This is a conversation we hear often across government programs. Most agree user experience matters. Too many still treat it as optional. When budgets tighten or timelines compress, UX is often the first thing cut.

That decision has measurable consequences. The cost-of-change principle is clear: the later a problem is discovered, the more expensive it becomes to resolve. Studies frequently cite a tenfold increase in cost when issues are identified during development rather than design, with post-release remediation in some cases escalating towards 100x more.

Increasingly, UX is absorbed into already stretched roles in the name of efficiency. It is acknowledged in principle but deprioritised in delivery. User involvement is delayed, testing is pushed to the end, and UAT becomes procedural rather than meaningful validation of real user tasks. Without dedicated capability, assumptions replace evidence and issues surface late. When that happens, the impact shifts elsewhere: contact centre demand increases, workarounds multiply and remediation costs rise. The public ultimately carries the burden.

What do we mean by user experience in government?

User experience, or UX, is often misunderstood. It’s not just about how something looks. It’s about how people experience a service end to end. Can they understand what’s being asked of them? Can they complete the task? Do they feel confident in the service?

In government, UX extends beyond digital interfaces. It includes how policy is written, how rules are explained, how forms are structured, and how services fit into people’s real lives. Good UX makes policy easier for everyday Australians to understand, navigate, and act on.

This is exactly what the Australian Government‘s Digital Experience Policy calls for. The policy sets a clear expectation that government services are designed around user needs, informed by evidence, and continuously improved through testing and feedback. Yet despite this policy direction, UX capability is still often treated as discretionary rather than essential. The gap is rarely intent. It’s the implementation maturity, funding models and delivery culture.

When change becomes remediation

Consider this common scenario. A government agency launches a new digital platform intended to modernise an essential public service. The intention is clear, but the outcome falls short of what users need. Core functionality is missing. Performance issues emerge. Users can no longer complete tasks they have relied on for years.

So what happens next? Public feedback is immediate and consistent. Contact centres experience spikes. Staff create workarounds. Leaders are required to brief executives and ministers. Media scrutiny increases. Delivery teams shift from improvement to stabilisation.

The response is rarely to address the underlying design problem. Remediation becomes the priority. In some cases, a replacement program is eventually funded to replace the replacement.

Change on its own is not improvement. If the replacement cannot meet the baseline, it’s not ready.

The alternative is straightforward. Embed user-centred validation early and reduce risk before major investment is committed. Here is what that looks like in practice.

Proof in practice

On a recent engagement within a large Commonwealth department, we introduced an agile, user-centred approach into a traditionally waterfall-based, multi-year program environment. Early on, there was understandable skepticism. Large programs often rely on detailed requirements and extended planning cycles before testing assumptions with real users.

Our position was straightforward. If a concept is going to fail, it is better to discover that within months at prototype stage, at a small proportion of total program cost, than after years of build and significant capital investment. Early validation does not increase risk. It contains it.

In practice, that meant using a structured user-centred design process from the outset. We conducted research with real users, tested prototypes, validated accessibility and iterated based on feedback before major build investment was locked in. The result was a user acceptance testing pass rate above 90 percent. One participant said, ‘Wow, we don’t even need training for this. It’s so easy to use.’

More importantly, the department had a fully operational environment within the year and was able to focus on continuous improvement rather than remediation. Early validation reduced delivery risk, limited rework and strengthened internal confidence in decision-making.

This is what happens when users are involved early and design decisions are tested before release.

Good UX is not a phase. It is a discipline. And it is a leadership choice.

Make the stronger choice

Every program makes design decisions, whether they are deliberate or deferred.

Before your next initiative moves forward, consider this. Have the people who will rely on the service been part of shaping it? Has the design been tested against the tasks that matter most? Has user experience expertise been involved early enough to influence direction rather than respond to problems?

Because if these questions are not answered upfront, they will be answered later by users, staff, and outcomes.

It’s your executive decision.

Fund the UX, or fund the fix.

If you would like to know more about Cordelta, join our mailing list or contact us below.