Role
UX / Service designer
Team
Core team of 8
Timeline
10 weeks
Status
Live · built after my involvement
Services
DESIGN THINKING
RESEARCH
STRATEGIC
STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT
Overview
Around 90,000 people a year who lose a partner have to settle their benefits with the Benefits Agency (Toeslagen). The letters were written to be legally compliant, not understood, and didn’t match what the Tax Office sent. For someone grieving, one letter could mean weeks of anxiety.
21
internal and external reports
10
interviews with citizens
17
stakeholders
3
concepts
01
Context
10 weeks, 17 stakeholders
• Constraints
A fully remote process
A core team of eight worked remotely during the pandemic, daily in Webex and Miro.
17 stakeholders
One shared goal, seen through different responsibilities: process, policy, legal, channels and service delivery.
02
Role
Research as a duo / Designing solo
With one other service designer, I ran and synthesised the research, facilitated the concept workshop and aligned 17 stakeholders. We came up with the concepts as a team; I designed all of them, offline and online, and prototyped the final solution.
FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR
I decided
Personas and customer journeys
Designs for all offline and online concepts
Design and prototype of the final solution
Not responsible for
Data analysis for the Benefits Agency
Whether and when to implement
03
Research
Two findings shaped every decision
I based the concepts on 21 internal and external reports and 5 interviews with bereaved citizens.
Key findings
Fear blocked action more than the rules did.
Citizens didn't know where they were in the process, and one wrong field felt like the start of a fine.
Needs varied widely.
One person wanted digital support within a week; another needed months, and a phone call.
CONCEPT WORKSHOP
We distilled the findings into five needs, written from the citizen’s side.
01
I need step-by-step instructions to handle my affairs properly.
02
I feel overwhelmed, and the Benefits Agency shows little empathy.
03
I can’t find the information, so I can’t do what’s expected of me.
04
I don’t know how to calculate what applies to my situation.
05
Letters from the Tax Office and the Benefits Agency don’t match.
04
Concepts
No average bereaved citizen
My first instinct was one concept for the average bereaved person: easier to explain, sell and build. A colleague in the core team challenged that: I was designing for an imagined average user.
• Decision
Three concepts instead of one, for every part of the journey.
• The principles
One task per screen, plain language instead of legal phrasing, and the next step always visible.
01.
The Open Card
A card without an envelope, sent with the condolence letter.
Letters end up unopened at the bottom of the pile.
No envelope, so it’s read with the condolence letter.
They miss what’s expected of them.
Four routes to help: in person, at the counter, by phone or online.
Mail alone doesn’t feel like being heard.
Three of the four routes lead to a person who listens.
Solution 1
02.
Condolence first
A first letter that explains what’s expected, before the formal notice.
The formal notice arrives without warning.
This letter arrives first.
The tone is stark, with no acknowledgement of the loss.
It opens with condolences before asking for anything.
It’s unclear who does what.
What the agency adjusts automatically, and what you report yourself.
Solution 2
03.
My checklist
A personal checklist of what’s done and what’s left.
No idea where to start.
Only the steps that apply to your situation.
People lose track.
Every open action, with instructions.
No confirmation that information arrived.
You see what has been received and processed.
Solution 3
Final solution
All three concepts went into the final report. We built one into a working prototype, the checklist, because it could carry the strongest parts of the other two.
The Open Card raised questions about privacy and call capacity.
Its core stays: help offered early, with contact options at every step.
The first letter needed an income calculation that wasn’t possible yet.
The checklist links to the calculation aid instead.
Trade-offs
• Digital first: citizens who aren’t digitally skilled still rely on the letter and the help channels.
• The income question stayed open: asking for the new income earlier made sense on paper, but was too much during grief, so we chose better guidance.
05
Impact
Tested with the people it was for
In the test with 5 bereaved citizens, participants could say without help where they were in the process and what came next. Those who preferred to call found the contact option in the step where they needed it.
06
Reflection
Empathy is an interface decision
The biggest wins came from removing fear, not adding features: a clearer sentence, a visible next step, reassurance at the right moment. In a government service, that is design work, not tone of voice.
• Key learnings
The question you’re given is rarely the one to answer
The brief asked for a clearer process; the real problem was trust.
Design for the range, not the average
My first instinct was one concept for an average bereaved person. Being challenged on that led to three concepts, and to a checklist that adapts to each situation.
A handover has to carry the intent
Building it was Toeslagen’s call, so I ranked 18 further ideas by customer value and complexity, to make the reasoning outlast my involvement.
