evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

NL Design System — The Netherlands' Cross-Government Co-Design Relay for Accessible Public Services

Netherlands · The Hague · See the Netherlands profile · See the The Hague profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 82% 52/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

A 'relay model' where specialists from Dutch national and municipal bodies co-design shared, accessibility-tested components — user research explicitly includes people with visual impairments — before components earn production-ready 'Hall of Fame' status.

20 professionals (20+)
Government professionals interviewed (2018-2019 development phase) (2018-2019)
NL Design System — The Netherlands' Cross-Government Co-Design Relay for Accessible Public Services

Details

Promoter
ICTU, commissioned by the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK)
Period
2018 (first meetups) – present
Keywords
public sector, digital government, design systems, accessibility, co-design

Context

The NL Design System (NLDS) is a Dutch government initiative, commissioned by the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK) and coordinated by ICTU, that runs as a 'relay model' in which designers and developers from national agencies and multiple municipalities — including Amsterdam, Utrecht, The Hague and Purmerend — jointly build and maintain shared, accessible UI components rather than each government body maintaining its own.

Objectives

Give citizens and entrepreneurs building blocks that are 'properly tested with users from various target groups' before certifying them, explicitly including people with visual or other disabilities, rather than treating accessibility as a checklist item.

Activities

The system's early development phase (2018-2019) included interviews with more than 20 government professionals and multicriteria-analysis workshops to prioritise which components to build first, using the UK's GOV.UK Design System and the Dutch education agency DUO's system as starting references; components only reach production-ready 'Hall of Fame' status once accessibility requirements are verified in testing.

Results

No updated, quantified adoption figures (such as the number of organisations or live sites using NLDS components) have been published since the 2019 progress report, even though the initiative is still referenced as active in government pages from 2024-2025.

Conclusions

An independent 2019 progress report by Gebruiker Centraal is candid about the model's key risk: without strong top-down organisational commitment, participating agencies can 'drop out at the first technical or organisational hurdle.' This is included as an honest, evidence-strength-limited case — a genuinely participatory, disability-inclusive design methodology whose long-term adoption and impact remain undocumented rather than proven.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k)
Time to results
Long (> 3 years)
Staffing & skills
ICTU, commissioned by the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK); designers and developers from national agencies and municipalities including Amsterdam, Utrecht, The Hague and Purmerend contributing under a 'relay model'

Conditions for success

  • Components only reach production-ready 'Hall of Fame' status once accessibility requirements are verified in testing with users, explicitly including people with visual or other disabilities
  • Early development phase included interviews with 20+ government professionals and multicriteria-analysis workshops to prioritise which components to build, using GOV.UK Design System and DUO's system as references

Common failure modes

  • An independent 2019 progress report by Gebruiker Centraal warned that, without strong top-down organisational commitment, participating agencies can 'drop out at the first technical or organisational hurdle'
  • No updated, quantified adoption figures (number of organisations or live sites using NLDS components) have been published since 2019

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Replication kit

Reusable artefacts from this practice — as published by their sources.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful