Governments need to think about productivity in society-wide terms, not just in terms of the public service

There's been enormous coverage of the new Centrelink debt letters process, whereby the Department of Human Services has automated the process of matching data from the ATO and Centrelink to try to find overpayments (but not underpayments) in welfare benefits to Australia.

The automation has involved removing human quality assurance steps, which has led to the number of debt checking letters growing from 20,000 per year to 20,000 per week. Over 260,000 of these letters have been sent out to-date.

Now automated data-matching can be a fantastic thing when used well. It can reduce duplication in identification processes, find patterns and trends that inform polices and service delivery, and even identify inaccurate payments - as was the intention with this approach.

However for a data-matching process to work well, the system rules need to be well-designed and tested, and the data needs to be comparable so as to be matchable.

The widespread issues that are being reported by former and current Centrelink payment recipients and the enormous (more than 350 articles over the last month) of media coverage suggest that the system that Centrelink put in place meet neither of these conditions.

Without going into the apparent system issues, which have been covered widely, the reason Centrelink and other agencies introduce automated systems is to allow them to achieve the same, or better, outcomes with fewer staff - something that in economic terms lifts the productivity of the agency.

Centrelink has reduced its workforce by around 5,000 staff over the last five years, and moved to have a larger casual workforce with fewer permanent staff. These types of changes are occurring across many large public sector organisations as governments tighten their belts.

However it seems that when governments today act to (hopefully) bring about productivity gains and cost cuts, they focus primarily on a subset of the economy, the public service.

They appear to overlook the potential impacts on other sectors, or the overall productivity or cost dividend to the community they serve.

Let's use the Centrelink situation as an example. By cutting a human quality assurance step, and using a purely automated approach for identifying potential overpayments, Centrelink has transferred the cost of checking that their data is accurate from internal staff to welfare recipients.

Now while it may be appropriate for the people receiving the payments to be responsible for justifying why they receive them, there is a significant productivity cost when passing the task of quality assuring claims from trained and experienced staff with strong systems supporting them to low income, sometimes low education, citizens.

This productivity cost is exacerbated when these citizens are expected to re-prove their eligibility for past welfare payments, dating back as far as six years. The citizens now must track down former employers, landlords and education providers to source the materials that Centrelink has decided it now requires (often for a second or third time) to revalidate past payments.

So not only are individual citizens required to spend significant time checking the documentation Centrelink holds on them (which is subject to errors from mistaken entry by Centrelink staff and algorithmic mistakes, such as averaging a citizen's part-time or sporadic pay over 26 fortnightly periods), but must also involve the time of a range of former employers and landlords.

Now I've been going through an employment process (you'll hear more about this shortly), which required me to source a range of documents from 4-6 years ago from former employers - both public and private sector. While not the same as the process welfare recipients are facing, it required similar information such as old payslips and employment dates.

All the organisations were very prompt in responding (thanks to you all), taking no more than two weeks to pull together what was required - however I estimate that the combined time they spent on this one matter for me exceeded ten hours work time, just for one person in one clearcut situation.

For the 260,000 welfare recipients who may have to re-source material from employers and others, this time adds up to potentially millions of hours of lost productivity for the companies involved - that's outside the time spent by the welfare recipients themselves to 'prove' they were not overpaid, or not as much as Centrelink claims they were.

The Minister for Human Services suggested before Christmas that around $300 million in debt had been recovered, this was later revised to being debt identified, with neither the Minister nor Department able to conclusively say how much had actually been paid to the Commonwealth.

Now let's look at a few estimates.

Welfare recipients are reporting that they are spending up to dozens of hours resolving this matter with Centrelink. That includes pulling together documents, dealing with former employers. waiting on the phone with Centrelink for up to four hours, with multiple call-backs for dropped lines, managing difficulties with MyGov and other associated activities.

For past recipients (who may have spent a few months or years on welfare when studying or during gaps in employment) who are currently employed, this can require non-productive time in business hours while at work (the only time Centrelink takes calls) and cutting into other job-related or educational activities outside hours.

In addition their former employers and educational institutions are spending hours pulling up old payslips from archives - noting that where employers have shut-down this becomes even more difficult and time consuming.

If we assume that the average welfare recipient is spending 6 hours on dealing with their Centrelink debt and that former employers are spending another 4 hours servicing their requests to meet DHS requirements, that's 10 hours productivity lost per debt notice.

Now if we assume that 60% of debt notices require this time investment, based on 260,000 notices issued, that's 156,000 debt notices on which people are spending 10 hours each on resolving - whether or not there is an overpayment at the end of the process.

Let's take a hourly rate of $30 - low for Australia - as the dollar cost of those hours. Based on 156,000 notices at 10 hours effort (1,560,000 hours effort total), at that dollar rate the cost to the economy is $46.8 million dollars.

Now that's the direct productivity cost to citizens and businesses. On top of that there's been extensive involvement by not-for-profit legal and counselling services dealing with an upsurge in complaints and counselling needs and the mental and physical distress people facing large unexpected Centrelink debt notices are currently facing, harming their ongoing productivity and effectiveness.

There's also time spent by citizens on social media engagement, the creation and management of the NotMyDebt website and, finally, the time being spent by Centrelink's own staff sorting out debt issues which could have been easily screened out through a QA process.

I'd estimate from the above that the net productivity cost to Australia of saving Centrelink's QA step is already approaching about $80 million, without considering the longer-term cost of the loss of credibility and potential impact that will have on future productivity.

While the Commonwealth may be able to claw back this amount of money via the debt notices, I think that the situation is already well past the point where the situation has a net productivity loss to Australia as a society.

In other words, the cost of reclaiming this debt in this manner, is significantly outweighed by the overall productivity cost to the country. Sure it might make a good political statement for a 'no-nonsense' approach to welfare (though this appears challenged by poll results), but the economic cost makes the approach very hard to justify from a pragmatic perspective.

Government is likely to face more and more of these types of situations as it attempts to lift productivity and/or cut costs by transferring the work done by staff back onto citizens.

While I understand the importance of cost management in government, and the ongoing desire to lift productivity, looking at these metrics based on public sector inputs rather than society-wide outputs does risk governments making decisions that harm economy-wide productivity in the long-term when chasing short-term productivity gains for a specific government agency.

Governments who wish to see long-term economic gains need to carefully consider how they shift effort from experienced staff to inexperienced citizens in order to not increase burdens that reduce overall productivity and wipe out the public sector savings through lower tax receipts or large pushback costs.

Digital transformation is a key tool in this process, but must be used wisely, not simply to automate steps to remove humans, but to simultaneously cut errors and improve success-rates.

The current Centrelink debt issue is a clear example of what happens when a good automation idea is executed poorly, becoming an overall loss to government rather than a win.

Read full post...

View summary...

90% of digital disruption is still to come (podcast)

A few months ago I interviewed with Andrew Ramsden of AlphaTransform, who has spent the last year capturing the thoughts of digital leaders around Australia (he also has a book in the works).

He's now published the interview as Episode 16 in his Alpha Geek Podcast - which is definitely worth checking out.

You can listen to the interview below, in which I suggest that we're still at the start of the digital transformation journey for society, for business and for government...

Read full post...

View summary...

Ensuring that digital transformation delivers the right outcomes for Australia's Government

I wrote this post in response to a LinkedIn conversation around this article, Digital government could become just more cost cutting, warns Internet Australia - which should be read first for context.

Digital transformation should never focus on the digital, it's about transformation.

Digital is a toolset and has opened new doors to how services and organisations may be transformed - however the culture and structural changes must occur or any digitalisation of services is simply a bandaid measure that will have little impact on the effectiveness or productivity of an organisation in the long-term.

The public service has, and continues, to resist cultural and structural reform for three main reasons:

1. The current cultures and structures suit the people in charge. They've benefited from the current system and have been normalised into it, making it difficult and frightening to consider changes and reforms. 
2. The status quo is supported by legislation, policies, rulings and lived experience ('it's how we've always done it'). Changing culture and structure is hard when it is shaped by these influences and requires disruptive, not incremental, steps to make strong inroads (such as creating new agencies or having all staff re-apply for adjusted roles).
3. There's little urgency for change. The public sector is seeing a slow leaching of budgets and talent but, similar to the analogy of boiling a frog, the water is heating too slowly for the frog to get concerned and hop out, until it is too late. While many agencies now have innovation programs in place, with some real successes coming from these, they still tend to mostly focus on fringe and low priority areas, 'safe' areas that don't threaten existing structures, services or operational modes. 

The political end of government is slowly being less well served by public servants but, from the evidence at hand and my conversations, doesn't always know what to do about it.

They're busy fighting ideological battles over control and interests to get, or retain, power and largely do not have executive experience within large organisations - essentially they lack the skills to lead change in government, as do many public sector leaders whose roles are about maintaining the status quo and serving the government of the day, not retooling the public service for the future.

As a result we're seeing a slow decay in our institutions, a hollowing out of the talent pool (with good people fiercely contested over and 'deadwood' slipped into Machinery of Government changes where agencies can offload them, as managing them out is too hard) and increasing brittleness as capability is lost.

The average tenure for a public servant is ten years, and 77% have only worked in one agency - down on past years, but still indicative of organisations that are very comfortable and safe places to work - whereas private sector 'imports' on average last 3 years (less in senior roles) before leaving for greener pastures.

How do we fix this situation? 
Good question - it requires effort at all levels, including:

• Working to upskill upcoming politicians and their advisors to understand how to work effectively and lead the public sector,
• working with senior bureaucrats to develop and supplement their knowledge and skills, 
• working with mid-tier Managers (future senior bureaucrats) to shift their track before they become too embedded in existing culture, and 
• working with staff to push responsibility downhill, with strong KPIs that can be used to weed out the unsuitable and support and reward high achievers. 

How likely is this approach?
Right now it doesn't look particularly likely to me, as an external observer, but here are a few areas where progress could be made.

• Rewarding talent
  The public sector's pay scales do not foster or encourage consideration of the APS as a career option, providing little to no room for individual outperformance or achievement.
  The government's pay policy, as being carried forward by the APSC, is a strong disincentive for external talent to work for the public service as staff. The lack of rewards and diminishing flexibility, with long-term pay disputes in progress for over three years, leaving public sector wages stagnant in many places, falling below private sector equivalents, do not encourage private sector talent to consider the richness, diversity and opportunity to create national change that exists across public sector roles.

• Unnecessary movementsUnnecessary movement must stop - such as Deputy Prime Minister Joyce's 'pet project' of moving agricultural agencies out of the bush capital (which is surrounded by farms), costing enormous amounts of money, lost time through disruption and skills loss, as most will not move away from career opportunities or families to work in locations where their access to other agencies they must work with, and parliament, is far diminished.
  
  Also the incessant shifts of parts of agencies to other agencies (Machinery of Government changes, or MOGs) must cease - with portfolios defined and set for a decade at a time, with reviews of their responsibilities occurring independent of political dictates as broad engagement processes looking at best practice across public and private sector organisations globally and consultation processes with staff, thought leaders and politicians, who then are appointed to specific portfolios or cross-portfolio duties.  Any changes at the fringes within each period can be managed through collaboration between agencies, enabled by more flexible and modular systems.
• Standardised SystemsAgencies must stop going their own way on systems and IT. The Commonwealth only requires one financial system, one HR system, one grants management system, one email system and so on - in fact there are companies larger than the entire Australian Public Service which make this work very effectively at greatly reduced management costs.
  
  With agencies all independently procuring it does fosters a level of market competition (generally between multinationals as these systems are largely provided at scale), but at enormous cost.
  
  Instead government needs to look at framework approaches where vendors can 'plug in' to an overall consistent framework, providing specialist services without the huge expense to agencies OR to the vendors in relentless tender processes.
  
  This will also help with moving people about (when necessary or as career moves), with far less retraining and human errors, as well as faster paths to productivity.
• Institutionalise changeFinally, agencies must stop having 'change programs', or 'digital transformation projects' and recognise the reality that change is constant and a stop/start approach with beginnings and endings is not serving them well (for the most part).
  
  We need public service agencies to develop the systems and cultures to manage and thrive in constant change, not to change from A to B over a period, take a break for a few years, then change from B to C, as their environment moves in the same time from A to Z.
  
   Their current approach to change holds it at arms length, treats change as the unnatural state between points of stability when, in truth, the reverse is true.
  
  Change is the constant and brief periods of stability are unusual and becoming rarer. Until this flip in thinking, culture and approaches occurs, government will lag further and further behind and struggle to build the necessary change-resilient systems needed for 21st century good governance.

That's my key thoughts right now - my views have not really changed on this front for a decade - in which we've seen six governments/prime ministers and over 150 Ministers come and go, as well as at least 30 agencies get created and destroyed.

With that rate of change and uncertainty potentially continuing, it's hard to see how the Australian Government will continue to thrive without taking some of the steps above.

Read full post...

View summary...

Disruption is often simply a failure to prepare and evolve

Digital disruption is one of the buzz terms of the last few years, underscoring the increasingly rapid changes in society, industries and governments as new ideas and techniques enabled by digital technologies take hold.

Photo by Tsahi Levent-Levi

While some embrace this disruption (generally those doing the disrupting), for many it remains an unsettling or even negative concept.

Disruption implies a disturbance or breakdown in the existing order, a situation where the status quo is overturned in an unpleasant way. To disrupt a process is seen as interfering with the ordinary course of events, and 'disruptors' of events or organisations are rarely looked on in a positive light.

While many disruptions are predictable, they are often not avoidable - such as the impacts of a natural disaster or the consequences of a terminal illness.

Equally disruptions in business and governance, through new technologies, ideas and approaches, can often appear to come rapidly out of 'left field', even when they can have been expected for a long time.

However in many of these cases, disruption has a much greater impact on societies and organisations than it needs too, not because it was unexpected or not discussed, but because leaders refused to see the writing on the wall, and begin a process of communication, adaptation and evolution soon enough.

A classic example is Kodak Eastman - the inventor of the digital camera, whose business was destroyed by the product it originally designed and marketed.

Kodak did not go bankrupt because no-one within or outside the company could see the impact of digital cameras, or their widespread adoption into mobile phones, laptops, tablets, drones and more. The company failed because the company's leaders chose to believe that their business could not be disrupted, that their name, reputation and products would allow them to survive no matter where the market went.

As a result they adapted too little and too late to the 'digipocalypse', where film cameras rapidly disappeared and even the digital camera market fell as people started using other devices as their primary photographic tool.

When I hear business and government leaders speak of disruption, of new industries replacing old or new thinking flushing out the old, I often wonder how much is just talk and how much actual action is taking place in their organisations to adapt to new realities.

Few disruptions are truly unpredicted, although their course may be unpredictable, with some technologies being rapidly adopted and others festering amongst early adopters for decades.

Organisations that are truly committed to survival and growth don't talk about the 'disruption' due to digital, but of the opportunity to re-imagine their business models and redesign their operations, preparing for and adopting innovations and new ideas in an evolutionary manner.

By preparing early and evolving continuously these organisations never actually face actual disruption, because they are almost always in the right place at the right time, with the talent, tools and techniques at hand to move with the market, rather than trying vainly to keep up.

When these organisations are tripped up by market or social change, it's due to velocity, not disruption, and they remain well-equipped in talent and tools to pivot their operations to minimise any disruption.

If your organisation is facing digital disruption, consider why that might be the case.

Was the disruption truly unpredictable? Or did your management fail to watch the market closely, or ignored advice on the basis of their belief that the status quo was unshakeable?

Is the disruption due to a lack of preparation in the face of a clear and present danger? Or due to an unwillingness to change, even at the point of extinction?

While change is a constant feature of business and social environments, disruption is simply what happens to organisations who fail or fear to face change. Organisations that do not design structures, generate strategies or train and recruit staff who can lead and support the internal transition in a prepared and evolutionary way.

Therefore any organisation that has been disrupted should first look inwards, not outwards, for the cause, and take appropriate steps to ensure that, if it survives, it never makes the same mistake again - to inadequately prepare itself for environmental and market change.

And any organisation that foresees disruption ahead should be preparing now. In order to turn a potential disruptive event into a much less impactful, evolutionary step, that causes far less disruption or damage and buoys the organisation to greater future success. 

Read full post...

View summary...

Free range 'strike teams' of specialists are a long overdue innovation for Australia's public service

I'm very pleased to see that the Australian Public Service Commission is finally considering the introduction of 'free range' teams of public servants, unattached to specific agencies, who can provide specialist skills as and where needed.

I proposed this type of team while I was working within government almost ten years ago now, as I could see that there were a range of skills that agencies did not require continuously, but were needed across the public service all the time.

This included experienced community engagement professionals, a range of digital talents as well as design and implementation specialists.

Until now the hierarchies of the public sector have been designed against such free-roaming talent, able to converge as 'strike teams' to assist agencies when they need it, and move on to other assignments when the need wanes.

There's still the strong (almost feudal) hierarchies in place, but it seems that the innovation agenda, combined with diminishing resources and an increasing need for specialists, are helping to wear away the resistance to the recognition that it's all one federal public service.

I always found it peculiar that senior public servants were adamant that they served the government of the day, but chose to do so by building rigid organisations that made it harder for skills to move around, to be 'lent' or 'shared', but instead hoarded people as jealously as they hoarded data.

This always seemed a sub-optimal strategy for government, but one with very deep roots.

There's still a number of challenges ahead for the APSC in realising this idea. It still has to navigate the hierarchies of power - some agencies might wish to hold onto talent for too long, with brush fires between agencies that need similar resources at similar times. There's also likely to be all kinds of power struggled between agency 'owned' resources and the floating specialists, who may be seen as fly-by-nights, dropping in to offer their wisdom, then leaving the mess behind for agency staff to clean up.

The APSC must find public servants with the right psychology and mindset to move around, without having a 'fixed abode' or a hierarchy to protect their position and career progression.

Many people who work in this way already are contractors or consultants and may see little benefit in giving up salary for supposed job security, while new entrants from the private sector, who might be more used to mobility, may not find public service cultures or approaches congenial to their working styles.

However I'm glad the APSC is making the attempt, and hope it will be widely supported, particularly by smaller agencies with less capacity to hire or contract the specialist skills they need.

Read full post...

View summary...

Breakthrough or Buddy-up - Two Strategies for Chief Digital Officers

Growth of the Chief Digital Officer (CDO) role has been incredibly rapid over the last few year, reflecting the increasing importance of technology to organisational success and survival.

However not all CDO roles are created equal, with enormous variation in their responsibilities, resourcing and capability to generate change, in the form of digital transformation, in the organisations they serve. Some have direct responsibility for business lines and IT teams, others serve primarily as advocates and influencers in the C-suite, with little in the way of direct reports or operational responsibilities.

The candidates appointed as CDOs have also vary enormously in background, some from 'pure' IT careers, others from a mix of IT and business and still others from business-based disciplines.

 An additional complication is that due to there being so many new CDO roles emerging, in many cases both the organisation and candidate are new to the role. This means the definition of the role might not be as clear as for well-established and understood roles, organisations may be less clear on what characteristics they require.

 A new CDO must also find their way and negotiate their position in the C-suite in a game of reverse musical chairs, where other executives may be looking for ways to gain advantage from the new seat and player at the table.

(Graphic courtesy of CDO Club.
Keep an eye out for the Chief Digital Officers Worldwide update for 2016)

In many cases CDOs have been external hires, including from international sources. Some public sector organisations have brought in experience from the private sector, though I've not seen the reverse as yet.

This can add additional complexity to the role. An 'outsider' brings their own cultural and workplace practices, which is often an advantage in a CDO role, but can require a significant adaptive phase for both the Officer and organisation. New CDOs from different environments can require some time to build the relationships and alliances necessary to achieve results and to learn how to navigate an organisation's formal and informal decision-making processes.

When it comes to performing the role successful, there's a spectrum of strategies available to a new CDO.

At one end of the scale there's the 'breakthrough' approach, where the CDO mandates and forces change on an organisation.

At the other end is the 'buddy-up' approach, where the CDO functions as an expert adviser and councillor, supporting colleagues and staff to make change themselves.

I've been fortunate enough to observe both approaches in practice, witness the comparative successes and failures over time.

In this post I wanted to provide a little insight into how these strategies can, and are, applied, the potential outcomes for the choice a CDO makes and what organisations should look for when hiring the right CDO for them.

Looking at the 'breakthrough' approach first - in its purest form this is a 'no holds barred', even violent, way to stimulate organisational change by actively pushing through any barriers to digital transformation.

It requires a forceful and driven CDO with massive resilience who is prepared to take on personal consequences for their strategic approach. Within an organisation it often results in adversarial situations where a digital transformation is imposed on unwilling business and IT areas, ending careers and bruising many survivors.

Internationally many CDOs who have adopted this strategy to a significant extent have had quite short tenures, coming into an organisation and driving digital transformation relentlessly for a year or two, then either moving on to the next appointment or requiring a personal break to rebuild their resilience.

It is not a tactic for executives who wish a long-term career with a specific organisation, or even in a specific industry or country, as the crash through tactics are not congenial to building good long-term relationships and alliances.

Used strategically this approach can break down long-term barriers to change and innovation, squeeze out old-fashioned and outdated thinking and renew an organisation to move forward in a more cost-effective and digital way. Some organisations may require this 'shock treatment' to shift from their current track to a more sustainable one, whereas the buddy-up approach would not provide significant impetus for them to transform.

Used poorly, this strategy can alienate potential allies, damage competent individuals and generate a 'winners and losers' culture, where people feel forced to choose sides. Any resulting digital transformation can be short-lived, reliant on the CDO remaining in their role, with other executives and middle-managers rolling back to their comfort zone after the CDO is gone.

A common tactic for individuals who oppose this approach is to simply wait until the CDO moves on, although sometimes repairing the damage a breakthrough strategy does to trust and respect within an organisation can take years.

The buddy-up approach is far more collegiate and is built on alliances and expertise rather than direct power and force. This strategy is better attuned to patient executives who are willing and able to spend the time building trust and leading executives and staff to a place where they feel empowered to choose adopt digitally transformational changes, rather than having these changes forcefully imposed on them.

The approach builds good long term relations and suits executives who wish to build a long-term career in an organisation or across a sector. It works well in situations where a CDO has little direct power (direct responsibilities or budget) but is a respected key influencer, with peer-level access to others in the C-suite.

The speed of digital transformation achievable using this strategy tends to be far slower, particularly in the initial stages, than via the more aggressive breakthrough approach and may not suit organisations that require a rapid transformation. However, in the longer term, the pace of change can accelerate rapidly as it no longer must be solely driven by the CDO but has become embedded in how the organisation operates.

For organisations with firmly bedded down cultures, there's a risk that the buddy-up approach will get lost in the mix, with the CDO's efforts absorbed into the organisation rather than propagating change. We've seen this many times in the past, where the introduction of a new approach becomes so diluted within the existing culture that, like a drop of ink in a glass of water, it vanishes without a trace.

Used strategically the buddy-up approach is very effective at bringing the organisation with a CDO, generating a deep-rooted top-to-bottom change in culture over time. By avoiding adversarial and 'winner take all' situations, staff across the organisation retain their unity in being on the same team without aggressive competitive, or even bullying, behaviours.

Used poorly the buddy-up approach can be ineffective, with the CDO ignored, or their efforts co-opted and absorbed into business as usual without the level of digital transformation required by an organisation. Also, due to a slower ramp up as trust relations are built, the approach can be too slow for organisations facing imminent threats to their survival.

Fortunately many CDOs understand that their role involves using a blend of the strategies above, based on their resources, influence and environment. Knowing when to apply a breakthrough strategy rather than a buddy-up strategy is the real art of being a CDO, and organisations should be careful to select executives who have demonstrated a careful balance of both, even in situations where one strategy needs to be dominant.

The real danger for organisations - and CDOs - is when they rely too heavily on either the breakthrough or buddy-up strategy.

An over-reliance on breakthrough risks any digital transformation successes being short-term, poorly embedded in an organisation and leading to a 'pushback' that can damage digital initiatives in the organisation for years to come.

An over-reliance on buddy-up can conversely result in a failure to implement the digital transformation required, leaving an organisation in a worse position as its rivals and markets shift.

When hiring CDOs, it's important to not just look at their past short-term successes in transformation, but also their record of fostering enduring digital transformational change and strong relationships.

Those who rely too much on breakthrough tend to have shining successes to their credit, but poor senior relationships and a trail of past engagements where organisations cannot demonstrate significant lasting business value from the CDO's efforts.

CDOs who prefer buddy-up approaches can appear to have less spectacular careers, with most of their successes shared, but come well-recommended and respected. Again it is important to consider if their past engagements have resulted in lasting business value to the organisations they have served.

For those aspiring to be a Chief Digital Officer, it is important to develop the capability to apply both breakthrough and buddy-up strategies, and particularly the emotional intelligence to know which is appropriate to apply. Having experience using both strategies effectively is of enormous benefit when seeking a CDO role.

It's also critical for those stepping into a CDO role to understand and negotiate the use of breakthrough and buddy-up strategies, to ensure that the CEO, Board and other executives understand why the CDO is taking a particular course at a particular time.

A CDO more experienced with buddy-up strategies will need to communicate clearly why the alliance approach to collective change is being applied when working in an organisation that took on a CDO to aid in a rapid digital transformation.

Conversely a CDO selecting breakthrough tactics will need to make it clear why they are choosing an aggressive approach to digital transformation to avoid alienating other executives and staff who may feel trampled or excluded, and losing their mandate before the transformation is embedded.

Most importantly for any prospective or new CDO is the ability to know your own strengths and weaknesses, and seek opportunities where your personal attributes are beneficial to your role.

Using myself as an example, in my roles in large organisations I've often strayed too far into breakthrough territory, reflective of my past experience in business startups, where speed of outcomes is paramount over relationships or process. I've also had several roles where breakthrough was the only viable strategy due to the timeframe and environment.

I have learnt from others, who have mastered the approach, to apply more buddy-up tactics - particularly during my experience in government, where strategic alliances are essential to foster deeper and longer-term digital transformation.

However my natural inclination is more towards breakthrough, and I perform better in environments where, on balance, I can use this strategy more often.

Others may find they naturally prefer to apply buddy-up strategies, or are evenly balanced between the two.

Whatever your personal preferences, you'll likely do best in a role that reflects how you operate.

However regardless of whether you're applying breakthrough or buddy-up strategies, keep in mind the ultimate goal - to redesign organisations to be successful in a digital world.

Organisations live or die by their people, and selecting the right match of CDO and organisation, and the right blend of buddy-up and breakthrough strategies is essential for their digital transformation and success.

Read full post...

View summary...

Confusing innovation with outcomes

I've been involved in an interesting Facebook chat around the definition of a startup, which has coalesced my thoughts on the approach of organisations towards innovation.

Innovation has become a buzzword in the last few years, with both corporations and governments focused on the notion that they need innovation to remain effective and relevant.

I've been fundamentally uneasy with a lot of the views expressed around this notion. From the Australian Government's '#ideasboom' to the notion that appointing an Innovation Director who in some way takes 'ownership' of innovation for an organisation, will solve an organisation's competitive and cost-efficiency challenges.

I also have my concerns about the ideation processes springing up across government and the private sector.

It's great to see the flood of ideas and the unclogging of the old-fashioned 'suggestions box'. However these processes need to be well-supported with training and capability to assess the ideas and then help people to realise them in practical trials, to really determine which really do solve problems or improve outcomes.

Don't get this wrong - I'm a big proponent of innovation.

The process of identifying a problem (that often others do not see), of finding a new solution (whether involving old or new technology) and of then testing and trialling that solution until it becomes clear whether it's an improvement or not is essential to every organisation who wishes to continue to exist.

However focusing on the ideas and innovation is a confusion of process and goal.

Ideas and innovation are tools to solve problems. They are not ends in themselves.

Ideas are a thousandth of a bitcoin a dozen and anyone who sets out to 'innovate' is starting with the wrong end of the stick - the process, not the desired outcome.

Instead organisations should focus on the other end, the problems, preferably invisible and painful ones. They can be considered 'big' or 'small', this doesn't matter - what matters is that there's significant pain caused by it, and significant benefit to solving it. Solving a problem that costs every employee only 5 minutes each day will save an organisation with 1,000 people 416 hours per week - the equivalent of ten staff, or 1% of their headcount.

Often the best problems are invisible to most people in the organisation, they simply work around the problem, using manual steps to bridge processes, walk the long way around an obstacle and eventually forget that it is there.

'Managing' the problem becomes part of the basic experience, the social norm, of working there, just like the example in the video below - and very few question it.


The real innovator is the person who both thinks - why is that obstacle there? AND then acts to remove it.

A simple test that can be performed in any organisation is to put a chair with a sign 'Please do not move' on it in the middle of a regular walkway.

Look at who walks around the chair, versus those who complains about the chair being there, versus those who actually take an action to remove the chair as an obstacle.

You want people who are prepared to address the obstacle on your problem-solving team. They are the people prepared to ask 'why is this so' (identifying the problem), then experiment with potential solutions to remove the problem from the equation.

For organisations that wish to set a higher bar, change the sign to read, ''Please do not move. By order of the CEO - this area is monitored by CCTV'.

Now you'll really find out who is willing to take a risk to achieve a better outcome.

Ideas and innovation remain critical tools for problem-solving, and fostering both within organisations is critical, but avoid the trap of confusing them with the improved outcomes that their use is designed to achieve.

Treat them as tools, not goals and avoid building complex systems and hierarchies around who is 'allowed' to use them within an organisation.

Everyone in your organisation has ideas. Everyone can innovate. Not everyone can identify the problem, visualise a better outcome and use ideas and innovation as tools to turn that visualisation into reality.

Use ideation processes and Innovation Directors to foster an environment where problem-identification and solving is the social norm for your organisation.

To foster an environment where the reaction to a new problem or inefficiency is to take action to address it, trying different approaches until the optimal solution is found, rather than to kick it upstairs, ignore it or simply 'walk around' it with more staff and expense.

The most successful organisations - public and private - will be those that foster active problem-solving, not nebulous 'ideas' or 'innovation'. Those that remain clear on what are the goals and what are the tools.

Read full post...

View summary...

There's no silver bullets, but there's silver toolkits

During this Public Sector Innovation Month, I thought I should focus my eGovAU posts a little more closely on the topic of innovation.

I've commented previously on the 'shiny new thing' issue - whereby humans place unrealistic expectations on a new device or approach to solve a long-standing existing issue.

It's an issue that occurs regularly - and is even supported and encouraged commercially, where new products are regularly released with a 'unique' ingredient (not always unique), or a 'new' approach (not always new) promoted as solving a 'problem'.

Of course sometimes these unique ingredients aren't unique, the new approaches may not be new - and the problem may not be one that has kept people awake at night.

As a marketer I was trained on how to do this at university - either find an existing problem, or make people aware of a problem they hadn't thought about, so that it could then be fixed with a specific product or approach.

Products that are examples of this approach include 'Permeate-free' milk and many toothpaste additives advertised as promoting 'advanced whitening' or 'tartar control'.

Examples of approaches that fit into this basket include 'Nudge theory' (Behavioural Economics), 'TQM' (Total Quality Management) and Lean Methodology. All have positive applications, but none is a 'silver bullet' in all circumstances, and they can sometimes be applied to solve the wrong problems.

The same psychology applies in many human pursuits - from health care to the battlefield to management and government policy development.

New approaches are regularly discovered (or rediscovered) and promoted as silver bullets.

In most cases they aren't scams - they genuinely work, but only deliver measurable improvements within certain circumstances. This leads to case studies and advocates, even when they deliver limited or no value - it can be hard for senior leadership to say that the approach they supported and endorsed didn't lead to any significant positive impact on an organisation.

However over time it can often become clear that the success of these approaches applies only in a narrow set of circumstances or is based on factors that aren't related to the approaches themselves. At this stage another new approach often takes off.

This cycle may take years, or occur in a few months - what is traditionally called a 'fad'.

There can even be several new approaches at the same time, producing quite a heady environment where people and organisations fall into competing camps and can often expend more resources and energy on justifying why their new approach is better than on actual execution.

In reality there are a few situations where there are silver bullets. For example vaccines have been a silver bullet for population disease control.

Yes there's still a few cases of diseases we've vaccinated against, but the widespread suffering and death, long-term health issues and economic dislocation that accompanied mass outbreaks of major diseases, has been alleviated to the point where few have a living memory of these issues - leading to the present-day pushback we're seeing from people who have never experienced a mass vaccination-free world.

However in most cases new approaches are not silver bullets. They may provide an incremental improvement in the delivery of solutions to problems, or provide a solution within a limited set of circumstances, but do not have the widespread paradigm-shifting impact that the notion of a silver bullet encompasses.

Instead organisations should consider developing what I term 'silver toolkits' - collections of both new tools and approaches and existing methods applied in new ways that collectively provide development and delivery improvements to outcomes.

The notion of a 'silver toolkit' moves organisations away from any reliance on a single approach to achieve universal results - the equivalent of having only a screwdriver to solve any mechanical problem.

The approach also provides greater license to customise approaches and tools to specific situations, allowing for ongoing evolution in the adoption of new approaches rather than adherence to a rigid, unalterable formula for success that doesn't adapt to the specific attributes of an organisation.

So next time your organisation is considering a new approach or tool that its advocates claim is a 'silver bullet' for any or all problems you're seeking to solve, consider instead whether you can add it to your 'silver toolkit' - a non-exclusive set of new approaches and tools that your organisation can flexibly apply as appropriate to address emerging challenges.

Read full post...

View summary...

The increasing importance of role models in the public sector

Role models are incredibly important for humans across both their personal and professional lives.

Role models can help show us and make us believe we can exceed our own boundaries. They can open doors and windows to new ideas, fostering innovation and positive change.

The more restricted and limiting the environment, the more important role models become. They show us where the gaps and opportunities exist and help shine a light on dark paths where many would otherwise fear to tread.

If you doubt humans need role models at every stage in their lives, watch this video showing how even a doll can become a powerful role model for a child - and the movement behind it is helping shift views across society.

The importance of role models is understood by governments, who seek to lift up those that support their agendas. Awards like Australian of the year and Young Australian of the year are examples of how exemplary citizens can be held up as national role models, presenting values and attitudes that we can aspire to share.

Similarly the importance and practical use of role models is understood by business, by the arts and by not-for-profits, which all hold up those exceptional individuals who model the behaviour that others seek to exemplify, to encourage productivity, ethical conduct, creativity and selflessness.

The concept of role models is even understood within the public service, where exceptional service and good behaviour can be recognised through awards and speaking opportunities. From the Public Service Medal to the new Public Sector Innovation Awards, role models are recognised to help illuminate the conduct and behaviours that the public sector seeks to encourage.

This is why role models are increasingly important in the public sector. With increasing digital transformation across society, new tools and new problems emerging as sunset industries fade and new ones rise, the public sector's role is changing increasingly quickly.

What does it mean to be a public servant in an era when the customer is kind and every citizen holds a supercomputer in their hand? How does government continue to reinvent itself - its policies, structures, performance criteria and behaviours - to remain relevant and effective in an age when people expect instant customized service?

While I worked in government I was alway conscious of being a role model for digital innovation. My blog made me more visible, but my conduct and work made me an example that others could learn from and follow.

I was also very conscious of the other role models within my sphere who similarly blazed trails, did great work and were held up as exemplars of what public servants could and should do. I continue to admire and be inspired by many of them to this day.

While many of these faces have now changed, in the public service, due to life changes and new opportunities, there's just as many, if not more digital and innovation role models in government today. Whether publicly recognised and held up, like Paul and the team at the Digital Transformation Office, or working within agencies, like the members of the PS Innovation Network, these individuals are modeling the behaviours and conduct the public service needs to adopt to move forward with Australian society.

But what happens if agencies or powerful public sector senior managers see these role models for innovation and change as threats - to their egos, job security or just don't fit their view of how the world they believe they control should operate?

I've seen few acts more cowardly or despicable than cutting down a positive role model for selfish personal reasons, or to preserve and protect a poisonous culture.

Indeed this too becomes a role model, of the worst kind - a negative influence that spreads fear and uncertainty. "If my role model can be cut down, then what could I do" can run the thinking, leading to the growth and spread of a negative 'prisoner' culture where no-one dares to raise their head, challenge poor decisions or demonstrate innovation or leadership.

Yes role models are powerful in the public service - both for the good and the bad.

For the public service to prosper in the digital age, to become agile, adaptable, citizen-centric and innovative, from the heights of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to outlying agencies like CSIRO, from top agency executives to graduates, positive role models must be elevated and negative role models cut without remorse.

To everyone who is a positive role model in the public service (whether you know it or not), everyone who models leadership, innovation, digital expertise and amazing stakeholder and citizen engagement, those who are collaborative, giving and supportive and love helping their colleagues and Australia succeed and grow - I salute you.

Once you grow tired of the good fight and retire the field, do so with honour, knowing that no matter whether you leave by choice or necessity, your impact has been profound, recognised and valued.

Read full post...

View summary...

Turnbull announces Australia's first live Facebook debate

Last year Justin Trudeau, now Prime Minister of Canada, broadcast the launch of his campaign using Facebook Live, and livestreamed his party's launch event. Also last year UK political parties made extensive use of Facebook for live online Q&A sessions, speeches and debates.

Now it is Australia's turn, with Malcolm Turnbull announcing today (and Bill Shorten accepting), that the third political leaders' debate of the current Australian federal election would be held on Facebook in partnership with News Corporation.

I'm sure preparations for this announcement have been underway for a little while, however this still marks a momentous step for Australian politics and media, to use a social network for a live, unscripted, public debate.

At this stage it appears the debate will be held using Facebook Live, a relatively new livestream video platform that has already been extremely successful in building usage and viewership.

The platform, which Facebook launched after live video rivals such as Google Hangouts on Air, YouTube Live, Meercat, Periscope or Blab had all entered the market, has proven to be more stable and well developed than many of its rivals and with its strong API support has allowed third party companies to begin developing additional functionality and specialised hardware to a much greater extent than even Google's Hangouts on Air.

Facebook Live also received an enormous marketing boost last month due to the efforts of an otherwise unknown US lady, Candace Payne, who created a five minute Live video of herself laughing in her car wearing a wookie mask.

Now popularly known as the 'Wookie Woman', Candace has received over 155 million views of her video, making it the most popular on Facebook Live, with extensive coverage and all-expenses paid trips to Facebook and Disney HQs - even meeting the actor who plays Chewbacca.

Science fiction aside, the step to hold the first live Facebook public debate is as momentus for Australian politics as the first televised US Presidential debate was in the US.

While many further debates are likely to be held using 20th century technology - in RSL clubs and television studios, we are likely to see a further shift to digital debating at all levels of politics now that the door to the 21st century is open.

On this point it is important to consider that one of the major changes when television became the primary means for political speechifying and debates was that a different style of politician became successful. Television worked for Kennedy, who was otherwise a relatively unknown Senator, and put the nails into Nixon's re-election coffin because Kennedy presented much better and was clearly comfortable and effective using the medium while Nixon was ill-at-ease. In fact this first televised debate was widely seen as a gamechanger for US politics.

Similarly the current US President, Barack Obama, was notable in his first Presidential campaign for his effective use of online tools to build his profile, his grassroots organisation and his campaign treasury while the then leading Democratic candidate (Hilary Clinton) was wedded to traditional media and approaches. He used this momentum to far outstrip the Republican nominee, and repeated the trick during his re-election.

I don't know if Turnbull and Shorten yet realize how significant this online debate may be for either of their party's campaigns for election. If either leader clearly shines in their use of the medium, they may be able to build an unassailable lead in the campaign. If either appears outdated or inarticulate while answering live questions from the public, they could lose the election for their side in a few moments.

Regardless of the outcome of this live online debate, the likelihood is that politicians of all stripes and all Australian jurisdictions should now begin ups killing themselves on the qualities that will make them stand out and be effective in live online debates - qualities different to those needed even on the other highly visible mediums of television and live town halls.

Politicians who cannot adapt, like Nixon and many of his peers at the beginning of the TV era, will find themselves increasingly on the backfoot and struggling to compete against the upcoming crop of social media native politicians, who willingly and effectively engage with the public through services like Facebook Live, Blab, Periscope and other emerging livestream video , audio and text platforms.

By the way -  anyone who was listening to 2UE in Sydney or online this afternoon may have heard me talking about this online debate with Tim Webster on his show at about 2:30pm - you may be able to catch it later online at 2ue.com.au

Read full post...

View summary...

Energy needs a digital transformation

I've had a long involvement in the energy industry, having cofounded two startups in the sector, one that is now listed on the ASX.

Why energy, when my background is digital? Because the industries are extremely similar - far more similar than archaic regulations environments allow them to do.

Like the media, for most of the twentieth century the energy industry was dominated by a relatively small number of producers, who generated the 'content' (energy) that societies consumed.

Where humans had news agencies, cars had petrol stations, where humans had phone networks and broadcast TV and radio connecting them to their neighbors and the world, their household appliances had gas and electricity networks connecting them to the power they needed to operate.

With the arrival of the Internet, still facilitated by those human communication networks, suddenly anyone could become a producer - a content creator, editor, publisher and distributor building a global audience.

The most successful content services became peer-based networks where a central organisation provided the technical infrastructure while individuals - not large corporations - provided the content that flowed through the system, powering the minds of the world. Services such as YouTube, Facebook, Wikipedia and others became the facilitators for billions of minds to create, share, learn from and debate content - while the former dominant content producers increasingly had to open their work to community co-creation and adapt hoe they created and distributed content to remain relevant.

The energy industry has been slower to reach this state, with network and power suppliers remaining constrained to a few monopolistic operators, albeit with some loosening of user choice and more market-based competition for wholesale and retail power supply.

Increasingly as household adopt solar and large scale renewables become cost-effective the balance is shifting. We have seen situations where wholesale energy prices have fallen to zero, where renewables have supplied 'baseload power' (a concept long used to justify why nations had to continue to rely on burnable fuels - now being requestioned).

There's numerous case studies of households that with an investment in solar have seen their electricity bills fall to nothing (in fact I live in such a household), and with the household batteries already in production it becomes almost feasible to disconnect from the electricity grid.

However the real evolution, similar to digital, has been towards having a ubiquitous network that facilitation millions of small energy generators. Where any household, business or connected device could be generating electricity and having the grid distribute it to where it is needed.

This peer-to-peer style network reflects the impact of the Internet on content, on banking, on buying and selling goods, services and skilled labour, where a more pure capitalistic market with low entry barriers and low arbitrage opportunities exist.

This is the future that is possible for the energy market - just like the media market. Not a few large producers distributing to a large number of small consumers, but a market of big and small producers distributing on-demand when and where consumers need it.

In this world there are no artificial tariffs on supply which support artificial profits for large companies, there are no restrictions (beyond those required for safety) on generating or consuming power from the grid. Everyone is a generator to the extent desired, everyone is a consumer to the extent required, just like content on the Internet.

This type of thinking is hard for those immersed in the energy market - particularly for the incumbent players - government and privately owned power stations, distribution networks, energy markets and regulators.

However it should be slightly simpler for the industry given the example of the media industry that has gone before it, the transport industry which is rapidly heading that way and the manufacturing industry which isn't far behind.

How fast and how painful the transition will depend on governments being effective change managers - embracing, endorsing and supporting the process rather than resisting it actively (with steps to restrict involvement) or passively (by lagging on legislative change and policy).

in Australia we still have an opportunity for governments to defy history and get ahead of the curve, rather than painfully lag it. However I anticipate there's only a few years left for them to act to be leaders rather than laggards - and in transformations this profound there's no middle ground to be a follower without lagging.

The digitalisation of the energy market has already started. My household, like thousands of others, has an annual electricity bill of zero.

Once we have batteries in place (the first generation are on the market this year) we move to being a profitable generator of electricity that is also more network blackout resistant. The grid will no longer exist to provide us with all our 'content' (power), it will be our distribution network instead.

We're not early adopters - there's millions of solar installations on top of Australian households.

And it would be better for all Australia if governments are prepared and ready for the shift that is arriving before, rather than after it arrives.

Read full post...

View summary...

Innovation, the International Space Station and horses arses

The International Space Station (ISS) orbits Earth about 15 times a day. As the largest human-built structure in orbit, it is visible to the naked eye when it passes over, only 330-430 kilometres overhead.

The ISS serves an important purpose as a microgravity and space environment research laboratory in which crew members conduct experiments in biology, physics, astronomy, meteorology and other scientific fields. It also is crucial in exploring the technologies needed to take humans back to the moon, to Mars and, eventually, the stars.

The ISS was built from a number of parts carried into orbit on different space missions, including a number of components carried on US Space Shuttles while they were in operation.

When the Space Shuttle was being constructed a number of its parts were contracted out to various companies across the US and other nations.

In particular the large booster rockets, which carry the shuttle to orbit and fall away for reuse, were contracted to a company in Utah, which built them onsite and transported them by rail to the launch site.

The engineers that built these boosters wanted to ensure they were as large and powerful as possible, but had to keep in mind that they had to be transported through a train tunnel, which was built to US rail specifications.

The US rail gauge is 4 foot 8.5 inches and was defined by the manufacturers of steam trains, who reused the standard they'd used in their previous work developing horse-drawn trams in the 19th century. The standard used for these trams was, in turn, based on the standard for building horse-drawn wagons, which was the former occupation of tram-makers.

The width of wagon wheelbases was, in turn, based on US road widths, which had been imported to the New World by the English, drawing from UK road standards.

The reason it was important for wagons to have standard width wheelbases in the UK was because of the ruts cut into the roads by hundreds of years of use. Make a wheelbase too wide or narrow and wheels would break more easily and often.

This was because the UK road standard had originally been defined by the Roman Empire, which built the first continent-spanning road network in Europe. The Romans built these roads both for trade and for easier passage by their armies, which included war-chariots drawn by two horses.

As a result, the gateway to humans exploring the solar system, the International Space Station, was designed on a thousand-year old standard from the Roman Empire, the width of two horses' arses.

Now what does this have to do with innovation?

Clearly there's been a long process to get from two-horses arses to the International Space Station, but at every stage many of the core technologies have been designed iteratively on those that came before them.

All the innovations that have occurred in that process occurred within a set framework, which both enabled and limited progress.

When thinking about innovation it is important to be conscious of the frameworks we operate within, personally and institutionally.

Our capacity to innovate is often shaped by our education, experience and environment. Often what we may call innovation is actually iteration - taking an existing model and improving it in some way.

Innovation in the purest sense occurs when there's a break from a past framework. These breaks are often highly disruptive as they force people to rethink all their assumptions and reframe their experiences in light of new ways of seeing the world, or a given problem or situation.

Some of these major innovative breaks include such things as the Theory of Evolution, the Industrial Revolution, the invention of the printing press (with movable type) and the creation of the Internet.

It's true that each was built on knowledge that came before it. Dinosaur skeletons were discovered long before Darwin and his peers conceived of evolution and books existed for thousands of years before movable type.

However in each of these, and similar, innovations, the way people saw the world shifted. Industries rose and fell, as did nations and societies. These new ideas and inventions weren't simple iterations on previously accepted wisdom that saw society make minor adjustments but continue on its existing course.

Often when organisations seek to be 'innovative' they are actually focused on being iterative, to improve what they do in order to maximise their success within the current social and economic environment.

There's nothing wrong with this but it doesn't necessarily require the same approach as actual innovation.

Actual innovation is about overturning what is considered normal, breaking from current practice and finding new approaches which redefine how we see and behave in society and our economic, political and social environments.

This type of innovation is hard. It involves lifting people out of their unconscious patterns and creating lasting change, often overcoming fears of the unknown and the well understood and comfortable lives people and organisations have created for themselves.

In fact humans are biologically wired against too much, or too fast, change. Scientific research has established that our brains reside in a lower energy state when supporting or defending the status quo than when we try to actually change our thinking. 

While we can, and do, change, it's far easier to consider innovative change when we're fresh, fit and fed rather than when we're stressed, tired and hungry.

So it's important when seeking to create or support innovation to create the right environment to foster innovative thinking, picking or designing appropriate locations and times for change to occur.

It's also important to use the appropriate systems and tools to support innovation. These need to help people step out of their comfort zones as comfortably as possible, to give people a change to play with ideas and approaches in non-threatening ways.

When people feel comfortable and safe they're far more capable and open to new concepts and approaches and able to consider the flaws in current situations in a far more objective way.

While I didn't realise it when I invented Social Media Planner, my card-based game-like system for helping people to design effective social media strategies around a table, over years of testing I've found that it fosters this innovative thinking. By taking people from a digitally-focused space to a collaborative tabletop environment they are better positioned to objectively play with different and innovative approaches and concepts.

When I observe or work with individuals and groups using Social Media Planner, they rapidly shift into an innovative state of mind, considering new options, devising new ideas and working together to develop and assess them to design new approaches to their social media engagement.

This is of course one small corner of innovation, but it has shown me the power in giving people a familiar and flexible tool, the physical playing cards used in Social Media Planner.

Through fostering an interactive physical activity in a low distraction environment with game-like goals and limits, individuals and group find they have the space to experiment, brainstorm and reflect.

The approach also addresses the 'blank page' issue, where people struggle to find a place to start on solving a problem or finding a solution. The scenarios included in every Social Media Planner pack allow people to safely learn the system without feeling foolish or lost.

The card-based approach also addresses the challenge of holding complex models in one's head. Most people typically can retain 5-9 items in their short-term memory at a time, however with the Social Media Planner tools cards laid out on a table it's easy for individuals to access 40 different concepts without relying on their short-term memory and interfering with creative thought.

If your organisation is seeking to innovate - or even to iterate - it's worth investing in the systems and tools which will help your teams do so in the fastest and most successful ways.

I've used Social Media Planner as an example of these types of tools because I designed it, tested it and have seen how effective it can be for organisations planning their social and digital media engagement. 

There's many other tools useful when innovating that are worth considering, as well as organisations experienced at fostering the spaces and mindsets that foster effective innovation and change.

So if your organisation needs or wants to change, to improve how it operates, to become more effective at serving its customers, clients, citizens or stakeholders, invest in tools that will help your people to innovate, accessing the creative potential every human possesses.

Don't simply put in place frameworks and processes to refine and proceduralise innovation and change, also invest in the environments and tools that foster innovation.

You'll get better outcomes, faster and more cost-effectively. And your people will be happier and more productive by being part of the journey.

Read full post...

View summary...

The Australian government has put digital government and open data in the centre

With the change in Prime Minister to Malcolm Turnbull there was always likely to be a shift in the prominence of digital and IT within government.

The new administrative arrangements released earlier this week demonstrated this clearly, with the Digital Transition Office moving from the Communications portfolio to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Gov 2.0 and open data functions moving from Finance also into the DPC.

This means little to the Australian public, who simply expect government to do its job well, but means a great deal within government itself. It is a very strong signal to Secretaries and their teams that digital transformation and open data are serious priorities for the current government and need appropriate attention, resourcing and support.

What's also interesting is how these changes and others going on both publicly and behind closed doors in Canberra are about shifting the structures and cultures in Canberra towards a more collaborative, consultative and engaging one.

While signature government policies on asylum seekers, climate change and other key areas haven't changed under Turnbull, or at least not yet (a matter of significant commentary on social media at the moment), I would argue that the structural changes that have been started are far more significant in terms of shifting how the Australian government functions in the long term.

Historically while policies have changed regularly, and often quickly, as governments are elected or react to circumstance and public views, the public service had been slower to adapt to 21st Century realities, held back by its legislative design and shape, its obligations and the cultures it has evolved over the decades.

To reboot how government operates, enable more innovative and relevant policy approaches and allow in widespread adoption of modern business practice it was always going to take more than changes in policy settings - an elected government had to be willing to reach deep into the gullet of the public sector and change its operations in a fundamental way.

Few governments have been prepared to do this in more than a cosmetic way, due to the challenges in changing such a large and complex beast which was actually performing well by global standards. However the system has been fraying at the edges for some time, with capability losses and rigid legacy approaches making it harder and harder for elected governments to implement their policy and  create real positive change for Australians.

I have witnessed situations where agencies were incapable of implementing certain government policies, necessitating either shifts of responsibility or the creation of new agencies, as well as situations where Ministers and public servants found their capability to be productive was restricted, rather than enabled, by legacy IT systems and regulation which has grown like weeds over decades.

If the Turnbull government is serious about its intention to systemically change how government functions in Canberra, reshaping the role of the public sector in policy design, service delivery and rapid accountability, then one of its most significant legacies may be to future-proof the Australian government for the next century.

The structural change underway is not about rewinding government's clockwork, but about replacing cogs with computer chips and agile digital programs.

It's not just about connecting public servants to the wider community, but about letting the community lead and drive policy agendas, with the public sector as a expert facilitation support.

If this works it changes everything about how government works in Australia, though perceptual changes will take longer to be obvious to citizens.

These changes will take time. There will be fumbles and missteps and significant resistance both from internal and external players who enjoy the benefits of the failing status quo. Some resistance will be overt, but most will be covert, and often couched in supportive words but with no supportive activity. Some will be deliberate and calculated, but much will be instinctive or based on old world paradigms by people who simply haven't grasped the realities of our changing world - particularly outside the Canberra bubble.

However if these changes do not occur, rebound with a subsequent government or are given lip service only due to being 'too hard', Australia will face a more frightening scenario. A scenario in which our governance structures fail to support Australians to be competitive in our changing world. Where we become a sunset economy of resources and agriculture and our most talented scientists and computer specialists leave for greater opportunities offshore, leaving Australians to buy our own successes at retail prices.

Events will tell us how serious Turnbull's government will be - and how successful. However if the current government doesn't succeed in this systemic change, the big question will be, who could?

Read full post...

View summary...

Now it gets interesting - Australia has its first digitally literate Prime Minister

Rudd & Gillard could work the Twitters.

Abbott understood the need to engage digitally, if not the tech, the value or the full impact (and mistakenly thought one of his Ministers had invented the Internet).

Even Howard got onboard the digital express with a few YouTube videos.

However Australia has never before in its history had a digitally literate Prime Minister of the likes of Malcolm Turnbull.

This could mean nothing, or it could mean enormous change if the Australian Government is told to lift its game on digital engagement and treat technology as an integral part of designing and implementing government business rather than as a service to be called on when needed.

Turnbull has already laid down a positioning statement in this area, stating in his inaugural media announcement as PM that "We need an open government, an open government that recognises that there is an enormous sum of wisdom both within our colleagues in this building and, of course, further afield."

We'll see quite quickly which is true by Turnbull's approach to several of the key planks of openness and digital transformation.

Key steps would include endorsing and progressing Australia's membership of the Open Government Partnership, something agreed to by the Gillard government but was placed on the perpetual back burner by Abbott as he focused on closing, rather than opening up, government.

I'd also expect to see a rethink of the government's position on the Office of the Information Commissioner - an agency the Abbott government failed to legislate to remove but has been killing by degrees by cutting funding and refusing to replace Commissioners.

Another sign of change would be an elevation of the role of the Digital Transformation Office, making more of its approaches mandatory and providing more teeth to the agency when dealing with big and slow moving Departments more interested in the status quo. 

This could include shifting  the DTO back to the Prime Minister's department, but with a direct reporting line to Turnbull that minimizes the obfuscation prevalent within that department at senior levels. 

Other areas that could use attention include the open data space, which is run on a shoestring by Finance and could greatly magnify its impact with additional resourcing and mandates, and, of course, the NBN - Turnbull's former responsibility as Communications Minister. 

A shift back to a FTTH approach, delivered more cost-effectively than the previous Labor model, would provide Australia with the infrastructure it needs for the 21st century and cement Turnbull as a visionary with Australia's long-term future at heart.

There's also many things that could be done at a micro-level within agencies to shift the reliance on corporate IT suppliers, 1990s systems and large, virtually undeliverable technology projects - many of which could be led by a revitalised AGIMO in association with the DTO.

Of course Turnbull may have other fish to fry, he has quite a lot to do to get the Liberals back to an electoral-ready position within 12 months, and if not re-elected much of the program above could find itself on the scrap heap of a new government that wants to do things differently.

However I am hopeful that we'll see some true digital leadership from Turnbull whilst he is Prime Minister and potentially some real shifts in how government is delivered in Australia, to the benefit of all Australians now and in the future.

Read full post...

View summary...

Innovation requires innovators, not silver bullet processes & superstar visionaries

I'm seeing something that disturbs me happening in the innovation space across government. Something that suggests that 'innovation' is becoming more of a buzzword than a real change in organisational culture.

On one front, as agencies 'buy into' the innovation mantra, they are developing processes for fostering innovation - systems designed to fast-track innovative ideas from the bottom and middle of their hierarchies to allow top-level scrutiny, prioritisation and allocation of resources.

While these processes mean well, and do help some innovations scale the senior attention ladder more rapidly, they also put a structure and framework around what is and isn't innovation, which can become unhealthy over time.

People who are good at figuring out systems, and the 'realities' limiting senior thinking will gain priority over those with less experience with managing hierarchies - potentially perpetuating the dislocation of some groups of innovators within government, those whose ideas are 'too radical', 'too politically impractical' or 'too difficult or expensive' based on the experience of senior public sector leaders.

Of course innovations that fit the mental models held by long-term leadership, that are 'incremental', 'politically uncontroversial' and 'win-win' (aka no powerful group will have their nose put out of joint) will be given pride of place and will be supported - perpetuating, rather than disrupting how these agencies operate.

Certainly these incremental innovations are valuable and can provide real value in service, cost and outcome terms - however they may also lock agencies into legacy modes of behaviour and thought.

Making a horse-drawn carriage better, faster and more cost-effectively is worth doing, and may reflect the career experience of senior officials - but will fail to deliver the right experience for citizens who want cars.

Innovation that is truly transformational often costs jobs and requires radical rethinking of approach, structure and culture. It's uncomfortable, unpleasant to many, and requires firm direction to embed.

This type of innovation is unlikely to be supported in agency innovation processes - senior officials rarely support initiatives that will see them lose their power base or job.

Processes also have a tendency to ossify. Government is comprised of processes on processes on processes - it's processes all the way down. Many of these processes don't deliver the outcomes the community wants, or are difficult for public servants to even complete, particularly in efficient and effective ways. How does proceduralising innovation help fix this situation and 'break the loop'?

The answer, of course, is that it doesn't. It simply normalises innovation into current public sector workplace models and encourages innovation that has immediate application to existing processes.

The approach essentially turns innovation into a process for improving the effectiveness of other government processes, often without questioning whether these processes need to exist at all.

Over time it is  likely that innovation processes in government will also ossify - that each year they will deliver less return than the year before as innovations that 'fit the right mould' decline, and innovations that are outside the mould increase.

This happens in a rapidly changing landscape - where our knowledge doubles twice in  a year and organisations are perpetually playing catch-up. We simply don't have the experience to develop processes that can adapt quickly enough to reflect environmental change - or the expertise to develop a process that allows us to adapt our processes as quickly as required.

On the other hand, government innovation is starting to become the province of 'visionaries' and 'champions' - people who are singled out as having the 'it' factor that helps pave the way for the plebeian public servants doing the actual innovating.

There's some familiar names in this group - as you'd expect. A number I know personally and have enormous respect for, based on their energy and ability to articulate their views.

Without disparaging this group, which at times I've also been included in, innovation isn't about 'lighthouse' personalities who stand out amidst the crowd, speak at conferences and are interviewed across the media.

Innovation is about the quiet person in the corner who figures out how to cut a step in a government process that saves 50,000 businesses each $500 per year, the geeky IT guy who prefers computers to people, who develops a backend system that improves their agency's security against foreign hackers three-fold or the introverted policy officer who analyses the data and devises a policy that balances political concerns while facilitating a new billion-dollar export industry for Australia.

Innovation is about everyone in government who has ever questioned why things are done in a particular way, and gone about improving them - officially or unofficially, via the designated innovation approach or not, irregardless of whether they ever get an award or speak to a crowd.

Everyone in government can innovate, and everyone should be given the permission, freedom, support and encouragement to do so, whenever they ask 'why?'

For me the real public service innovation champions and visionaries are the public servants we never hear from or see. The ones that work deep in the structures of agencies and innovate not because it's mandated or supported, but because they care about how government operates and impacts citizens, and can see how to improve it.

Succeed or fail these people wish to make their organisations better places to work and more effective deliverers of value to the community and take actions to achieve these goals.

Yes we need the visionaries and champions, to stand up and inspire, give permission or facilitate innovators.

Yes we need some processes and systems to collate, assess and prioritise resourcing for innovations so that they happen and are effective.

But what we need to celebrate are the innovators themselves - the people who think of a better way, and act to see it realised.

They are the true heros of innovation, not the folks on the stage or the systems that allow senior managers to feel comfortable in their own skins.

Read full post...

View summary...