOUAD: Yeah, 100%. A really good example is that affordability issue we launched about a year and a half ago when they did the payments to Albertans for seniors and folks with children. You know, that was a multi-channel experience that was created so early. There was a digital form that covered a large majority of the population in terms of folks who were eligible for the affordability grants. It also had a component where you could apply in the registries, so you could go to a registry office and apply. We worked with the partner network within registries to offer an in-person channel and have an assisted experience for folks who could not access technology. That’s a great example of how we had to create multiple forms or inputs into the same process. Some of that was even the difference between getting paid to your bank account, receiving a check mailed, or getting a letter mailed to your house. All of those things happened, often in a multi-channel way. When we think about users and understanding their needs, we have to consider the physical space they're in, the technology they have access to, the processes, and the locations they need to visit. For example, do they have to drive an hour to the nearest courthouse to pay traffic tickets? These are all things we need to think about when it comes to the service experience.
31:04 SHELDON: Yeah, and even when you are visiting a physical location, one of the reasons we look at end-to-end service delivery is because even if you're not choosing to interact with the digital service from a device, you're doing it at a location. The person you're interacting with at that location still gets to interact with those new systems. So it's not like you're mailing them a letter. The processing times are still quicker, and a lot of the benefits from the digital transformation still get realized, whether the citizen is aware of it or not. How they choose to interface with the service doesn't matter; the efficiencies are still gained.
31:47 JAMES: Yeah. Yeah. OK. That's a great example. Thank you. So thinking about data, we often have conversations with practitioners on this podcast and end up talking about data. So I'm interested in how you use data. Either you know to identify problems to solve or through the process that you follow or as a as metrics to define success. How do you use data in the process for that?
32:17 FOUAD: Yeah, that's another great question. I think I mentioned that government is really not a homogeneous environment. There's a very broad spectrum of maturity around things like data and benchmarking. Some of our ministry partners have a very good handle on things like how long it takes to process an application for a permit, for example. There are others who really don't have any clear understanding of what it takes to deliver a program or service, or it might be so complex that there are many players in the chain involved. One of the first questions we ask for is this type of data, like benchmark data. Often, when thinking about the effects we have, we consider both qualitative and quantitative points to begin to quantify the outcome of an intervention from an impact perspective. So, things like transaction times, data on how long it takes to get through a process, how many hours it takes from a staff perspective, how much time it takes for an Albertan to travel to a place, take time off work, interact with the service, and the back-and-forth communication required. These are all data points that are very unique to each problem space and situation—they’re as unique as the program or service itself. There are some high-level themes, like reducing transaction times, reducing staff costs, reducing overtime hours, reducing travel for Albertans, reducing wait times, and increasing access. Being able to deliver the same service quicker or a better service more quickly is key. So it really does depend, and in some areas, we have better data than in others, for sure.
34:36 SHELDON: Data really helps us work with our ministry partners in a way that makes the most sense to deliver something quickly and that will have the most impact as well. For example, a ministry might be looking to redo all their filing—there are all these different types of files and cases they manage. The problem becomes, how do you figure out where to start? We have lots of different types of information that will eventually all get modernized, but how do you work with your ministry partners to figure out the best place to begin?
Our model aims to get things out faster and sooner, which means we can't do all of them at once. We never want to set the expectation that we will take all the different types of files and have them all online in a year—or even five years; that's probably more realistic. So, data is crucial in this conversation to help walk through the metrics I mentioned earlier. It helps us identify where we can have the highest impact and where a good place to start might be, knowing that we can’t do all of them. We don’t want to do all of them at once because that would be a poor way to move forward.
How do we identify that minimum viable product? In product development, we always ask, what's the smallest thing we can do that we can learn from, and that we can roll out iteratively and build upon to eventually get to all the bigger pieces? Data is a huge tool in that conversation. It helps us identify the most commonly used files, the ones that are most error-prone, or those that take the longest. We can take that information back to the ministry and say, 'Here’s what we think is a good place to start based on what the data suggests.' This way, they are more comfortable knowing we’re starting in the right place and have a plan to roll it out progressively.
36:43 JAMES: Yeah, OK. That's great. And I'm thinking about sort of the future and future trends and challenges as well. So my assumption is that you probably have a problem backlog as long as your arm that you know where you want to go next or the ministries know where they want to go next. But thinking about that as well. Are there emerging trends, technology trends? I'm thinking about the use of AI in the delivery of services. What are your thoughts about that?
37:12 SHELDON: I would say that governments are probably not known for being super early adopters, although we have initiatives like GovLab and are certainly engaging in a lot of AI work. There are many pilot projects and new technologies we're exploring, eager to see what they can bring to service delivery and operational efficiencies. When I think about user experience and our practice, the things that are more top of mind for me are accessibility. Typical government services still face challenges in being easily comprehensible to a broad audience. We know there is still work to be done regarding accessibility needs—screen readers, assistive technologies, and the language we use. Our goal is to make our services more understandable and accessible to all citizens who need to interact with them. For us, improving accessibility is a high priority. We are continually working to develop our internal skills, acquiring tools to better assess these experiences, and finding better ways to engage the community. Ensuring that when we are using human-centered design, all voices are included is crucial. We want to make sure that government services are usable by everyone who needs and should have access to them.
38:48 JAMES: Absolutely, absolutely. And Fouad, anything to add?
38:53 FOUAD: I think I just add is that, you know, when it comes to the trends, I think, you know, it’s tied highly to the demographic makeup of our population. Right. And so, as our population grows—I don’t know what the latest figures are, but we’re over 4, four point something million folks inside Alberta now—you know, as we grow and as our demographics change, that’s going to drive the trends of how government needs to respond and needs to serve its citizens. Right. And so, you know, a very good example is mentioned earlier: the expectation now of being able to access government 24/7 on the mobile device. I like that’s a given; that’s a part of the current reality of what we live in. Without diminishing, you know, like the traditional maybe model of folks who can’t work in those ways or interact with government those ways. But that is a trend that’s only going to continue, right? Just the idea of, like, the ability to, you know, understand contextual information quickly about a government or service in a language that’s well understood. You know, this is what’s driving things like, you know, chatbots.
And, you know, this whole concept of, you know, language modeling and, and so that's another place that could continue to be heavily invested in. And as, like I mentioned, as we continue to see different people come to Alberta, or, you know, different people have, you know, as Alberta grows, it's going to drive kind of what’s next. You know, we see things on the horizon related to, you know, records, right? And how people are able to manage their own information. That’s kind of one of the huge trends that’s coming out: the idea of having the personal ability and access to your own personal information, right? And so, you know, things like health records, things like your identity, things of this nature, that’s all kind of emerging now as something that systems are really demanding and want to understand. Hey, who’s looking at my data? Who is using my information? Do they have my consent to look at my medical records? What are my medical records? You know, what are the results of my information as opposed to kind of having to deal with maybe, you know, other folks or other intermediaries? So that’s kind of another trend that I see.
41:15 JAMES: For sure. Yeah, brilliant. OK, good, good. So we're coming to the end and we always leave the last question with our guests. So this one is sort of over to you. Is there anything that I haven't asked or is there anything that you really would like our listeners to understand about the work that you do that I haven't talked, we haven't talked about at the moment.
41:40 FOUAD: Yeah. I mean, I would just say something we’re always looking for is folks to talk to and give us feedback on how to improve government services. I think what’s really important is to continue to support issues like this to get exposure into the type of complex, interesting, and impactful work that government is doing and that our whole community is doing, right? The whole sector—both public sector, the social community sector, as well as the private sector—and the intersection of that interaction between them. And I think the more that we get a chance to do things like this allows us to showcase and highlight interesting points for discussion.
42:21 JAMES: Be careful what you wish for. Inviting our millions of listeners to contact you with ideas about how to improve government. So, Sheldon, what about you?
42:29 SHELDON: Yeah, I mean, I would second a lot of what Fouad said. I think we’re, you know, Food and I really try our hardest to kind of get out. I think one of the things that’s top of mind for us is really just trying to be active participants in the community. We’re at lots of events. We’re at lots of meet-ups, you know, podcasts, whatever. And we just encourage people to reach out, talk to us, ask us about the projects we’re doing, what’s going on. You know, we try and talk to a lot of students, recent graduates, to talk about experiences that people can have in government roles, all that kind of stuff. And so, I think we’re trying to bring a more human face to the organization with the design practice that we’re running and trying to build here. So, you know, the more people can reach out and learn about it, the more we can learn about them, the better.
43:17 JAMES: Thank you. Thanks very much. Well, we're drawn to a close now. So Fouad, Sheldon, I'd, really like to thank you. It's given us some really valuable insights as I'm sure, every listener to this podcast is a consumer of government services in one way, shape or form, so it's really fascinating to understand about digital government and the challenges that you're facing and how you go about your work. So thank you very much for your time listeners. If you've enjoyed this conversation, please be sure to check out more episodes of Responsible Disruption. Until next time, goodbye.
[Outro music]
That's all for today's episode of Responsible Disruption. Thank you for tuning in and we hope you found the conversation valuable. If you did, don't forget to follow, rate, and share wherever you get your podcast. To stay up to date on future episodes and show notes, visit our website at thesocialimpactlab.com or follow us on social and until next time, keep on designing a better world.
