Imagine you want to apply for a grant. You are excited about your idea and the opportunity it could bring, but as soon as you open the guidance material, the excitement fades. The text feels heavy and technical, full of procedures and references to regulations. After hours of reading, you are still not sure where to begin. One applicant described it very clearly: “Understanding the consolidated regulation feels like rocket science.”

Some people will not even make it that far. A user once told us: “I did not apply for the grant after all, because I was unable to fit my case within the framework of the purchasing procedure.” Another admitted: “The purchasing procedure seems so complicated that I don’t want to deal with it. I’m afraid I will make a mistake.” Even those who try to follow the regulations and guidance often get stuck. They wonder whether the rules apply to their case and where to begin. One person said: “I did not know that a procurement procedure was required at all.”  Similar concerns have also been voiced in relation to other legal texts, such as the terms and conditions of grant measures.

These stories reveal a deeper problem. The difficulty is not that people are careless or unwilling. It lies in how laws and regulations are written and turned into services. Specialists often rely on their own knowledge and context when preparing texts, because it feels faster and easier. But what makes sense to an expert can easily confuse the people who actually need to use the service. For many, navigating legal rules feels like entering a jungle without a map or a compass, not to mention a head net to avoid the stings from the bugs (allegory to the financial corrections pertaining to making mistakes).

In Estonia we have started to put these ideas into practice. Our aim is that every applicant, no matter their background, can quickly understand whether a grant is meant for them, how to apply, and what steps to follow afterwards. This is where legal design comes in. It brings design thinking into the legal field with user research: listening to users and understanding their frustrations, expectations, and needs. Based on these insights, documents, services, and processes are reshaped to meet user needs.

At the State Shared Services Centre (SSSC), which manages European Union funds in Estonia, we have begun to apply legal design systematically. Over the past two years we have worked with ministries, implementing agencies, and users in design sprints to rethink the way of working and creating services, legal acts, and information materials. In the following pages, we share two case studies where legal design and information design were used to transform complicated regulatory materials into clear and user-friendly guidance by using plain language, clear structure, and visual tools. These examples show how even small changes in design can remove barriers, reduce frustration, and make the grant application journey smoother and more accessible.

It all started when the service lead, while preparing the user agreement, admitted that even for her it was difficult to fully understand all the legal provisions. From the lawyer’s perspective, the contract was already reasonably well written (and short – only four pages). Yet together we came to the same conclusion: “We can do better.”

This raised a series of questions. Why are the service contracts needed? When and by whom are they read? Do the parties understand the provisions of the contract? These questions formed the problem statement when the team (Service Design Lead Lona Pärtel, IT Business Analyst Kriste Letta, and Lawyer Virge Pihel) began designing the SSSC’s first user-centric contract.

The focus was on the bilateral user agreement for the grants information system, which is typically signed with grant providers. The contract covers the service description, cost, standard conditions, and data processing and data protection aspects. The classic legal structure was information-heavy and difficult for users to grasp. The team’s goal was to understand which information was most important to the user, which was unnecessary and how much of the text was understood at all.

How users’ insights shaped design goals

The team selected six key individuals from the target groups related to the service contract. Interviews were conducted to understand the necessity of the contract, the usability and readability of the information, and the clarity of the process Interestingly, interviews revealed that the service provider (the SSSC) preferred a more general contract template, while the service user (implementing body) wanted all information consolidated in one place rather than being redirected elsewhere. It was also confirmed that the service provider had seen the contract primarily as necessary for disputes, whereas the service user’s main concern was a clear description of the provided service, its scope, and subsequent steps if the scope was exceeded. It became evident that, although standardization and specificity of conditions were most important to the service provider, the service user was uncertain whether they fully understood all applicable conditions. Admittedly, this uncertainty might have stemmed from the service user’s lack of an in-house legal advisor. Once again, the importance of plain language and information architecture when assuming obligations was highlighted.

The team defined three goals for the new contract:

• The service user reads and understands the contract terms, allowing them to focus on their core work.

• Information is easier and faster to retrieve, reducing confusion and disputes.

• Contract drafting is more efficient with reduced administrative burden, ensuring quality service delivery and smooth institutional workflow.

For prototyping the contract’s structure and information architecture, the team used the primary templates compiled in the WorldCC Contract Design Pattern Library[1] as a supporting resource. During the prototype phase, the team drafted contract terms following plain language principles, using a call-to-action tone. Icons reflecting the content were also designed to speed up navigation within the contract.

Testing confirmed faster and more accurate understanding

The team tested the prototype with users twice. In the first round, the team focused on testing the overall approach and revealed that both the visual and verbal elements needed improvement. In the second round the emphasis was on the comprehensibility of the entire contract text and how quickly users could grasp its content. Tests were conducted with lawyers, managers, and service users (a total of 15 tests).

The team used scenario testing to evaluate whether people could find and apply the right information. For example, in the first-round lawyers were asked what happens if the other party violates data protection rules and the dispute goes to court. Could the institution’s interests still be protected under the new wording? The lawyer walked through the document and confirmed that the remedies were clear, while also pointing out details that could be further strengthened. For a service user, the scenario was different: the 108 hours of service included in the contract had been used up. What should they do next? Who should they contact? In the original document, users often struggled to locate this information. In the redesigned version, test participants were able to find the answer much faster, navigating directly to the right section.

In the second round, the team tested more complex scenarios. For example, how should one proceed if the grants register required additional development work? Or under what conditions could service provider share contract-related information with third parties? Again, users were asked to describe how they found the answer, where they looked, and what caused confusion.

Control question answers from the second scenario testing were compelling. They showed that users found answers at least 50% faster in the information-designed contract compared to the original, and all answers were correct, while in the original contract some participants could not find the answers at all.

From the insights gained, the team made changes to the prototype (see Figures 1 and 2):

• The team removed repetitive, redundant clauses and content-empty words from the contract text, making the text more concise. Notable user test quote: “Suspiciously short contract—are all terms really included? At the same time, service provider’s participating lawyers in user tests did not feel that the institution’s interests were any less protected in the user-centric contract design compared to the original document.
• One of the interviewees, a lawyer, was amused when seeing the colourful version of the contract. At the same time, the interviewee pointed out that it is positive for the state to take the lead in such matters, since when both parties are public sector institutions, disputes remain within the system and can be resolved without court costs. This comment emerged during the prototype testing phase, where such reactions and feedback provided valuable insights for refining the prototype.
• Bringing key information and negotiated terms to the front page was beneficial. User test quote: “The first page contains the most important information for both parties.” User test quotes: “For organisations without lawyers, this is helpful,” and “The mind looks for loose ends—the fewer there are, the better.”
• While the original prototype used second-person plural sentences, test results favoured active voice, which clarified roles and correctness.

[1] World Commerce & Contracting, Contract Design Pattern Library https://contract-design.worldcc.foundation/ accessed 4 April 2025.

Figure 1. Example of the contract prototype’s front page

Figure 2. Example of the contract prototype’s last page

Why is a user-centric contract needed in the public sector

The greatest value is risk mitigation. For example, if data processing obligations for the information system are not understood and a risk materializes, liability and consequences largely fall on the system owner. On the other hand, the contract serves as a tool for information transmission, reputation building, process simplification, and delivering a better service experience. A telling user test quote was: “It would be ideal if the state led by example.” Today, this user agreement is already in use. Building on the experience, the same design approach is now being developed further in the context of grant decision acts. While this work is still ongoing, it shows how the lessons learned from one contract can gradually influence other legal documents in the grant system as well.