Wet Signature Working Group

Background

The aim of this working group was to identify local authority services that include a handwritten signature or seal to endorse a document or contract (a ‘wet signature’) and provide the information needed to acquire and operate an e-signature solution, which meets a set of requirements and is fit for purpose and cost effective.

Over a three-month period, officers from diverse backgrounds and perspectives committed up to two hours of their time per week to help identify opportunities, agree activities, and deliver a set of authority agnostic recommendations.

The group had contribution by officers from: 

• Bridgend
• Cardiff
• Carmarthenshire
• Conwy
• Flintshire
• Monmouthshire 
• Pembrokeshire
• Rhondda Cynon Taff
• Vale of Glamorgan

Activities

The group started by each officer communicating how they imagined the services they operate improving in the future because of positive change resulting from the outputs of the working group.

They considered and categorised each contribution into one of four similar themed ‘problem-to-solve’ bucket. Each problem was converted into a question which if answered would go towards addressing the problem. The problem questions were: 

1. How can we explore what services need wet signatures and understand/document their requirements, including an indication of scale of use?​
2. How can we be certain that the person on the keyboard accessing our services digitally is the person they say they are and be able to prove that fact so that it could be legally backed-up?​
3. How can we best share ideas and solutions for moving away from wet signatures, and then discover a sufficient and secure platform for all to use which legally complies to all regulations?​
4. How can we develop a standardised and efficient method of achieving “suitable authorisation” that does not require staff to travel into the office to print and post paper documents?

Following discussion, the group decided to focus on problem question one.

Serendipitously Carmarthenshire was already looking into opportunities to reduce the number of wet signatures and the progress it had already made proved to be immensely helpful in moving the working group discussions forward. 

Next the group mapped out the steps required to answer the question. This started with identifying the key players effected, ranging from service users (with high and low technical capabilities) to operation managers and potential solution vendors. 

The working group ended with the desired outcome, which for this group was an understanding of what services need wet signatures and the associated requirements, including for each the scale of use.

The contributors went away to discover what services within their authority used wet signatures, and through subsequent discussion, distilled the findings into categories (e.g., housing, legal, and procurement) to provide a more manageable indicator of which services would best benefit from a reduction in wet signature dependency.

Marketplace

The working group identified two clear incumbent e-signature vendors: Adobe Sign and DocuSign, with HelloSign and Onespan Sign seen as a credible alternates.

Recommendation

• Establish an e-signatures Community of Practice, with representation from each of the 22 authorities (also useful for gaining an understanding of what solutions are already in place and how they are used).

Recommended process to acquire and operate an e-signature solution

• Consult other local authorities with experience of e-signatures.
• Carry out internal research into what services need wet signatures and ascertain if there are any legal risks for replacing with e-signatures.
• Gain a good understanding for each service under consideration and the scale of use i.e., the number of required wet signatures per month or year.
• Get to a better understanding of the potential issues of adopting e-signatures by piloting with a couple of internal teams using at least two potential e-signature solutions.
• Get agreement from all stakeholders on which services are within the initial scope.
• Look into joint procurement opportunities i.e., work with other local authorities seeking a similar reduction in wet signatures.

Recommendations requiring centralised funding

To be carried out by a suitably skilled Business Analyst and shared with all the local authorities:

• Develop a set of solution agnostic e-signature user story maps. See example format in Appendix I.
• Develop a set of solution agnostic e-signature functional and non-functional requirements that cover most of the likely e-signature service needs to help improve the quality of any procurement undertaking. See example in Appendix II.
• Seek out economies of scale opportunities where Welsh Government procure an e-signature license and support for each authority with each LA chipping in on a pro rata basis.
• Have a recommended e-signature solution to introduce a consistency of approach across LAs. 

Contributors

A special thanks to the working group contributors: 

Cheryl Canham, Duncan Betteley, Ellie Hughes, Jade Powell, Jason Snead, Kyle Brown, Rob Brookes, Simon Williams, Stephanie Harris, and Victoria Davidson.

Appendices

Appendix I User Story Map

Appendix II System Requirements Specification (EXAMPLE)