Session 1: Measuring DPI Inclusion

Key takeaways

• Design vs. Adoption Framework: To effectively measure inclusion, we must distinguish between inclusive design (supply-side) and inclusion through adoption (demand-side). These complementary parameters reflect the maturity of a DPI system and reveal whether marginalised populations are truly being served.
• Dual-Level Adoption Metrics: Adoption serves as a critical litmus test for DPI inclusivity and must be measured at two distinct levels:

1. Participant adoption: Organizations using DPI as infrastructure for service delivery
2. Population adoption: Citizens and individuals accessing services through DPI

• Supply-Side Considerations: Effective DPI requires political commitment, robust regulatory frameworks, clear access boundaries, and recognition of diverse stakeholders beyond individual citizens.
• Demand-Side Insights: Meaningful inclusion extends beyond access to quality of engagement, requires understanding diverse user needs, recognises the role of intermediaries, and respects data sovereignty.

Session Notes

As global governance initiatives convene to create safety nets around digital public infrastructure (DPI), there is an increasing need to make transparent how DPI embodies the normative values it claims to represent. Inclusion stands at the heart of this challenge, offering a litmus test for whether DPI can achieve population-scale outcomes while preserving public values. On March 9, 2025,  IIPP along with Co-Develop  convened the first session of its Community of Practice (CoP) on DPI Measurement, focusing specifically on frameworks for measuring inclusion. The session brought together researchers, policymakers, technical providers, and civil society representatives to explore a critical question: how can we effectively measure whether DPI systems are genuinely inclusive in both design and impact?

The Dual Lens of DPI Inclusion Measurement

Understanding inclusion in DPI requires examining both how systems are designed to foster inclusion (supply-side) and how they are actually experienced by diverse populations (demand-side). This dual perspective formed the conceptual foundation for our session design, reflecting the multidimensional nature of inclusion measurement that extends beyond simple binary metrics of access.

The purpose of the session was to explore these distinct measurement frameworks in greater depth, examining the extent to which they require different methodological approaches and analytical tools. With this aim, the session comprised two parallel discussions aimed at addressing the particular requirements of inclusion measurement from supply-side perspective (led by members of the IIPP) and from a demand-side perspective (led by members of Co-Develop). Following these parallel explorations, the session brought participants together to synthesize insights and identify potential coordination mechanisms.

This session design was guided by the aim to advance understanding of how effective measurement of inclusion requires coordinating these perspectives to understand both the presence of inclusive features in DPI systems and their real-world impact on diverse populations. By bringing together experts working from both perspectives, the session aimed to begin addressing the coordination challenge that represents both a conceptual hurdle and a practical imperative for the emerging field of DPI measurement.

Supply-Side Metrics: Designing for Inclusion

The supply-side breakout discussion, led by IIPP, explored the technical design principles and implementation metrics essential for measuring inclusive DPI systems. Participants engaged in a structured conversation that distinguished between foundational design principles and the practical implementation metrics needed to evaluate their effectiveness.

The discussion highlighted several key design principles that underpin inclusive DPI. Participants emphasised the importance of device-agnostic design that enables access across diverse technological contexts, and comprehensive language and dialect support to prevent linguistic barriers to access. The conversation also explored how DPI systems can be designed to facilitate both government and private sector service provision, with particular attention to the role of “relaying parties” as key service providers in the private sector.

A notable thread in the discussion was the critical distinction between system design and implementation outcomes. Participants emphasised that inclusive design must be reinforced by robust regulatory frameworks and accountability structures. This led to exploration of various implementation metrics, including demographic enrolment rates and service coverage measurements that can reveal whether design intentions translate into inclusive deployment.

Participants also interrogated fundamental questions about what makes DPI “public,” highlighting the need to clearly define “who a user is” (noting that government entities are also users) and broadening the concept of “user needs” beyond individual citizens to include various institutional stakeholders.

Key Outcomes from the Supply-Side Discussion:

• Political will is foundational: Before any technical implementation, strong political commitment and leadership are essential to drive inclusive DPI systems and ensure they remain aligned with public interest goals.
• Regulatory frameworks matter: Inclusive design principles must be reinforced by effective regulation for inclusion, with incentive structures that align with accountability requirements.
• Access boundaries must be defined: Measurement should clarify which systems/players DPI gives access to and which it doesn’t, particularly in terms of private sector participation.
• User perspectives must be broadened: Effective measurement must recognise diverse user groups, including government entities and private sector stakeholders, not just individual citizens
• Definitional boundaries are often blurred: Participants noted that the distinction between supply-side and demand-side metrics is frequently ambiguous in practice, suggesting the need for more nuanced framing that recognises their interconnected nature.

Demand-Side Metrics: Measuring Lived Experience

The demand-side breakout discussion, led by Co-Develop, focused on metrics that capture how diverse populations actually experience DPI systems in practice. This conversation moved beyond binary access measures to explore more nuanced assessments of meaningful access and the actual value generated for various user groups.

A central insight from the discussion was the need to broaden understanding of who constitutes a user in DPI contexts. Participants noted that for some DPI components (particularly data exchanges), the primary users may be government entities rather than individual citizens. This recognition challenges conventional approaches to user experience measurement and suggests the need for differentiated metrics across different DPI components.

The group emphasized the importance of understanding communities’ holistic experiences with DPI, not merely tracking access statistics. This framing shifts assessment toward measuring value generation and quality of engagement across diverse demographic groups. Participants proposed surveying not only end users but also intermediary groups whose operations and service delivery have been transformed through DPI implementation.

Data sovereignty emerged as a critical consideration in measuring demand-side inclusion. Participants highlighted the ethical imperative to respect community ownership of data collected about their experiences, suggesting that inclusive measurement approaches must themselves embody ethical data practices.

Key Outcomes from the Demand-Side Discussion:

• Inclusion goes beyond access: Meaningful measurement must go beyond binary access metrics to assess quality of engagement and value generated for users.
• Intermediaries matter: Comprehensive assessment should include surveying intermediary groups whose service delivery practices have changed with DPI implementation.
• User definition requires expansion: Different DPI components serve different primary users, requiring differentiated measurement approaches based on the specific user landscape.
• Demographic variables require context: Effective measurement must identify which communities and groups are actually using DPI systems and adapt assessment accordingly.
• Data sovereignty is essential: Measurement approaches must respect community ownership of data collected about their experiences.

Coordinating Measurement Approaches

The synthesis discussion following the parallel breakout sessions revealed significant points of convergence between supply-side and demand-side perspectives on measuring DPI inclusion. Participants from both discussions emphasised that the conventional boundaries between these approaches are often more conceptual than practical, suggesting the need for integrated frameworks that transcend this binary framing. A key insight that emerged was the recognition that effective inclusion measurement requires understanding the interlocking sociotechnical contexts that shape DPI access and use. Participants emphasised that design choices interact with user experiences in complex ways, creating feedback loops that can either reinforce or mitigate exclusion.

The discussion identified the need for a more precise and extensive terminology that can serve as the basis to coordinate discussions around inclusion across implementation contexts. Practical challenges to coordination were also acknowledged. These include institutional fragmentation, with different entities responsible for tracking design features versus usage patterns; methodological differences in data collection and analysis; and the challenge of establishing causal relationships between design choices and experienced outcomes. Participants noted that addressing these challenges requires not just technical coordination but also institutional alignment and shared measurement priorities.

Conclusion and Next Steps

This first session of our Community of Practice on DPI Measurement demonstrated the critical importance of developing more sophisticated and coordinated approaches to measuring inclusion in digital public infrastructure. As the global deployment of DPI continues to accelerate, the need for robust measurement frameworks becomes increasingly urgent. Our Community of Practice will continue exploring key issues in DPI measurement in the coming months.

Upcoming Session: Register to join us on May 6th to discuss measurement challenges related to DPI interoperability metrics here.

Register for Updates: To register for upcoming sessions or propose contributions, please visit our Community of Practice newsletter registration link.Subscribing to our newsletter will ensure you receive timely updates about future sessions and opportunities to contribute to the DPI Measurement Community of Practice.