Forrester

Clients with organizational design or workflow challenges often look to Forrester for help. The conversations typically start in similar ways: “We are considering a reorganization of our field marketing team and aren’t sure how we should handle it because there is overlap with our ABM and demand generation teams” or “We have reorganized all our demand functions under a single leader, but it hasn’t had the positive impact we expected. Why?” The problem is that leaders fall back on a reorganization without clear purpose if they are experiencing pressure to be more effective, reduce expenses, be more thoughtful about spending, or even turn around poor revenue trends. Some primary questions that leaders should ask themselves include “What am I trying to solve?” “What is (are) the primary challenge(s)?” or “Are the challenges people-, process-, technology-, or governance-related?” In other words, what is the purpose of your organizational design strategy? While doing this thoughtful prep work, there are a couple of things to watch for. If you have so many challenges that it feels overwhelming, then do not reorganize until you have some of the challenges addressed. Otherwise, any changes made will likely fail. Also, know whether you are reorganizing for good or bad reasons: if you have a strong leader and you want to reward them with a larger span of control (good) … or a particular subfunction of your team is underperforming and you believe that a new leader will help them without actually understanding the root-cause challenges (bad). Until you have identified the challenges and purpose for the reorganization, don’t start the reorg — yet. It’s not that all reorganizations are bad. There are times when it makes sense but only after unwinding the what, why, and how of your organizational needs. Consider workflow processes, efficiency gaps, possible redundancies, personalities in play, technologies involved, skills and competencies possessed, the strength of planning guidance, level of accountability, KPIs driving the wrong behavior — the list goes on. It is this plethora of possible challenges tied to an organization’s poor performance that makes uncovering the root cause complicated and difficult, especially when cross-functional teams are involved. Cross-functional teams add complexity, because each team likely has their own organizational processes and challenges, requiring leaders to explore the correct altitude for the organizational change: what teams and who should be impacted. Leaders need to be sure that their reasons are valid, address any foundational challenges, and then address the additional aspects of a reorganization that cannot be overlooked before even developing an organizational design plan — more specifically, communication planning to articulate clear reasons for the change; a rollout plan; an analysis of pros and cons; a review of people, process, technology, and governance changes; a calculation of efficiencies achieved and the cost savings related to your reorganized team; a review of roles and associated skills and competency needs; current staff skills and competencies; a change management plan; and any HR-related work. Now you are ready to reorganize. Interested in learning more about why your organizational design is not bringing the changes that you’d hoped for? Whether you are considering a reorganization or have recently reorganized, there is always value in finding and addressing the root cause of the issues. Join my analyst-led roundtable on this topic at Forrester’s B2B Summit North America in Phoenix from March 31–April 3. Or if you prefer, as organizational design conversations often involve changes to team member roles and require delicacy, schedule a guidance session with me for a one-on-one analyst meeting by contacting your account team. If you’re not going to Summit this year, feel free to schedule a guidance session with me at a time that works for you. source

Last week, password wallet vendor LastPass experienced an outage. All LastPass systems and services have since been restored and are up and running. It is worth noting that this is not the first incident involving password wallet products. Past incidents include: Last week’s outage at LastPass highlighted ongoing concerns around password management technologies, namely: Dependence on a single vendor’s solution for being able to log into personal and enterprise platforms creates risk. If the password manager infrastructure or vendor you trusted your passwords (or FIDO passkeys) with is unavailable, you are dead in the water, especially if you chose hard-to-crack and, thus, hard-to-remember long passwords. Password management solutions and their databases are natural hacker honeypots. Hackers try to attack password repositories because they want to extract access credentials that allow for access to sensitive data, lateral movement, and other exploits. Running device-side components increases the attack surface. Most password managers (including LastPass) have an on-device component that allows for caching and synchronizing credentials on the client side and providing Windows login functionality for enterprise deployments in case network connectivity is not available. Monitoring and the password manager on-device component’s binary integrity, memory use, and file access require additional, specialized knowledge that endpoint detection and response solutions do not cover. This leaves users’ on-device stored passwords vulnerable to device-side attacks. Passwords are insufficient protection for sensitive resources. Regardless of whether you use a password manager solution and a very strong password stored in it, strong passwords can be snooped during transit on the network to be replayed later in a “man in the middle” attack. This is why orgs should prioritize replacing passwords with phishing-resistant multifactor authentication whenever possible. Forrester recommends transitioning to FIDO U2F and passkey-based, passwordless authentication methods for business user, customer, and privileged/non-human (machine) identity authentication. Even sending SMS texts or email messages with one-time passwords or links is a better solution than using passwords. Mobile app-based authenticator apps also present reasonable (stronger than password) authentication strength. source

The security landscape continues to evolve, as does global uncertainty, leaving CISOs to prepare for turbulence ahead. Our latest report, Top Recommendations For Your Security Program, 2025, provides timely guidance for security leaders as they navigate another precarious year for their roles, programs, and organizations. We’ve included four of our 12 recommendations in this blog as a starter pack for what CISOs will deal with in 2025 and, most importantly, what they should do about it. Our recommendations for 2025 fall into four main themes: The changing consequences of the CISO role Changing technology across the enterprise and in cybersecurity Ever-present yet changing threats Securing emerging tech We design our insights to help technology leaders, chief information officers, and chief information security officers (CISOs) and their teams stay ahead of the curve and more effectively advocate for their programs. Deal With Changing Consequences: Cover Stakeholders, Reduce Risk For the past four years, we’ve been advising CISOs to link three groups of external stakeholders to their programs and budgets. Customers, cyberinsurance carriers, and regulators represent revenue won or lost, tie security to the cost of doing business, and should be an integral part of program planning in 2025 and beyond. Recommendation: Conduct a materiality tabletop exercise. With the SEC’s Item 1.05 of Form 8-K requiring companies to disclose the material impact of cybersecurity incidents, it’s crucial for CISOs to prepare. Conducting a materiality tabletop exercise with senior executives and counsel helps form an understanding of the processes and decision points needed to determine incident materiality. This proactive approach ensures that your team is ready to disclose incidents appropriately, avoiding civil penalties. Deal With Changing Technology: Make Plans For (Or Against) Platformization As tools, technologies, products, and services consolidate and compete for the biggest share of your security tech stack and the market hurtles toward behemoth proactive and reactive security platform players — in some cases, both — CISOs shouldn’t necessarily match the frenetic pace of the market with platform adoption. Not all platforms make sense for your program and organization, but some may provide benefits exceeding those of point solutions. Recommendation: Reduce your SIEM bill with data pipeline management. Data pipeline management (DPM) tools help reduce data ingest costs and facilitate easier migration to new platforms. By adopting DPM tools, security teams can manage data more efficiently, reducing costs and improving their overall data management strategy. Deal With Changing Threats: Address Geopolitical Issues The current geopolitical climate leaves CISOs with the duty and responsibility to protect their organizations or risk becoming collateral — or direct — damage as governments posture against one another. With trade breakdowns fraying already fragile supply chains and nations vying for AI dominance, focus your defensive efforts to stay nimble and ready to meet new demands placed on your program. Recommendation: Prepare for cryptoagility as a prerequisite for post-quantum security. Quantum computing poses a significant threat to traditional cryptography. CISOs must start preparing for post-quantum security by assessing the impact of quantum computing and ensuring that their systems are cryptoagile. This involves discovering and prioritizing data, keys, and algorithms that need to be updated to quantum-safe cryptography. Deal With Emerging Technology: Keep Your Eyes On The Horizon These technologies should be on the radar of your emerging technology team and security architects, because things will happen quickly once they arrive. Prepare now for what happens as 2025 progresses and we move into 2026. Recommendation: Grow machine identity governance. Machine identities are proliferating, and securing them is crucial. CISOs should build an inventory of machine identities and implement a purpose-built machine identity management solution. This will help prevent unauthorized access and reduce the risk of data breaches. For a deeper dive into these insights and more, read the full report, Top Recommendations For Your Security Program, 2025, and register for our webinar on Wednesday, April 16 at 11 a.m. ET. Forrester clients can also schedule an inquiry or guidance session to discuss our recommendations and how they apply to your organization. source

Imagine the prestige of being recognized on a global stage as a truly customer-obsessed leader of an enterprise that exemplifies customer obsession — a business that not only excels in creating exceptional customer experiences but also inspires others through its remarkable achievements. Forrester’s 2025 Customer Obsession Awards are your opportunity to showcase your organization’s relentless dedication to putting customers at the heart of every business decision and action. Winning this award isn’t just about the honor of being recognized; it’s about the doors it opens. Past winners have seen heightened motivation within their teams, inspiring them to become even more customer-obsessed, along with greater visibility and recognition in their industries. This year, winners and finalists will have the chance to be featured in Forrester reports, video content, social media campaigns, and beyond — maximizing brand recognition and creating moments that endure well past the award ceremony. Exclusive Perks Of Being A Winner Winners will not only bask in the spotlight but also gain unique benefits designed to reward their efforts: Complimentary access to the CX Summit of your respective region, including the opportunity to network with industry leaders Hotel accommodations in the heart of downtown Phoenix, sponsored by Forrester A once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for your leaders to be interviewed live on stage during a keynote session — sharing your story of success, innovation, and impact with the industry’s brightest minds The Ripple Effect Of Winning Winning signals to the world that your organization is forward-thinking, innovative, and truly committed to every stakeholder: your customers, your employees, and your broader community. The award validates your efforts as a leader in achieving tangible results, including higher revenue, customer retention, employee engagement, and brand momentum. Customer obsession isn’t just a buzzword; it’s a difference-maker. Businesses that prioritize customers don’t just stand out; they outperform, achieving increased growth in revenue, profitability, and enrichment. For winners, being acknowledged as customer-obsessed isn’t just an honor — it helps attract top talent, partners, and loyal customers. Your Path To Recognition Starts Now Entering your organization or leader for the Customer-Obsessed Enterprise Award or the Customer-Obsessed Leadership Award is simple but highly impactful. Don’t miss the chance to share your story, elevate your brand, and inspire countless others in your industry. The deadline for award submissions is fast approaching. Download your nomination packet to get started on your journey to the CX winner’s circle. Make 2025 the year your organization gets the spotlight it deserves. We can’t wait to celebrate your success at this year’s CX Summits in Nashville, London, and Sydney! Learn more about Forrester’s Customer Obsession Awards program and previous award winners here. Register to attend Forrester’s 2025 North America, EMEA, and APAC CX Summits. source

We evaluated the Total Economic Impact™ (TEI) of companies that simultaneously use two order management systems (OMSes). Our research uncovered surprising findings. Our TEI focused on businesses that had a preexisting, primary OMS and then added modules of a newer, secondary OMS to fill functionality gaps. Our central question: Why — and is it worth it? For our study, we applied the Forrester Total Economic Impact methodology, which allows us to calculate the ROI of a business decision. The TEI process includes interviewing representatives from companies that have made the business change in question. Then, we aggregate the experiences of interviewees into a composite organization. Finally, we create a financial framework from the material gathered in the interviews to prove the ROI. It considers everything from hard, direct costs to labor. What did we learn? Spoiler: Pursuing a dual OMS strategy is worth it! The positive ROI has a very short break-even point (less than six months). But there are major caveats, and these results aren’t guaranteed. What we expected: Based on conversations with Forrester clients, we expected to find that organizations plan to perpetually maintain both solutions. We believed we would prove such significant benefits that the costs of maintaining both would be worthwhile. We were wrong — at least partially. Two of the most unexpected takeaways: The dual-OMS approach has a big impact on topline revenue in the pre-purchase stages. In fact, businesses that gained revenue-increasing benefits from the secondary OMS saw the most significant results. Modules that add functionality such as enterprise inventory management had the biggest impact. In fact, the modern module additions gave organizations tools to lock in sales that they previously lost due to stock inaccuracies. The dual OMS strategy allows brands to manage complicated inventory calculations and logic, such as managing “safety stock” more tightly. Organizations also served near-real-time inventory data into the shopping experience, which reduced order cancellations from overselling. Organizations unintentionally have begun a slow-motion “strangler” process. Most firms that used the dual OMS strategy initially intended to maintain both OMSes indefinitely, but businesses saw that slowly adding new modules from the second solution was as effective as a replatforming initiative but at a nondisruptive pace. That is why three of the four interviewees said they ultimately intend to incrementally replace their primary OMS with the secondary one. In addition to the considerable benefits the secondary OMS brought, interviewees realized the add-on process had inadvertently jump-started their replacement. They won’t move quickly, but with such a major step toward replacement complete, they now feel that the rest of the migration is possible. The OMS market right now is currently in flux as longer-standing systems work to modernize their architecture. Meanwhile, the vendors with open, modular architecture are developing functionality and enhanced experiences that push the market forward. In the full report, we dive into the details of how the organizations realized the ROI of their approach and how we calculated the economic benefits. We also noted the risks of attempting similar strategies due to the varying needs of digital businesses. To learn more, read the full report here. Have questions or need support about how to embark on a dual-system strategy in OMS or commerce? Please book a guidance session with me! source

As technology leaders in the Australian federal government, you’re no strangers to the complexities and challenges of machinery-of-government (MoG) changes. These changes, akin to M&A in the private sector, involve restructuring agencies, merging departments, and redistributing functions to align with evolving mission priorities. But sentiment within the Australian public service (APS) towards MoG changes tends to be cautious, with concerns about their potential to hinder service delivery and organizational stability. And with the upcoming 2025 federal election, these changes are likely to intensify, prompting significant upheaval across federal agencies. Regardless of political views, public sector leaders must be prepared and remain true to the core values of the APS. As Australia’s 14th prime minister, John Curtin, who steered the nation through World War II, said, “To lead is to serve, to put the needs of others before your own.” Understanding MoG Changes MoG changes, even in jurisdictions like Australia where they’re common, are often sudden, rarely smooth, and can reduce morale or worse, lead to burnout. But through active management by public service leaders, organizational effectiveness and efficiency can be enhanced by tailoring structures to serve current mission needs. In my latest report, Master The Public Sector’s Machinery-Of-Government Change, my colleague Bobby Cameron and I identified three major mission shifts that Australian federal agencies will face in the coming months and will inevitably need to respond to post-election: Establishing a new mission. This involves creating new agencies or reorienting existing ones to address emerging priorities. For example, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s appointment of Jacinta Nampijinpa Price as the shadow minister for government efficiency highlights the Coalition’s focus on eliminating government waste and improving efficiency. Reinforcing an existing mission. This includes merging or rebranding agencies to strengthen their mission. The Albanese Labor Government has made significant changes in the last 12 months, such as investing in affordable housing and making renting fairer, which reinforces their commitment to addressing the housing crisis. Modifying the mission objective. This occurs when the scope of an agency’s work changes, often leading to the splitting or abolishing of departments. The Labor Government has also focused on tackling climate change by legislating to reduce emissions, thus modifying the mission of various environmental agencies. Common Challenges In MoG Changes Regardless of the type of mission shift that is driving the MoG change, IT departments in impacted agencies face common challenges: Duplicate systems and infrastructure. Each agency has its own set of applications and technology, leading to increased costs and complexity when integrating systems. Addressing this duplication is crucial for achieving operational efficiency. Legislative and policy barriers. Government policies for data protection, security, and privacy can inhibit successful integration. Ensuring that supporting legislation is in place — or exceptions are obtained through proper channels — is essential for smooth transitions. Distinct IT organizations. Different agencies have unique operating processes and decision-making structures. Transitioning to a unified IT organization requires careful planning and coordination. Diverse criteria for success. While IT management focuses on operational stability, agency management looks for mission effectiveness. Aligning these criteria is vital for achieving overall success. Strategies For Successful MoG Changes To navigate these challenges, we recommend that technology leaders in the Australian federal government, and their stakeholders, adopt the following strategies: Early planning and due diligence. Begin planning as soon as a MoG change becomes probable. This proactive approach allows for better resource allocation and minimizes disruptions. Once the election campaign begins and you enter caretaker mode, consider scenario planning based on policy pronouncements from major parties. This isn’t the time to sit idle. Stakeholder engagement. Involve all relevant stakeholders early in the process to ensure buy-in and smooth implementation. This includes not only internal teams but also external partners and the public. Align IT with mission goals. Understand the IT investments required by the new mission and revise the IT strategy accordingly. Develop a clear investment plan to build the necessary capabilities and technologies or decommission outdated systems. Establish robust governance. Define the decision-making structure and fill key organizational positions early. Form an integration project team to manage the transition and ensure knowledge transfer or preservation. Stage integration deliverables. Plan critical milestones in phases to manage implementation risk. Prioritize early savings and synergies while balancing long-term goals. Iterate if necessary to reduce the risk of unintended consequences from rapid reforms. Clear communication. Maintain transparent and consistent communication throughout the process. This helps manage expectations and reduces uncertainty among staff. Measure success based on intentions. Evaluate the success of MoG changes based on improved customer and employee experiences, reduced risk exposure, cost efficiency, and mission success. As the election approaches, the ability to manage these changes effectively will be crucial for maintaining the stability and efficiency of the APS. By staying true to core values and adopting proactive strategies, both business and technology leaders can navigate any potential upheaval and continue to meet the needs of all Australians. Stay proactive, plan early, and focus on delivering value through well-managed change. Forrester remains committed to being at your side and by your side. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions or need further insights on managing changes in your agency. Forrester has a proud team of analysts that make up our public sector and government community of practice. Let’s work together to help you continue to achieve mission success. source

Last month, Apple decided to stop offering its Advanced Data Protection (ADP) feature to new customers in the UK, and customers who opted in for the service in the past will stop enjoying it soon. Without ADP, users’ photos and documents stored in Apple’s cloud won’t be protected with end-to-end encryption. Until now, only users could access this data, but in the future, Apple and other third parties, including malicious ones, will be able to do so. This decision came as a response to the UK government’s request to Apple to grant access to users’ data in certain cases. After deciding to stop ADP, the US-based company has apparently initiated legal action in an attempt to avoid complying with the government’s request. Apple’s Decision To End ADP Suggests That Users’ Privacy Is At Risk Everywhere Regardless of what will happen in court, the decision to stop ADP came as a shock, as Apple has built its brand on the commitment to protect its users’ privacy at all cost. In the past, other government agencies tried to force the company to back down from its privacy commitment, but Apple always resisted those attempts, until now. What a disappointment! Apple has broken its promise to keep users’ data safe and private and, in turn, is risking breaking users’ trust. Our research identifies one of the key components of trust as the ability of a company to “keep its promise,” and Apple sadly didn’t. Consumers in the UK will take note. Data suggests that when it comes to UK consumers: 18% say they would stop doing business permanently with a company if it did something that appears to contradict the values the company stands for. 20% would buy less from the same company. 23% would advocate against that company. Apple’s UK Decision May Have Global Repercussions Apple, with a long-standing commitment to users’ privacy, has backed down in the face of a government’s request to access users’ data. What happens when other governments will ask other companies, including those historically less concerned with the protection of users’ privacy, to do the same? What happened in the UK sets a global precedent. The fact that, paradoxically, it was Apple’s decision to set this precedent is also meaningful. Undermining consumers’ privacy is a mistake. Our research shows that across the globe, data privacy is still the top issue and where consumers believe that companies should lead change. Ultimately, this signals what consumers consider companies to be responsible for and have control over, such as protecting their customers’ data. The UK Government Must Build, Not Destroy, Trust Ending ADP in the UK means the government will be able to access users’ data, with Apple UK customers short of any other means of preventing it. According to Forrester’s Global Government, Society, And Trust Survey, 2024, 65% of UK consumers agree or strongly agree that they have the right to keep their personal data private from the government. Citizen backlash is already happening! This is important and impactful because: UK citizen trust in their government is already weak. While variations appear between gender, age, and income, data that Forrester collected at the end of 2024 shows that trust in the UK government is weak across all demographics. As we pointed out earlier, low levels of trust mean that governments, agencies, and the public sector in general will struggle to successfully implement mission-critical activities. The UK government is determined to embrace AI across core government activities and the public sector. It’s also bravely trying to find its own path between the regulated approach of the EU and the unregulated approach of the US. But without trust, both strategies will likely fail or only achieve limited outcomes. Prioritizing Trust Must Become The New Modus Operandi As we highlighted previously, there are specific levers of trust that become more important than others in relation to AI and its risks. Government teams building and implementing AI applications for UK citizens must prioritize being able to understand, and act on, those levers of trust. Our research also demonstrates that citizens don’t all react the same way in regards to trust. Depending on their behavior and the levers of trust that they prioritize in their relationship with government and the public sector, we created four citizen segments. For example, the segment that we call “supporters,” which includes those who typically comply with government directives and seek general positive collective outcomes, will likely be the most negatively impacted by the government’s decision to access citizens’ data that, until now, they believed to be private. Governments and the public sector must understand how different groups behave in response to certain decisions and experiences, as well as how their trust (and their behavior) can be restored. Stay tuned for more research on these topics if you are interested, and if you are a Forrester client, schedule a guidance session to continue the conversation. source

If there’s one topic that technology executives are taking a more proactive posture toward lately, it’s the reduction of technical debt to lower costs and optimize their technology landscape. The reasons driving the urgency behind this topic are clear. In an ever-more complex digital age that brings increased volatility and economic uncertainty, technology leaders are focused on technical debt today because they simply can’t risk their organizations being weighed down by the unexpected bloat and growing costs of technical debt. Reduction of technical debt to free up capital and resources and drive growth is a top priority. This shift in leadership philosophy reflects a recognition that doing nothing, or even just taking a reactive approach, is insufficient and will no longer be tolerated as a business strategy. Many technology executives are working to get unstuck in these areas and learn the pragmatic steps that they can take to confidently solve their technical debt challenges. As with many challenges, a good first step is asking the right questions. Here are some of the key questions to ask in your journey to managing technical debt. Understand The Challenge For many IT organizations historically, technical debt just wasn’t prioritized properly. Business leaders didn’t understand the impact, and technology leaders weren’t effectively conveying the challenge to the business. Successfully managing technical debt requires some cultural transformation, and the first step toward this change is asking two related questions that highlight technical debt’s impact on business objectives: How is technical debt (and obsolescence) impacting our overall business growth and revenue? How are we addressing and prioritizing this issue in our technology investments going forward? Once business leaders understand the magnitude and consequences of technical debt across the organization, then you’ll be able to address it more strategically and consistently. Understand The Risk In The Portfolio Outdated application development and deployment practices, or antiquated or legacy IT systems, can bring specific risks to certain parts of the business. For executives to understand the risk of technical debt, they must quantify and qualify the potential for technology to severely hinder or overwhelm the business. To understand these risks, you must first ask two key questions: What is the financial exposure if a system fails? How is technical debt in specific areas (martech, fintech, etc.) impacting the ability to innovate, respond, and compete? Foster A Culture of Continuous Improvement And Innovation Addressing technical debt is not a single project. It’s a long-term strategy and requires adopting a culture that supports both technical and operational excellence. It’s a mindset ensuring that technology remains a valued asset and isn’t looked at as a temporary fix (using tech as a short-term fix can quickly add to your technical debt). The key questions to ask to achieve this include: How are we aligning the prioritization of empowering our people and technology modernization with our business strategy? Is this transparent across operations and fostered within our teams? Managing technical debt can be a challenging but essential part of your broader technology strategy. Answering these key questions will help in understanding the extent of technical debt in your organization and how to implement strategies to address it. Learn More Want to dive deeper into some solutions to managing your technical debt? Our Technology Leader’s Toolkit For Managing Technical Debt provides some very clear priorities and a step-by-step guide to managing technical debt. Also, our Technical Debt Red Flag Checklist will help you identify warning signs before they become major issues. And as always, Forrester clients can check out our client-only reports on technical debt and set up a guidance session to dive deep into the issues. source

Plain language is a key driver of CX quality in health insurance, but only half of US online adults who are health insurance customers say it’s easy to understand their coverage. This key indicator has been trending downwards: It was 57% in 2023 and reached a high of 59% in 2022. Health insurers must act now to communicate clearly and help customers act with confidence. Build Value With Customers By Simplifying Key Moments Through Plain Language Using plain language helps customers understand important information about their healthcare. It shows that health insurers appreciate their customers and want to help them — which evokes emotions like feeling valued, appreciated, and respected. These key emotions in turn drive customer loyalty in the US health insurance industry. Furthermore, clear communication plays a key role in building customers’ trust in their health insurer: “Makes information easy to understand on their website” ranked as the second driver of trust for US health insurers in 2024. Many companies think they’re communicating in plain language, but often that’s far from the truth. At least 90% of insured US adults want clearer communications from their health insurer, particularly about covered services and related costs. Are your customers calling you for reassurance? Do customers repeatedly ask for clarification on the same terms? Are the words, phrases, or concepts your customers use to describe their needs and questions different than yours? These are some indicators that your communication is not clear enough. The good news is that these customer interactions are also an opportunity for you to determine which areas need a plain language overhaul. Check out our new report, Health Insurers: Communicate Clearly To Help Your Customers Decide With Confidence, to learn how customer research can help you uncover new opportunities to apply plain language. You’ll also learn five best practices to communicate clearly. Let’s Connect If you’re a Forrester client and would like to discuss this topic further, set up a conversation with us here. Related Forrester Content source

Internationally, The UK Is Prioritizing AI Security Over Safety Last week, together with the US, the UK refused to sign an international agreement on artificial intelligence at a global AI summit in Paris. The agreement aims to align 60 countries on a commitment to develop AI in an open, inclusive, and ethical way. According to the UK government, however, it fails to address global AI governance issues and leaves questions on national security unanswered. Yes, these types of agreements rarely produce any immediate changes to policy or practices (in fact, this is not what they are for!), but it’s an odd justification, and it’s puzzling that the UK, which championed “AI safety” globally and promoted the adoption of a range of agreements in the past, is walking away from it now. Meanwhile, the UK Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology announced that the global “AI Safety Institute” changed its name to become the “AI Security Institute.” Make no mistake: This is more than a name change. The new focus of the AI Security Institute is primarily on cybersecurity, and previous goals — such as understanding societal impacts of AI and mitigating risks such as unequal outcomes and harming individual welfare — are no longer explicit parts of its mission. Domestically, The UK Wants To Drive Public-Sector AI Innovation Not only was the UK government busy building new tech/geopolitical relationships, it also made some domestic decisions that UK citizens and consumers should be watching. These include: An agreement with Anthropic to start building AI-powered services. Last week, the UK government and AI provider Anthropic signed a memorandum of understanding, marking the beginning of a collaboration that will enable the UK public sector to harness the power of AI for a range of services and experiences. The immediate goal is to use Claude, Anthropic’s family of large language models (LLMs), to launch a chatbot that will improve the way citizens in the UK access public-sector information and services. Bold future plans. This is just the beginning. Future plans include the use of Anthropic’s LLMs across a range of public-sector activities, from scientific research to policy-making, supply chain management, and much more. As the UK government embraces over 50 different initiatives that bring AI to the core of its public sector and government activities, according to the latest “AI opportunities action plan,” future collaboration with other AI providers beyond Anthropic is the obvious next step. New AI guidelines for government departments. To complete the fray of AI-related activity, new guidelines for the use of AI and generative AI in the public sector also saw the light of day last week. The Artificial Intelligence Playbook for the UK Government expands the 2024 Generative AI Framework for His Majesty’s Government, but it substantially remains a set of basic, common-sense principles that public servants should apply when using AI and genAI. It seems to be too little, though, especially if compared with the volume and magnitude of the UK’s AI ambitions and projects. Innovation Without Citizen Trust Will Be Meaningless AI is an incredible opportunity for virtually every organization, including the public sector. The enthusiasm that the UK government is putting into its current and future AI projects is refreshing to see, but a commitment to trustworthy AI is paramount to keep the enthusiasm going and avoid backlash — especially in a country where there currently aren’t, and in the future probably won’t be, any rules and governance for trustworthy AI. As Forrester’s government trust research shows, when trust in institutions is strong, governments reap social, economic, and reputational benefits that enable them to expand and extend their relationship with the people they serve. When trust is weak, they lose those benefits and must work harder to create and maintain economic well-being and social cohesion in order for people to prosper. According to the latest Forrester data, overall trust in UK government organizations is weak, with a score of 42.3 on our 100-point scale. There are two main priorities for the UK public sector and its partners as they embrace AI: Establish and follow a trustworthy framework for every AI project. The new AI playbook is a good starting point. Other AI risk frameworks can further increase the effectiveness of the playbook to deliver responsible and trustworthy AI. The EU AI Act, which is not binding for the UK public sector and its partners, for example, can still provide a set of valid principles to assess AI risks and select risk mitigation strategies. Design and build AI applications that engender citizen trust. It’s vital that you understand and act on the drivers that impact how UK citizens trust the UK government the most as well as the effects that trust has on specific governmental mission-critical activities. Once the dynamics that govern trust are clear, public servants can more effectively develop strategies that specifically address the “trust gap” and help grow and safeguard citizens’ trust. If you want to know more about Forrester’s government trust research or AI trustworthy frameworks, please schedule a guidance session with us. source