During the course of the work, the following thoughts and questions have arisen that we believe need further discussion, based on how the concept of human-centredness has been presented in this report:
How can a human-centric approach be justified from a political perspective? To what extent should public opinion and expressed needs influence work within the three dimensions of human-centredness?
Is it more important to immediately implement practical solutions for users, or should we first consider and explore potential solutions? One alternative is to “think slowly – and then act fast.” How and when should we balance these different approaches?
How can we achieve the greatest possible benefit? Where in the process should human-centric initiatives be prioritised? Should we start with a cost-benefit analysis that primarily considers the number of transactions to achieve maximum savings and efficiency? Or should we identify needs and priorities based on other values, such as empathy? Should we begin where poverty and exclusion are most pronounced, or where strong but perhaps unspoken needs exist? Should we work with emotions and ideas as a basis for prioritisation?
Many aspects of human-centredness require an active, participatory, and practical approach from public administration. What kind of culture of collaboration and attitude is needed from decision-makers and public officials to initiate and work with human-centredness?
How can – or should – public administration build capacity and be given the means to create services we do not yet know we need? Should the public sector even engage in such innovation work at all? Is there a risk of trying to personalise too much? Isn’t the most important thing what we aim to achieve for society, democracy, people, and businesses, rather than innovation or transformation in itself? How can we achieve this while society, industry, technology, and people's needs and desires change rapidly?