There are at least two senses of ‘universal service’ possible here:

(1) Services in response to a universal ‘entitlement’ (right?) of citizens. A service everyone is entitled to.

(2) Particular service providers being universally responsible for delivering a particular service all people.

I’m defending (1), but not (2), although (2) might be the right thing still in some contexts. There is a question with (1) about whether we should abandon specifying universal entitlement to service (i.e. ‘you are entitled to healthcare for this set of health needs’) with universal entitlement to outcomes (i.e. ‘you are entitled to this level of health’) – but I suspect the second option is far too demanding to fully implement (although some sense of outcome entitlement is valuable…).

In terms of a long-tail of services meeting citizen needs (and I prefer the term citizen to individual – as many of the problems we’re addressing need to be solved through collective, rather than individual, action) this can certainly be a route to ensuring the that all people have their entitlement to a certain level of service fulfilled. But this gives the state two roles: (a) eco-system supporter; creating the conditions in which provision emerges in the long-tail; (b) guarantor or service; filling the gaps.

It feels as though we often get drawn into designing the state that just does (a) and forget about designing for a state that has to do both (a) and (b)…

We need to see a shift to an eco-system or ‘long tail’ of services, and we need service users (though I prefer the term ‘individuals’) to both design and deliver services themselves as. The public sector’s role should be as a supporter of this eco-system.

Are we anywhere near this vision? nope, but a girl can dream

i think the tricky 20% is the key to unlocking real innovation.

we could apply the international idea of reverse innovation (e.g. From Reverse Innovation to Innovation Blowback) to innovation in an unequal society.

note that this kind of innovation implies efficieny and economic benefit.

if this is catalysed by using codesign lean startup techniques with the hard to reach communities it would handily combines at least 3 of your 4 criteria

You raise a really good deeper point here. I don’t see that it matters if we can deliver equal service to 100% of people, with 80% getting the low-cost digital service, and 20% getting extra resources through a different service (for e.g. reality likely to be far more complex / many different services).

The interesting challenge I think, ideologically at least, certainly comes in when the economics mean we can deliver a better service to 80%, but can’t afford it for the last 20% – and the consequence of that may be widening inequality.

I’ve got a #paretopost (think I might use that from now on for posts sitting waiting for that last 20% to be improved…) sitting waiting to be tidied up that tries to explore how Rawl’s Difference Principle applies in this space.

Certainly a big part of the answer I think is also in your recent post. If we better connect designers and developers – we can go some way towards better focussing the limited innovation resources we have available to where they will help most…

The starting point must be that we account for a universal service. That should be a simple requirement to recognise – which is not to say either that it is easy to do or that it in practice it is always recognised. The much harder question is then to decide whether a single solution works for the full range of needs and users of the service. Of course the ideal is that it should – but that is where the cost and complexity of managing the final 20% comes in. If a relatively simple digital solution improves service and reduces delivery cost for the 80%, is it wrong if the other 20% see no benefit? What if one result of reducing the unit cost for the 80% is that some of the savings can be used to improve the service for the 20%, but still outside the simple digital solution? It is easy to see those as questions in the sphere of technology or investment management, but they are of course much deeper than that. I see people striving to do good things getting to the point of that dilemma, but then just not having the tools to navigate it. The four approaches you suggest provide a good starting point.