Licensing for International Trade and Enterprise (LITE) beta assessment
Service Standard assessment report Licensing for International Trade and Enterprise (LITE) 19/02/2024
Service Standard assessment report
Licensing for International Trade and Enterprise (LITE)
| Assessment date: | 19/02/2024 |
| Stage: | Beta |
| Result: | Red |
| Service provider: | Department for Business and Trade |
Previous assessment reports
Service description
LITE will provide a modern digital service that streamlines the application process and makes it simple to use, automates where possible, and solves whole problems for its users. We will deliver an efficient, rigorous, and user focused export licensing service which supports decision-making through effective use of data.
The new service will replace a legacy service SPIRE which enables exporters to apply for an export licence for strategic goods. A SIEL (Standard Individual Export Licence) is a licence type offered by the Department of Business and Trade’s Export Control Joint Unit.
Service users
This service is for…
External users:
- Exporters
- Exporter agents
- Freight forwarders
Internal users:
- DBT Licensing Reception
- LU
- DESNZ
- TAU
- FCDO
- MOD
- NCSC
- OGDs
Things the service team has done well:
- demonstrated how the service has been iterated and improved based on the needs of internal users.
- written code in the open from the start and other departments using the Django web framework can reuse the components that the service has developed.
- collaborated with users across six government departments and worked closely with the contact centre staff.
- challenged a straight digitisation of the paper form, reducing complexity for the user and replaced with business logic.
- leveraged GOV.UK patterns, Notify and One Login - the first service to do so.
1. Understand users and their needs
Decision
The service was rated red for point 1 of the Standard.
Recommendations:
Before reassessment, the service team must:
- test the exporter journey with users with access needs. This was a recommendation from the Alpha assessment which they have not acted upon. There was no evidence of the team taking a proactive approach to find these users
- map out and test the assisted digital/off-line journey with exporters who need it. The team seemed unsure what the journey was and whether it was being used. The contact telephone number and email address were hidden in the accessibility statement, where someone with limited digital skills is unlikely to find it
Without these two actions, the team cannot prove the service meets all users’ needs and therefore works for everyone.
Before reassessment, the service team should:
- increase the frequency with which they engage with exporters and agents. The panel felt the last year’s focus on internal users has left them distanced from the needs of their external users. This was reflected in a lack of detail and examples of how the service has been improved from their perspective
- undertake contextual, face to face research with all user groups, but especially external ones. It wasn’t clear why this isn’t a normal part of the team’s research rhythm
- ensure their personas accurately reflect the evidence behind them. The team stated they didn’t represent one person, but the use of names and photos would lead people to believe otherwise
- make sure they have high level user needs which represent people’s aims and motivations around the service. All the needs were low-level and functional. The panel felt being absorbed in the detail had made the team lose sight of why people interact with it in the first place
- present a clear research plan for the next phase. The outline given lacked detail and wasn’t consistent with the overall next steps the team presented
2. Solve a whole problem for users
Decision
The service was rated green for point 2 of the Standard.
3. Provide a joined-up experience across all channels
Decision
The service was rated amber for point 3 of the Standard.
Recommendations:
- test both the full end to end journey and the assisted digital end to end journey from initial GOV.UK content to export. The team haven’t tested the offline journey because the existing journey is offline, but the recommendation would be that the offline journey be considered and potentially updated in line with the new digital journey. The team worked hard to not replicate the current paper process digitally but haven’t considered an update to the paper process
4. Make the service simple to use
Decision
The service was rated amber for point 4 of the Standard.
Recommendations
- ensure the content is as jargon free and in plain English as possible.
- ensure the service has been tested with more challenging cases. The panel was concerned that the demo was the best possible scenario with the least path of resistance and that perhaps the unhappy paths were less clear
5. Make sure everyone can use the service
Decision
The service was rated red for point 5 of the Standard.
Recommendations
- test the service with actual users with accessibility needs. If recruitment is a challenge, ensure the effort to find relevant users has been both prioritised and well-documented. Testers at the Digital Accessibility Centre are very helpful, but they are not your users
- given that the service is relatively small, consider other options such as proxy users, use of recruitment firms, and using accessibility profiles, if necessary
6. Have a multidisciplinary team
Decision
The service was rated amber for point 6 of the Standard.
Recommendations
- there was a lack of evidence to suggest user needs were afforded the same priority as other metrics in Monitoring and Evaluation. The team must identify what metrics need to be measured to meet these needs and be continuously reviewed
- the panel felt that an additional User Researcher was needed. This is due to the diverse range of both internal and external user groups. This additional resource would also support the dual-running of iterating a public beta service and building new journeys
7. Use agile ways of working
Decision
The service was rated green for point 7 of the Standard.
8. Iterate and improve frequently
Decision
The service was rated amber for point 8 of the Standard.
Recommendations
- the team plan to create a sub-team to maintain the SIELS journey once launched, whilst the remainder design and build other feature journeys. The panel feel this approach would cause problems with prioritising fixes over build features and limit their focus on improving the SIELS journey. The team should remain as one team with one backlog and ensure they react to the data and feedback from the service in live
9. Create a secure service which protects users’ privacy
Decision
The service was rated amber for point 9 of the Standard.
Recommendations
- provide more detail about how uploaded documents are stored, kept secure and accessed
- provide more detail about who has access to personal data collected by the service and the controls in place to ensure that this access is secured and audited
10. Define what success looks like and publish performance data
Decision
The service was rated amber for point 10 of the Standard.
Recommendations
- the chosen exit survey needs to be implemented prior to Public Beta, I understand this is close to implementation and the style has been approved
- implement analytics for “help and support” topics e.g. the number of clicks on Introduction Video prior to Public beta
- consider breaking down analytics for “journey type” - Allowing you to interrogate simple journey v complex journey completion rates
11. Choose the right tools and technology
Decision
The service was rated green for point 11 of the Standard.
12. Make new source code open
Decision
The service was rated green for point 12 of the Standard.
13. Use and contribute to open standards, common components and patterns
Decision
The service was rated green for point 13 of the Standard.
14. Operate a reliable service
Decision
The service was rated green for point 14 of the Standard.
Next Steps
For the service to continue to the next phase of development, it must meet the Standard and get CDDO spend approvals. The service must be reassessed against the points (1 and 5) of the Standard that are rated red at this assessment.