The trends I hope to see in how organisations deliver services in 2026

Everyone is publishing their predictions for 2026.

I have read plenty about what is coming in marketing and how we work. Some of it genuinely brings me relief. Less pressure to constantly post on social media sounds great. I am very ready to step away from algorithms and towards more sustainable ways of sharing what I do.

But when it comes to how organisations actually deliver services, support customers, and retain their teams, the conversation feels thin.

Beyond “get on the AI train before it’s too late”, there is very little being said about the day-to-day reality of service delivery, especially in regulated, purpose-led organisations.

So here are the trends I would like to see in 2026. These are the things I am building in my own business and helping my clients work towards, at different scales and in different contexts.

Accessibility that goes beyond words, colours, and fonts

Basic accessibility matters. Clear language, accessible colours, readable fonts and inclusive formats are non-negotiable. There is still plenty of work to do there, and that work must continue.

But that is not where I get excited. That is the minimum standard. The tick-the-box work that gives organisations permission to play.

The accessibility I care about is the kind that makes things easier to do.

No more forms that need to be downloaded, printed, signed, scanned, and emailed back. That sounds obvious, but I am a reasonably tech-savvy person who has been sitting on a cancellation form for weeks simply because it must be completed as a fillable PDF on a computer. And when I'm on my laptop, I have many other things to do far more interesting and important than a form.

For many people, cancelling a local pool or gym membership through a fillable PDF is not just annoying, it is impossible. It means taking time off work and going in person during business hours.

That is friction hiding in plain sight.

The accessibility I am talking about is the kind that allows a busy parent to complete a task while waiting for school pick-up. Or a daughter awake at 3am trying to find support for her ageing parents. Or a late-diagnosed ADHD woman realising that things have always felt harder because, in many cases, they actually were harder.

This is about making services easier to access and easier to move through. For customers, for teams, and for leaders.

Reducing friction as a design choice, not a nice-to-have

Most organisations carry far more friction than they realise.

Forms that ask for the same information multiple times. Processes that require unnecessary approvals. Steps that exist because

“that’s

how we’ve

always

done it”.

None of this comes from bad intent. It comes from growth, change, and layers being added over time.

In 2019, a leader I was working with in regional Victoria said, “we have workarounds for our workarounds”. I still hear that sentence regularly, across councils, disability services, health organisations, and social enterprises.

As organisations evolve, customer expectations change, and regulatory requirements increase, ways of working do not always keep pace.

People adapt.

They compensate.

They find shortcuts to keep things moving.

Over time, that turns into a lot of invisible effort.

In 2026, I would love to see organisations challenge every process and form with one simple question: does this make life easier or harder for the person on the other side? please: go ahead and write it on a post-it note and put it on your computer.

Removing friction is one of the most powerful ways to improve customer experience, employee experience, and organisational sustainability, without adding more work.

Systems and processes that go beyond compliance

Compliance is important. I am married to a quality engineering manager. I know far more about toy compliance than I ever expected to, and I fully understand why rules and standards exist. (feel free to ask lol)

The issue is not compliance itself. The issue is what happens when compliance becomes the ceiling rather than the baseline.

In industries like disability services, aged care, health, and environmental services, compliance frameworks are complex and demanding. Many organisations are doing everything they can just to keep up.

I recently worked with a disability services organisation to redesign their onboarding forms. They had paid for those forms the year before to ensure they were compliant and audit-ready. From a regulatory perspective, they were doing everything right.

From a participant perspective, the experience was painful.

The language was inaccessible. T

he colours were not accessible or aligned to the organisation’s brand.

The tone of voice felt cold and transactional, completely disconnected from the care they wanted people to feel. Many questions were repeated across multiple forms.

Participants told them that onboarding felt more difficult than applying to work in defence.

The organisation had not failed.

They had met the requirements. But compliance alone had shaped the experience.

In 2026, I want to see more organisations designing systems and processes that meet compliance requirements while also enabling people to achieve what they actually need, whether that is accessing support, improving their health, or simply ordering groceries.

Compliance keeps the doors open. Design determines how it feels to walk through them.

Services that are distinct, not just safe

In heavily regulated environments, it is easy for services to start looking and feeling the same.

Templates get reused. Language converges. Processes mirror what neighbouring organisations are doing because it feels safer to follow what has already passed audit.

Over time, this sameness makes it harder for people to choose. It also makes it harder for organisations to build long-term sustainability.

Distinct services are not about breaking rules or doing something wildly different. They are about being intentional about how you show up, how you support people, and how your services fit into real lives.

In 2026, I would love to see more organisations confidently designing services that reflect who they are and who they serve, while still operating responsibly within their constraints.

A middle ground between big ideas and meaningless tweaks

Purpose-led organisations have spent years trying to improve without breaking rules, burning out people, or spending money they cannot justify.

You probably have sat through more innovation workshops that led nowhere than you care to admit. Big, shiny ideas that looked good on a slide but never made it into practice.

At the same time, many organisations are stuck making small, incremental changes that barely shift the experience at all.

There is a middle ground.

A space where organisations can clearly define the future they want to create and then design their way towards it, step by step, in ways that are realistic, fundable, and actually used.

That is the space I am most interested in working in.

In 2026, I hope to see fewer buzzwords and less theatre, and more thoughtful, intentional service design that makes life easier for customers and teams.

Because when things feel harder than they should, it is rarely because people are failing. More often, it is because the work was never designed for the reality organisations are operating in now.

Organisations challenging systems that reward the wrong thing

This one is close to my heart.

There are many systems that were created with good intentions and have slowly drifted away from the purpose they were meant to serve. Over time, they begin to reward efficiency, predictability, and risk avoidance over outcomes that actually matter.

I read the phrase “well-intentioned harm” recently, and it has stayed with me. It captures this pattern perfectly.

When systems are designed to optimise for the wrong signals, people inside them are often doing their best and still contributing to outcomes that don’t sit right.

Maternity systems are a clear example.

In many first world countries, caesarean and induction rates are far above what the World Health Organisation recommends. Of course, these interventions are sometimes lifesaving and absolutely necessary. That is not in question.

But when they become the default rather than the exception, it is worth asking why.

In many cases, it is not because outcomes are better. It is because the system rewards speed, throughput, scheduling certainty, and risk transfer more than it rewards patience, trust, and long-term wellbeing.

The result can be loss of confidence, more complex recoveries, and long-term impacts for both mothers and babies. Not because anyone intended harm, but because the system quietly nudged behaviour in that direction.

This pattern is not limited to healthcare.

You see it when:

• Kids food filled with preservatives and artificial colours or flavours that are prohibited in other countries because of their links to cancer.

• Funding models reward activity rather than impact

• Performance measures prioritise outputs over outcomes

• Compliance frameworks incentivise caution over care

• Reporting requirements shape behaviour more than real-world need

In 2026, I hope to see more organisations willing to gently but bravely question the systems they operate within.

Not by rejecting them outright, but by asking better questions.

What behaviour does this system reward? What behaviour does it discourage?Who benefits most from how this works today? And who quietly carries the cost?

Challenging systems that reward the wrong thing is not about rebellion. It is about responsibility.

It is about recognising that good intentions are not enough if the design of the system leads people away from the outcomes they care about most.

My wishlist for 2026

So if I had to distil all of this into a simple wishlist for 2026, it would look like this:

• Organisations designing accessibility as ease, not just compliance

• Fewer processes that exist “just in case”, and more that support real life

• Systems and tools that serve people, not the other way around

• Services that are distinct, human, and grounded in who they exist for

• Less innovation theatre, and more thoughtful, achievable change

• Leaders questioning what their systems reward, not just whether they work

None of this requires perfection. None of it requires breaking rules or burning people out.

It requires attention. Intention. And the willingness to pause long enough to notice where things have drifted.

If 2026 brings us fewer buzzwords and more care in how services are designed, delivered, and experienced, that would feel like real progress.

Because when organisations make things easier for the people they serve and the people who work within them, everyone benefits.

And that, for me, is a future worth designing for.

If this reflection resonated, Mighty SHiFTS is where I share this kind of thinking more regularly. No noise. No hype. Just practical perspective for leaders who want to design work that actually works.

Until next time,

Keep on Shifting with Purpose,

Catalina Bonavia

catalina@weshift.com.au