Showing posts with label digital. Show all posts
Showing posts with label digital. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Australian governments need to stop treating citizens as free consultants | Tweet |
Across April I'm spending a week participating in government-run sessions to contribute to the democratic life of our nation.
I'll spend two days with CSIRO, supporting their startup commercialisation programs, a day with the NSW Department of Transport supporting their deliberations on future transport needs and policies and a day with the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet supporting the open government partnership process.
Plus there's associated travel and preparation time - including several return drives to Sydney from Canberra.
Every bureaucrat and politician involved in these sessions will be paid for their time and have their travel costs covered.
Every consultant employed by the government to organise, manage, promote and report on these sessions will receive due compensation - paid at their going market rates.
However the participants who give up their time and intellectual property to provide input to government won't receive a cent in payment from the agencies for any of their time commitment. Not even to defray travel or accommodation costs.
Some of the participants might attend representing a university or corporate interests - so while the government won't pay for their time or travel, their employer will. In return their employers will expect some form of benefit in having them attend, whether it be through building or exhibiting expertise, influencing policy directions, senior connections or another form of potential commercial benefit.
However for other participants, including myself, our involvement is a cost - a personal cost (spending time in another city, far from loved ones), and a professional cost (losing days of productive income time).
I've been prepared to sustain this kind of cost due to my passion for helping government take full advantage of digital ('digital transformation' as per this year's buzz phrase), improving citizen-government engagement to support and strengthen our democracy, and supporting Australian innovators to create the export industries and jobs that our country will need to remain successful throughout this century.
Indeed I've calculated that my personal investment in these goals has cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost income over the last ten years.
Now I've also had paid gigs helping government to improve in some of these areas - both as a bureaucrat and a consultant, which puts me in the position of seeing both sides of the equation.
However, make no mistake - for most Australian citizens participating in democracy can only be considered a hobby.
While the government 'professionals' (bureaucrats & consultants) get paid - the hobbyists (citizens) do not.
It's no wonder that most Australians do not respond to government consultations, attend government policy events or participate in significant democratic exercises.
It's no wonder that Australian governments find that the same organisations and individuals constantly respond to their requests for attendance at events and round-tables. Organisations with commercial interests and individuals with either commercial or close personal stakes in the outcomes.
Most people can't afford the time off work to provide their views and insights, even when they have expertise on a topic, leaving a deep well of Australian knowledge and ideas untapped.
Now some might claim that it would be inappropriate for government to pay citizens for taking an interest in democracy and contributing their time to inform or influence policy - after all, all that work is being done directly for the citizens' benefit.
However the majority of citizens now only contribute because of commercial benefit to their employer or themselves, or because they have the financial freedom (or willingness to sacrifice lifestyle) to get involved. Most Australians don't contribute at all beyond voting. So this view of citizens as 'free consultants' is quite outdated and doesn't reflect the realities of the real cost of participating in democracy.
When the Icelandic government ran a constitutional event, inviting 300 representatives from across the country to participate in the design of their new constitution, they paid the participants the equivalent of a parliamentarian's salary for the day - plus travel and accommodation costs.
In a country like Australian where people off the street are paid $80-100 to spend an hour or two looking at product concepts and give an opinion, it seems ludicrous that governments won't pay a cent to citizens who give up their time to provide insights and expertise on policy decisions that affect millions.
If we want the best policies for Australia, governments need to at minimum be prepared to pay for the best participants to attend - covering travel costs to bring in citizen experts and leaders from all over Australia, rather than limiting the pool to citizens within driving distance.
Preferable we need Australian governments to budget respectful day rates for Australians who are invited and choose to participate, or who apply and are selected to participate in consultation events of significance to policy and program development.
Tags:
citizen,
community,
consultation,
crowd source,
culture,
design,
development,
digital,
donation,
engagement,
gov2au
Friday, February 19, 2016
What comes after digital transformation for government? | Tweet |
There's a lot of buzz across governments in Australia at the moment about 'digital transformation'.
What this commonly refers to is taking current government services and systems and redeveloping them as digital solutions based on Agile and Lean approaches, principles and methodologies to make them far easier to use and manage.
Users are placed at the centre of the experience and extensive evidence is collected and used to direct development, rather than the whims and beliefs of 'Highly Important People' - the decision-makers and developers themselves, who are rarely the actual end users.
But let's speak frankly - the need for digital transformation means that government has failed.
Transformation of any form becomes necessary when individuals or organisations have not evolved as their environments evolved.
These organisations have been left behind by changes in technology, social culture and thinking, stuck in a past age due to internal factors such as their culture, structural rigidity, leadership beliefs and lack of resources. External factors such as the legislative frameworks they're required to follow, or their local environment (like ancient species who survive in one small precarious niche) can also have held them to a specific form or slowed their speed of adaptation.
No-one today talks about Google having to digitally (or otherwise) transform, or even organisations like Microsoft (who has faced transformation in the past - particularly in their internet pivot fostered by Bill Gates).
These organisations have designed their cultures and systems around evolution, meaning they can constantly reinvent themselves as technology and social expectations change, avoiding the need to make rapid and painful transformations.
So taking digital transformation as a painful and rapid process fostered from failure, what happens once government has digitally transformed?
There's four primary outcomes I see: failure, reversion, stasis and evolution.
Failure is self-explanatory. The digital transformation fails (due to internal resistance or external strictures) and government tosses out the concept as unworkable. This isn't really likely given the enthusiasm and passion of the people working in government to make it happen.
In the reversion case, which I have personally witnessed in government a number of times, the digital transformation occurs to a greater or lessor degree, led by talented and passionate people. Then those people begin to disperse onto other things, leaving behind a group of individuals who prefer to maintain and support rather than innovate and reinvent.
These individuals don't have the passion or charisma to 'maintain the rage' for the transformed approaches and gradually, as external and internal demands mount and political 'realities' creep in, the transformation work stops and slides backwards.
Come back a few years later and the digital transformation spirit is all gone, with many agencies having reverted to 'how they've always done things'. Innovation remains illusive and digital transformation is regarded as a fad that has now passed.
This can particularly occur where organisations are well-insulated from competition or outside pressures (such as competing for staff or resources).
It's the worst case in my view, as not only the fruits of digital transformation are lost, but the process is seen as a failure, leaving governments less inclined to fund future attempts to turn the ship of state onto a new course. Citizens are left frustrated and minimising their engagement with government - unable to express their will electorally, as no elected party can really promise they'd be better at making the necessary changes.
In the third case, stasis, again the digital transformation is successful to a lessor or greater degree. Then, as people move on or burn out, again their places are taken by people with less enthusiasm or experience in the process.
While the gains of the digital transformation mean that these changes stick, permanently shifting how government operates, agencies see their job as done. They've digitally transformed - project finished. With few people left to drive the process, the culture of transformation doesn't stick on the rest of the public service, who continue to maintain their current cultures, which are largely conservative and resistance to ongoing change.
Funds get shifted into other areas, or to maintaining completed transformation work. Innovation and transformation still occurs, but it is pushed out of the limelight by new priorities and gradually recedes back into the corners of organisations (where it started) where it doesn't cause significant disruption or risk.
Over a few years the pace slows to a crawl, government continues to function but loses its capability to evolve at the rate of the market and community. The culture, while maybe more open to innovation, largely remains the same as before the 'digital transformation project' began.
Five or ten years later, suddenly government finds itself well behind in meeting citizen needs and using modern technology and has to consider a new transformation process to get back on track.
In my view this is the most likely case - it's hard to make sustained changes to the culture of large organisations (such as the public service) without a concerted long-term effort and complete alignment of leadership.
It's easier for most people to think of digital transformation as just another project rather than a process and as having a fixed end point when agencies will have digitally transformed, rather than reworking their structures, funding models, legislative frameworks and embedding performance indicators that favour ongoing evolutionary change.
This scenario has been repeated periodically in government over the years with a succession of major change programs.
While government may regard this scenario as a success as 'outcomes of the project were met', it is essentially a failure. While short-term changes occurred, the nature of the agencies themselves fundamentally hasn't, leaving them unable or unwilling to continue evolving in order to avoid the need for any future transformational projects.
Essentially in this scenario government is simply chasing its tail, institutionalising its failure to evolve as a series of costly transformational projects that can be more disruptive and damaging in the long-term.
The last scenario, my preferred one, involves evolution.
In this case government not only is successful in meeting the objectives of its digital transformation, but also removes the need for any future transformational projects by reinventing its own structures, cultures and frameworks to bake evolution into the genes of agencies.
Agencies no longer follow a 'wait until it breaks' approach to services, systems and policies, but institutionalise evolution, constantly observing the market and citizens, embedding evidence-based testing and iteration into every policy, program, service and IT approach, and constantly evolve themselves to remain up-to-date with community needs and expectations.
This scenario is a true transformation - not only of government services, but of government culture at every level. It renders future transformation unnecessary and removes the constant attempts agencies make at rearranging deck chairs or spending huge sums on failed projects that characterises today's public service.
If you're going to invest in transforming government then invest in transforming government, not just playing around the edges as a project that is repeated again and again over time.
Government needs to move the needle permanently, not simply rev the engine a few times - transform into an evolutionary organisation that is closely attuned to community needs, rather than a sloth capable of short bursts of speed to catch up with the tail-end of the crowd.
I salute the work of everyone currently involved in transforming government - digital or otherwise - to be more agile, lean and evolutionary.
As you work consider what you want your legacy to be - a moment in the sun or a lasting transformation.
No one person can do this alone.
However if we all share the same long-term vision of what comes after digital transformation for government - a new evolutionary state where agencies and the public service can self-manage their ongoing adaptations and growth to meet community needs, without periodic injections of a 'transformation project' - we might just be able to shift the needle a little further in the right direction and avoid repeating the past in an endless cycle.
Tags:
community,
digital,
gov2au,
transformation
Monday, February 08, 2016
Guest post: Ready, willing and able... from John Sheridan | Tweet |
Below is a guest post from John Sheridan of DB Insights, republished with permission from his LinkedIn blog.
John is, in my view, one of the most insightful and thoughtful people in the Australian digital space and I heartily commend reading John's other posts.
John is, in my view, one of the most insightful and thoughtful people in the Australian digital space and I heartily commend reading John's other posts.
Ready, willing and able...
Most of you won’t remember the song “Ready, willing and able”, sung by Doris Day in the early 1950s. And that’s probably a good thing too.
But those three little words, sum up the main barriers to technology adoption that governments, corporates and vendors of all kinds have to deal with in engaging with customers for their products and services.
And those three little words raise some very big issues.
There is a digital revolution happening. But are we all ready, willing and able to engage?
First, are we able? There is a lot wrapped up in this four-letter word…able.
Do we have the capability? Do we have the infrastructure? Do we have the networks? Do we have the leadership? Do we have the education? Do we have the guidance? Do we have the support? Do we have the authority?
The simple answer to most of these questions is no. Not yet.
We still don’t even have the affordable, fast, secure, broadband platform that we need to operate productively in this new environment, no matter what Mister Turnbull might say. You can’t play the game well, if you don’t have a broad, flat, accessible, well-maintained field to play on.
The issue of fast affordable, broadband has been raised again and again, and still not enough is happening. Not in Australia anyway. Just compare our broadband speeds and costs with those of our major competitors.
And our young Australians are far less prepared for the digital revolution than comparable countries, according to a report released at the World Economic Forum.
The report by Infosys, found Australia ranked last out of nine countries for young people being confident in their job skills and feeling optimistic about their future employment prospects.
The report found young Australians were among the most aware of the need to continuously learn new skills, but only 16 % had a strong interest in developing skills in data science and analytics, 18 % had a strong interest in building mobile apps and only 19 % had a strong interest in learning how to code.
These results were the lowest of the countries surveyed - Australia, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States – all our major competitors.
Just 3.8 % of Australian young workers wanted to work for a start-up, the lowest of any country. Not much entrepreneurial spirit in our young.
These results were the lowest of the countries surveyed - Australia, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States – all our major competitors.
Just 3.8 % of Australian young workers wanted to work for a start-up, the lowest of any country. Not much entrepreneurial spirit in our young.
And why is that? Because our education system does not reward curiosity. It rewards curriculum.
And more than half of "the Australians” surveyed believed their education had not prepared them for work.
The report found young people in education or entering the workforce in 2016 faced, "the most turbulent, rapidly evolving labour market seen by any generation".
"The global economy is approaching a Fourth Industrial Revolution, driven by increasing automation of the labour market - enabled by rapid innovations in robotics, artificial intelligence and smart technologies," the report said.
"The global economy is approaching a Fourth Industrial Revolution, driven by increasing automation of the labour market - enabled by rapid innovations in robotics, artificial intelligence and smart technologies," the report said.
So our kids have been failed by the education system and by the lack of insightful careers guidance, support and leadership on this issue. Not good.
We are losing our ability to compete. And we can’t blame that on high wages.
Blame sits fair and square with education and “the curriculum”, skills and careers guidance (the lack of it), the undermining of VET (the TAFE system) and general lack of support and leadership, which is just another way of describing abdication by government in the face of this “wicked” issue.
We are educating our children for the 1950’s, not the 21st century.
We are publicly setting “feel good, sounds good”, objectives – “innovation nation” – but not providing the mechanisms or the proper investment to achieve them.
So we certainly are not able.
But are we even ready and willing?
Attitude can be an even bigger barrier than capability, infrastructure, networks, leadership, education, guidance, support and authority.
Accenture says that just 2% of patients at top hospitals are using health apps provided to them.
Of course, simply having an app is not enough. Simply building an app is not enough. There are lots of apps. Are people ready and willing to use them?
Apps are fine if they are useful, reliable, relevant, trustworthy and safe from hackers and interference.
Accenture highlights the growing resistance to adoption in the consumer electronic industry with heightened data security concerns, falling demand for smartphones and tablet PCs and stagnant growth in the Internet of Things market.
A survey of 28,000 consumers found that nearly half ranked security and privacy risks among the top three barriers to buying Internet of Things devices and services – including smart watches, wearable fitness monitors and smart home thermostats.
Over half knew that these products can be hacked and result in stolen data or device malfunctions. A third chose to postpone buying, a third chose to be more cautious when using and 16% quit using their devices or terminated their service until they can get safer guarantees.
Add to that the ubiquitous information overload we all suffer every day, and it is hardly surprising that caution and reticence thrives. Attitude.
So are we ready and willing? Not yet.
There is plenty of encouragement from government and vendors but plenty of resistance from customers who are not ready or willing to play the new game.
Internet of things adoption is slow in the public domain.
The military have been pioneers with wearable computing, drones and network centric warfare. But the military is the epitome of command and control. You do what you are told.
In the public domain, adoption has slowed because of understandable fears about privacy, reliability, safety and security.
Who wants their house to be embedded with sensors and control systems that are hackable?
Nobody wants to return home to a house with the front door wide open, music blaring loudly and the fridge dancing in the living room with the entertainment system, vacuum cleaner, air conditioner, solar panels and water heater, all knee deep in water.
Cheap, mass-produced, insecure sensors in manufactured smart devices make this scenario a virtual certainty…though maybe not the dancing.
We will have to pay a bit more for reliable safety and security and a lot of electronics manufacturers jumped too soon, used cheap, unreliable, insecure “chips” and have muddied the water accordingly.
So consumers have a good reason to be unwilling. And if I am unwilling, then I am not ready. And if I am not ready, I will postpone.
There is no command and control in the public or consumer domain. I will move when I and ready and willing.
The opinions of an individual consumer gained through personal experience, flow into their professional and working life as well.
If I am not willing or ready at home, then this will influence my attitude at work.
There are many ways people can slow things down through not actively participating and they do. “I’m just not sure,” or “I am not convinced this is the best time,” or “the technology is still immature,” or “we should wait until the end of financial year before we make a decision”, is all it takes.
And those soft comments are not easily challengeable.
It is this attitude expressed by nervous individuals that remains one of the biggest barriers to technology adoption and use. A little self-education could go a long way to addressing this uncertainty, but most of these people have little or no time or inclination to do this.
So even if I am able (NBN and education issues ignored for now), I am still not willing or ready to move.
And there is yet another clash of interests now developing, generated by the “spook” agencies who want vendors to build “back doors” into devices, platforms and systems so they can identify potential terrorism threats, which then undermines the broader economic and social benefits that would come from the widespread use of trusted, secure, safe and private platforms and technologies spawned by the digital revolution.
Strong encryption is a key element that underpins trust, security, safety and privacy. Without it, adoption and use of many new technologies will slow and in some cases stop completely. Encryption and anonymity provide the security and privacy necessary to build trust.
And building trust takes time and isn’t helped by government actively promoting technology on the one hand whilst actually undermining the security and privacy of technology and individuals on the other hand.
These things do not go unnoticed and people are more than able to join the dots.
And vote with their feet. By standing still.
Add to that, widely publicised news reports of “white hat” hackers taking control of a vehicle on the road through the onboard network linking the 30ish different onboard computers…
Or breaking into a government or corporate network, or opening the locked doors to a smart home and it is no wonder people pause to think.
And then consider the greater threat of “black hat” hackers getting into the nuclear weapons defence (attack) network, or shutting down the cooling system in a nuclear power station, or shutting down water or waste water systems, messing with traffic lights, the electricity network or all of the above.
Or automating bomb threats to schools.
The risks grow larger not smaller over time, as state and non-state terrorists, criminals and alienated sociopaths become more knowledgeable, connected and effective.
And if governments can’t protect their own assets with all the resources they have at their command, then what about me?
The problem is largely one of perception. But perception in many cases is an individual’s reality.
And the reality is constantly being tested…day by day.
In a digital and social media age like today, any bad news spreads fast, and upsets and confuses the marketplace far more widely than ever before. Any mistake quickly becomes universal.
So there are some real and some perceptual barriers and hurdles to manage and overcome in this digital revolution.
Revolutions are never easy. And we are dealing with human beings not bricks.
Managing human beings is more like gardening than architecture or engineering.
The technology part of the revolution is all about engineering and architecture, but the human part is about trust, reassurance, education, explanation, sharing, collaboration and support.
So we can’t afford to be “cheap” with chips and sensors and security.
We can’t afford to be lax with governance.
We can’t afford to be cheap with the NBN.
We can’t afford to champion and support an education system designed for the industrial revolution not the digital revolution.
We can’t afford to promote digital technology and STEM, without investing heavily in our research agencies, especially the CSIRO and our universities.
And the cyber security growth centre for Australia can’t come soon enough.
We can’t afford to let our kids flounder out the door into a work environment requiring initiative, curiosity, flexibility and entrepreneurship, when we have trained them to shut up, sit down and do what they are told.
We can’t afford to waste the experience and insights of our older citizens by barring them from productive work, through the blatant barriers and blockages of a “youth” biased HR and employment system…notwithstanding the efforts of the toothless age and disability discrimination commissioner.
We can’t afford short termism. Period.
We can’t afford not to keep up with our major competitors. Or we will wake up one day to find the mine and the farm just weren’t enough.
We have to see that these issues are all connected. They all join up.
These issues are the treacherous reefs and shoals that we have to navigate successfully if we are going to sail over the new horizon of opportunity, and benefit from the connected, collaborative and integrated digital technologies.
Ready, willing and able?
We could be, but that requires more than a small change in attitude and action. It is something that only government can manage effectively and that means at least one minister (and hopefully all of them) has to do something.
Somebody and everybody has to act, regardless of election cycle, regardless of political persuasion, regardless of red, green, yellow or blue ties, federal, state or local geography…this is a non-partisan issue that needs addressing.
The song “Ready, willing and able”, sung by Doris Day was written in the early 1950s.
And our educational and job creation system is still reflective of that time.
We live in a time of multiple PR releases, statements, TV and radio interviews, social media conversations and talk.
But actions speak so much louder than words.
So as the song says, it’s time for government to “lay its cards on the table and tell us what it plans to do.” But then do it.
Monday, January 11, 2016
DataStart announces eight shortlisted open data startups | Tweet |
Late last week the shortlisted start-ups for the DataStart program were released - here's why it's significant and what happens next.
In November 2015 the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, in parternship with Pollenizer Ventures, announced Australia's first open data commercialisation competition, DataStart.
Designed as a pilot to test the approach, entrepreneurs, data scientists and open data enthusiasms were invited to apply for a program that would see up to 20 founders shortlisted, trained and one winner receive start-up coaching and potentially up to $200,000 in funding (via Right Click Capital) towards becoming a commercially viable company.
The program attracted mixed reviews. While some applauded the efforts to link open data competitions with actual commercially viable ongoing outcomes (which has been an ongoing criticism of data competitions in Australia), others saw it as a 'winner takes all' process with little value to the community.
My view was in-between - we need programs like this to be piloted, with the best becoming part of the startup and open data ecosystem. However we also need governments to fund their open data programs such that datasets are released at a sufficient quality level and reliable frequency to be a commercialisable resource.
The DataStart program attracted over 200 entrants and late last Friday Pollenizer released the eight shortlisted start-ups, consisting of 20 founders.
These founders begin a five-day program this week in Sydney to test and work-up their start-ups to evaluate whether there's truly a commercial basis for the ideas.
Following this, based on the competition guidelines, a single start-up will be selected to go into a 9-month incubation process at Pollenizer in Sydney, with the potential to also secure $200,000 in funding from Right Click Capital on commercial terms (aka in return for equity or other consideration).
It's great to see the level of interest in this program, and the next step begin.
What would be really good to see is a higher level of transparency around the start-ups and founders, featured interviews, examples of what data they are using and how.
This is the challenge in public-partner arrangements, where often the partners have a different set of values and expectations, as well as different obligations under law and policy.
I'm hopeful that efforts are underway to align these expectations and values and ensure that these startups become role models and examples of how open data can be used commercially, rather than get hidden away under commercial-in-confidence arrangements.
Of course their IP needs protection, but there's a lot that could be promoted without breaching commercial confidentially.
Who are these founders and start-ups, why are they using open data, what problems are they solving?
Hopefully we'll learn more than their names and vague details of their project area over coming weeks and months.
In November 2015 the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, in parternship with Pollenizer Ventures, announced Australia's first open data commercialisation competition, DataStart.
Designed as a pilot to test the approach, entrepreneurs, data scientists and open data enthusiasms were invited to apply for a program that would see up to 20 founders shortlisted, trained and one winner receive start-up coaching and potentially up to $200,000 in funding (via Right Click Capital) towards becoming a commercially viable company.
The program attracted mixed reviews. While some applauded the efforts to link open data competitions with actual commercially viable ongoing outcomes (which has been an ongoing criticism of data competitions in Australia), others saw it as a 'winner takes all' process with little value to the community.
My view was in-between - we need programs like this to be piloted, with the best becoming part of the startup and open data ecosystem. However we also need governments to fund their open data programs such that datasets are released at a sufficient quality level and reliable frequency to be a commercialisable resource.
The DataStart program attracted over 200 entrants and late last Friday Pollenizer released the eight shortlisted start-ups, consisting of 20 founders.
These founders begin a five-day program this week in Sydney to test and work-up their start-ups to evaluate whether there's truly a commercial basis for the ideas.
Following this, based on the competition guidelines, a single start-up will be selected to go into a 9-month incubation process at Pollenizer in Sydney, with the potential to also secure $200,000 in funding from Right Click Capital on commercial terms (aka in return for equity or other consideration).
It's great to see the level of interest in this program, and the next step begin.
What would be really good to see is a higher level of transparency around the start-ups and founders, featured interviews, examples of what data they are using and how.
This is the challenge in public-partner arrangements, where often the partners have a different set of values and expectations, as well as different obligations under law and policy.
I'm hopeful that efforts are underway to align these expectations and values and ensure that these startups become role models and examples of how open data can be used commercially, rather than get hidden away under commercial-in-confidence arrangements.
Of course their IP needs protection, but there's a lot that could be promoted without breaching commercial confidentially.
Who are these founders and start-ups, why are they using open data, what problems are they solving?
Hopefully we'll learn more than their names and vague details of their project area over coming weeks and months.
Tags:
community,
development,
digital,
gov2au,
innovation,
open data,
open policy
Monday, January 04, 2016
Improvement in governance is the goal, innovation and transformation are simply techniques to help it along | Tweet |
Over the last year in Australian government there's been increasing rhetoric around transformation (primarily digital) and innovation.
This has come both from the political level, particularly since Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister, and from the administrative level, as the Secretary's Board and an increasing number of senior public servants have internalised these terms within their approach to gain funding and support for their activities.
I'm a big support of innovation within government. Where government seeks to improve internal efficiency and external effectiveness, innovation - as a technique for exploring, testing and trialing new approaches - is a key strategy for achieving improvement.
In my view digital transformation is part of this innovation track, with a particular focus on using digital technologies, and the strategies and tactics they enable, to help improve governance and operations across the public sector.
As such both innovation and digital transformation are important techniques that should form part of the 'toolkit' of every public sector employee.
However, in all this rush to secure innovation rushing and transform service delivery via digital tools, public servants and politicians alike must ensure they focus on the goals they are seeking to achieve, not simply the (shiny new) tools they are using to achieve them.
The goal - as it has been for hundreds of years - is to improve the operations of government and ensure that, within the budgets available, governments deliver the best possible experience and, particularly, outcomes, for their 'owners' - citizens.
Innovation is not the goal, it is a method used to achieve the goal, whatever that might be.
Similarly digital transformation is a technique for shifting services between delivery or processing channels in order to deliver more convenient and effective outcomes for the service recipient, potentially with the secondary goal of a more cost-effective, reduced-error service delivery approach for the provider.
Within all the rhetoric abut innovation and digital transformation we've heard from governments, and with the large amount I expect we'll continue to hear this year, keep in mind the end goal - improving government efficiency and effectiveness.
Innovation and transformations do not, by themselves, improve government. They are simply techniques and can be implemented both well and badly, depending on the people, culture and environment they are employed within.
Indeed in certain cases innovation can make things worse - harder, slower, less reliable - or have unforeseen consequences that end up costing government more, and reducing its effectiveness overall.
So look for the outcomes of innovation and digital transformation.
Does an agency's innovation approach reduce costs, reduce error rates, increase satisfaction or improve outcomes for the services and systems to which it is applied?
Last year we heard the talk about innovation and digital transformation. This year we'll start seeing the first outcomes from some of the most highly funded agencies and offices tasked with these techniques.
This year, 2016, will be the test of whether government agencies in Australia are effectively implementing innovation, shifting their culture and administrative biases to facilitate successful innovation and resulting in real improvements in citizen welfare and government operations.
I hope we hear the successes shouted from the rooftops.
Silence can only mean that this has been a failed experiment, with senior public servants using innovation as a way to buffer declining budgets rather than make measureable improvements in how Australian government operations.
This has come both from the political level, particularly since Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister, and from the administrative level, as the Secretary's Board and an increasing number of senior public servants have internalised these terms within their approach to gain funding and support for their activities.
I'm a big support of innovation within government. Where government seeks to improve internal efficiency and external effectiveness, innovation - as a technique for exploring, testing and trialing new approaches - is a key strategy for achieving improvement.
In my view digital transformation is part of this innovation track, with a particular focus on using digital technologies, and the strategies and tactics they enable, to help improve governance and operations across the public sector.
As such both innovation and digital transformation are important techniques that should form part of the 'toolkit' of every public sector employee.
However, in all this rush to secure innovation rushing and transform service delivery via digital tools, public servants and politicians alike must ensure they focus on the goals they are seeking to achieve, not simply the (shiny new) tools they are using to achieve them.
The goal - as it has been for hundreds of years - is to improve the operations of government and ensure that, within the budgets available, governments deliver the best possible experience and, particularly, outcomes, for their 'owners' - citizens.
Innovation is not the goal, it is a method used to achieve the goal, whatever that might be.
Similarly digital transformation is a technique for shifting services between delivery or processing channels in order to deliver more convenient and effective outcomes for the service recipient, potentially with the secondary goal of a more cost-effective, reduced-error service delivery approach for the provider.
Within all the rhetoric abut innovation and digital transformation we've heard from governments, and with the large amount I expect we'll continue to hear this year, keep in mind the end goal - improving government efficiency and effectiveness.
Innovation and transformations do not, by themselves, improve government. They are simply techniques and can be implemented both well and badly, depending on the people, culture and environment they are employed within.
Indeed in certain cases innovation can make things worse - harder, slower, less reliable - or have unforeseen consequences that end up costing government more, and reducing its effectiveness overall.
So look for the outcomes of innovation and digital transformation.
Does an agency's innovation approach reduce costs, reduce error rates, increase satisfaction or improve outcomes for the services and systems to which it is applied?
Last year we heard the talk about innovation and digital transformation. This year we'll start seeing the first outcomes from some of the most highly funded agencies and offices tasked with these techniques.
This year, 2016, will be the test of whether government agencies in Australia are effectively implementing innovation, shifting their culture and administrative biases to facilitate successful innovation and resulting in real improvements in citizen welfare and government operations.
I hope we hear the successes shouted from the rooftops.
Silence can only mean that this has been a failed experiment, with senior public servants using innovation as a way to buffer declining budgets rather than make measureable improvements in how Australian government operations.
Friday, December 04, 2015
Australian Tax Office (finally) considering going digital by default, but walk and talk don't match | Tweet |
The Australian Tax Office (ATO) is currently asking Australians what they think of the idea of the ATO going digital by default.
As they rightly point out in the Consultation paper, the current ability of the ATO to do this is restricted by legislation, which often defines the channels by which certain transactions can occur or services be provided, not simply the desired outcomes and outputs.
This kind of policy blindness to digital is to be expected in legislation developed before the 1990s, or even the 2000s, and can take substantial time to unwind and correct. It's less acceptable (though sometimes still present) in more recent legislation - reflecting a failure to learn and understand the impact of digital on the modern world.
For the ATO these policy issues have meant a constant challenge to work within their legislative framework to still deliver the best possible services to clients, thereby prompting accurate and timely payment of taxes and funding the government's operations.
To complicate matters further, the ATO has been shedding highly experienced staff in a series of budget cuts that, in my view, have severely degraded their ability to operate effectively.
I am glad to see this consultation occurring, however feel that the way in which they are doing it leaves much to be desired and, in my view, weakens my trust in the ATO's ability to go digital by default in a manner that maximises tax compliance through making it easier and simpler for people to meet their obligations.
The form provided for feedback has some unusual restrictions on the number of characters used in responding to the consultation paper, making it difficult for those of us who care to fully flesh out our answers with evidence and perspectives.
When submitting the form there's no acknowledgement of the submission - a standard in most online engagement processes today in order to 'complete the loop' and have people feel listened to and acknowledged. I did (after 40 minutes) receive an email with my submission, which is good, but is hardly the immediate feedback people should expect.
On top of this, the consultation itself seems to focus on a 'stick' approach to gaining compliance as the ATO goes digital by default.
There's no discussion of how the ATO will ensure that digital services are better and easier to use than their offline equivalents in order to create a natural pull effect as people walk downhill to the easier way of completing their tax obligations.
There's discussion of penalties for people who are slow to shift to digital services, but no discussion of rewards for those who move quickly and decisively. A stick without carrot approach rooted in old-style punishment-based thinking.
I think the ATO would be far better placed looking at ways to gameify tax paying, creating rewards for good behaviour and making the system habit-forming rather than a chore.
There's opportunities for the ATO to work across the tax ecosystem, into GST registration, company formation and key life events which lead to tax implications - graduations and retirements, new jobs and redundancies - simplifying the end-to-end system to make it a smoother and seamless process for addressing tax issues, directly or via other connections.
There's enormous opportunities for the ATO to API the tax approach, allowing third-party apps and services to be developed on top of tax paying, as the Canadian tax office already has done. In this scenario the ATO is the support service and engine, but not the interface, meaning they can run a better service with fewer staff and lower costs.
However the biggest opportunity is to move to a codesign approach for tax services, where taxpayers design the services and the ATO implements and manages them. In this scenario it wouldn't be the traditional senior public servants and Ministers approving the services and tweaking them to meet what they believe people want and need, instead it would be the actual taxpayers designing the services they wish to interact with and then approving the systems the ATO develops.
Definitely digital by default is a path the ATO must walk, but whether it walks it well and successfully should really be the key question and goal.
A consultation is a good first step, but the ATO needs to demonstrate that it isn't just walking the path, but is doing so with eyes and minds open, with a goal of the best outcomes for tax collection, via creating services that people don't hate to use.
The way the ATO designed the consultation itself is the first example of the ATO's commitment and approach to developing an appropriate digital by default approach - and thus far it leaves me concerned.
As they rightly point out in the Consultation paper, the current ability of the ATO to do this is restricted by legislation, which often defines the channels by which certain transactions can occur or services be provided, not simply the desired outcomes and outputs.
This kind of policy blindness to digital is to be expected in legislation developed before the 1990s, or even the 2000s, and can take substantial time to unwind and correct. It's less acceptable (though sometimes still present) in more recent legislation - reflecting a failure to learn and understand the impact of digital on the modern world.
For the ATO these policy issues have meant a constant challenge to work within their legislative framework to still deliver the best possible services to clients, thereby prompting accurate and timely payment of taxes and funding the government's operations.
To complicate matters further, the ATO has been shedding highly experienced staff in a series of budget cuts that, in my view, have severely degraded their ability to operate effectively.
I am glad to see this consultation occurring, however feel that the way in which they are doing it leaves much to be desired and, in my view, weakens my trust in the ATO's ability to go digital by default in a manner that maximises tax compliance through making it easier and simpler for people to meet their obligations.
The form provided for feedback has some unusual restrictions on the number of characters used in responding to the consultation paper, making it difficult for those of us who care to fully flesh out our answers with evidence and perspectives.
When submitting the form there's no acknowledgement of the submission - a standard in most online engagement processes today in order to 'complete the loop' and have people feel listened to and acknowledged. I did (after 40 minutes) receive an email with my submission, which is good, but is hardly the immediate feedback people should expect.
On top of this, the consultation itself seems to focus on a 'stick' approach to gaining compliance as the ATO goes digital by default.
There's no discussion of how the ATO will ensure that digital services are better and easier to use than their offline equivalents in order to create a natural pull effect as people walk downhill to the easier way of completing their tax obligations.
There's discussion of penalties for people who are slow to shift to digital services, but no discussion of rewards for those who move quickly and decisively. A stick without carrot approach rooted in old-style punishment-based thinking.
I think the ATO would be far better placed looking at ways to gameify tax paying, creating rewards for good behaviour and making the system habit-forming rather than a chore.
There's opportunities for the ATO to work across the tax ecosystem, into GST registration, company formation and key life events which lead to tax implications - graduations and retirements, new jobs and redundancies - simplifying the end-to-end system to make it a smoother and seamless process for addressing tax issues, directly or via other connections.
There's enormous opportunities for the ATO to API the tax approach, allowing third-party apps and services to be developed on top of tax paying, as the Canadian tax office already has done. In this scenario the ATO is the support service and engine, but not the interface, meaning they can run a better service with fewer staff and lower costs.
However the biggest opportunity is to move to a codesign approach for tax services, where taxpayers design the services and the ATO implements and manages them. In this scenario it wouldn't be the traditional senior public servants and Ministers approving the services and tweaking them to meet what they believe people want and need, instead it would be the actual taxpayers designing the services they wish to interact with and then approving the systems the ATO develops.
Definitely digital by default is a path the ATO must walk, but whether it walks it well and successfully should really be the key question and goal.
A consultation is a good first step, but the ATO needs to demonstrate that it isn't just walking the path, but is doing so with eyes and minds open, with a goal of the best outcomes for tax collection, via creating services that people don't hate to use.
The way the ATO designed the consultation itself is the first example of the ATO's commitment and approach to developing an appropriate digital by default approach - and thus far it leaves me concerned.
Monday, November 09, 2015
Guest Post: Three secrets to unlocking digital government. And you'll never guess what they are... | Tweet |
This is a guest post from Alun Probert, founder of GovComm and former Director of Communications at the NSW Government. It has been republished from LinkedIn with his permission:
Working in Government communications, it’s practically impossible nowadays to avoid discussions of all things “digital”. From the most extreme and simply distracting notion of “Disrupting Government” to the more sensible focus on the incremental improvement of all levels of service delivery, public sector teams worldwide are appropriately looking to the new world to streamline, improve and engage.
For organizations as vast as Government, the digital age brings potential enabling solutions in many disparate areas. Already locally, Service NSW has made an impact as it seeks to take transactions online in the same way that the banks did with the creation of online banking. Similarly, across Australia, government service delivery is being improved in a multitude of ways, from the provisions of free timetable apps to use of voice recognition software and other tools that reduce the complexity of simply making contact.
And in the Government marketing and communications field, outsiders may be surprised to hear that Government departments were early adopters of social media. The various police and emergency services may have been unexpected early users of tools like Facebook but nowadays they continue to evolve and improve approaches to content creation, accessibility and governance while others still debate “social media policy”. At least one head of a high profile department in the emergency services area has said that he couldn’t now imagine business without access to key social media tools.
Meanwhile, and entirely unconnected in different departments, Governments were also early adopters of successfully using digital media channels to tightly target their broadcast messages, particularly to young people warning of the dangers of smoking and irresponsible driving.
And all the way back in 2008, after years of booking multiple pages of newspaper jobs ads each week, I was involved in moving Government recruitment advertising online as the "new medium" was both more effective and a fraction of the cost. I’m not sure I’ve ever written a more compelling or simple business case.
And coming bang up to date, one of the most extraordinary milestones of my time in Government was to see two “digital” campaigns, Pretty Shady and Get Your Hand Off It each achieve more than a million views on You Tube. From my time in the media, I knew that demonstrating actual results was the publisher's Holy Grail and here was a medium that showed us we had a million views. One million. It's probably more now. (I’m told the Victorian Government also launched a digital campaign called Dumb Ways to Die. Did quite well apparently*.)
So in summary, we’ve got Governments across Australia looking variously at digital service delivery, increasing community engagement through social media enabled dialogue and departments everywhere launching apps and other digital tools to improve access to information. The “Open Government” movement is seeing increasing amounts of data released for public access and money is being saved across the board through the use of digital media for advertising.
So I confess I’m getting a little frustrated by the amount of time and effort being spent talking about “Digital Government” as if it were some futuristic (and distant) ideal. It’s inevitable that notoriously risk averse organisations will want to take their time and work on the process, but clearly, the problem with applying old style market analysis in the digital age is that your findings might tell you to buy MySpace.
Taking into account the appropriately careful approach that public sector organizations must take, it seems to me that instead of further abstract discussions on digital government, instead there are three initiatives that would be useful areas of focus:
The first is that we all have to help make sure that everything that is happening in the next few months at the DTO is shared across Government departments. Everything. Methodologies used and not used, risk management strategies and performance reports. I’ve no doubt whatsoever that based on their current impressive record, the DTO team will make this happen. The rest of us though need to help spread the word far and wide. Not everyone is currently listening.
Secondly, we must find ways of sharing all the proven "home grown" solutions with other organizations in the public sector, ideally worldwide. It’s undeniably true that there are differences between states and indeed countries, but the single biggest learning of my time in Government was that the similarities are often more important than the differences. (eg Most nations have an issue with obesity. All those that have cars and mobile phones have a problem with people texting while driving. It’s plain daft to look at these problems as local issues. Even if we can just get into the habit of sharinginsights, we will always be better off than starting with a blank sheet of paper.)
Thirdly, and possibly the hardest thing to achieve is we must find ways of giving people in public sector organisations permission to fail in the pursuit of better. As long as lessons are learned, failures can always be learning experiences and it’s the role of new public service leaders to create environments that allow this to happen.
If we can make these three areas our focus, we can reduce the amount of time pontificating abstractly about “Digital Government” and instead put our wholehearted support behind the people who are best placed to make it happen.
The people currently working in the public service.
And in the Government marketing and communications field, outsiders may be surprised to hear that Government departments were early adopters of social media. The various police and emergency services may have been unexpected early users of tools like Facebook but nowadays they continue to evolve and improve approaches to content creation, accessibility and governance while others still debate “social media policy”. At least one head of a high profile department in the emergency services area has said that he couldn’t now imagine business without access to key social media tools.
Meanwhile, and entirely unconnected in different departments, Governments were also early adopters of successfully using digital media channels to tightly target their broadcast messages, particularly to young people warning of the dangers of smoking and irresponsible driving.
And all the way back in 2008, after years of booking multiple pages of newspaper jobs ads each week, I was involved in moving Government recruitment advertising online as the "new medium" was both more effective and a fraction of the cost. I’m not sure I’ve ever written a more compelling or simple business case.
And coming bang up to date, one of the most extraordinary milestones of my time in Government was to see two “digital” campaigns, Pretty Shady and Get Your Hand Off It each achieve more than a million views on You Tube. From my time in the media, I knew that demonstrating actual results was the publisher's Holy Grail and here was a medium that showed us we had a million views. One million. It's probably more now. (I’m told the Victorian Government also launched a digital campaign called Dumb Ways to Die. Did quite well apparently*.)
So in summary, we’ve got Governments across Australia looking variously at digital service delivery, increasing community engagement through social media enabled dialogue and departments everywhere launching apps and other digital tools to improve access to information. The “Open Government” movement is seeing increasing amounts of data released for public access and money is being saved across the board through the use of digital media for advertising.
So I confess I’m getting a little frustrated by the amount of time and effort being spent talking about “Digital Government” as if it were some futuristic (and distant) ideal. It’s inevitable that notoriously risk averse organisations will want to take their time and work on the process, but clearly, the problem with applying old style market analysis in the digital age is that your findings might tell you to buy MySpace.
Taking into account the appropriately careful approach that public sector organizations must take, it seems to me that instead of further abstract discussions on digital government, instead there are three initiatives that would be useful areas of focus:
The first is that we all have to help make sure that everything that is happening in the next few months at the DTO is shared across Government departments. Everything. Methodologies used and not used, risk management strategies and performance reports. I’ve no doubt whatsoever that based on their current impressive record, the DTO team will make this happen. The rest of us though need to help spread the word far and wide. Not everyone is currently listening.
Secondly, we must find ways of sharing all the proven "home grown" solutions with other organizations in the public sector, ideally worldwide. It’s undeniably true that there are differences between states and indeed countries, but the single biggest learning of my time in Government was that the similarities are often more important than the differences. (eg Most nations have an issue with obesity. All those that have cars and mobile phones have a problem with people texting while driving. It’s plain daft to look at these problems as local issues. Even if we can just get into the habit of sharinginsights, we will always be better off than starting with a blank sheet of paper.)
Thirdly, and possibly the hardest thing to achieve is we must find ways of giving people in public sector organisations permission to fail in the pursuit of better. As long as lessons are learned, failures can always be learning experiences and it’s the role of new public service leaders to create environments that allow this to happen.
If we can make these three areas our focus, we can reduce the amount of time pontificating abstractly about “Digital Government” and instead put our wholehearted support behind the people who are best placed to make it happen.
The people currently working in the public service.
It’s probably not a great idea for another money spinning conference, but it is a cause we can all get behind.
#letsdoit
#letsdoit
About the Author.
Alun Probert is a communications and marketing veteran and having worked on comms with five different Premiers in a decade in Government is now Head of GovCom, independent specialists in public sector communications and engagement.
Get in touch at alun@govcomgroup.com.au
Alun Probert is a communications and marketing veteran and having worked on comms with five different Premiers in a decade in Government is now Head of GovCom, independent specialists in public sector communications and engagement.
Get in touch at alun@govcomgroup.com.au
*Astonishingly, Dumb Ways to Die has been seen by over 100 Million people.
Tags:
digital,
gov2au,
transformation
Monday, October 19, 2015
PolicyHack review by guest blogger, Anne-Marie Elias: The PolicyHack Experiment – A Futurist vision | Tweet |
This post is republished from LinkedIn with the permission of the author, Anne-Marie Elias, who attended PolicyHack as Champion and Facilitator for the Incentives To Develop Social Enterprises stream.
PolicyHack happened – just like that!
It was the courage of a newly appointed Assistant Minister for Innovation the Hon. Wyatt Roy MP and his bold vision to hack for change that led to one of the most sought after event tickets in town.
The Policy Hack experiment was about challenging the way bureaucrats collaborate and encouraging them to engage with the innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem to develop better policy and deliver better outcomes.
It was a brilliant exercise that demonstrated the capacity and appetite of entrepreneurs to come together with those from academia, corporates, capital, advisory firms, civil society and the tech and start-up sector to collaborate and develop innovative policy options for government.
PolicyHack had its fair share of critics. A number of blogs and articles appeared immediately prior to the event. They commented on the lack of planning and process, its haphazard development, its ‘exclusivity’ and the likelihood that it would produce no real outcomes in just one day.
In part they were right. However, in its defence, it was an experiment in innovation, pulled together quickly with no funds, a lot of goodwill, the generosity of a community and an enormous desire to show government that embracing the tools of innovation and entrepreneurship could deliver better outcomes. The Hack was well supported with mentors from Disruptors Handbook and Pollenizer and many others.
It was very brave of the Hon. Wyatt Roy MP , BlueChilli and StartUpAus to take this on and push past the critics. Their chutzpah was rewarded. The energy was infectious with 150 participants, ten teams and champions - 60% of those women- generating 10 ideas in 6 hours.
Was it perfect? No. Is that a problem? No. We know how to make the next one better.
Innovation is never perfect and neither is the current approach to policy design.
Innovation is agile, it’s iterative, it’s responsive and above all else, it’s nimble. It doesn’t stand still while ever there is a problem to be solved.
Compare this hack philosophy to the current approach to policy development. This requires the development of an evidence base (by the time it is gathered it is often out of date), it draws input from the usual suspects, often involves expensive reports from well-paid consultants, has to pass the front page Daily Telegraph test to avoid upsetting vested interests and frankly as a result, often fails.
Is it any wonder then that so many programs cost what they do and deliver so little to the end user they were meant to serve?
I am a firm believer in supporting initiatives that disrupt the status quo for the better and was blown away by how well PolicyHack turned out.
PolicyHack was about demonstrating that there is a better way.
Champions 60% women
The Vision
Assistant Minister Roy spoke about the need for us to be diligent in our expenditure of public funds and observed
“We are going to be fearless and embrace the future. Help shape the vision for how our country can be a hub for entrepreneurship and Innovation."
Wyatt Roy, Assistant Minister, Innovation
The Assistant Minister made it clear that PolicyHack was an experiment that allowed us to collaborate. He explained that this was the first of many PolicyHacks.
Assistant Minister Roy left no one wondering about his aim to encourage all members of the innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem to leverage our capital and support government to deliver better outcomes for our society and economy.
Who won?
The winning pitches at PolicyHack were Erin Watson-Lynn's Digital Innovation Creative Entrepreneurial Kids (DICEKids) an educational program for school children that prepares the next generation entrepreneurs and Nicola Hazel's NEIS 2 Entrepreneur accelerator, in effect a revitalisation of the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme.
These are both simple to implement immediately and can create our new generation of entrepreneurs in a relatively short time frame without any significant hit to the budget.
A quick diversion – the NDIS
The last time I got excited about policy was the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I worked for the NSW Minister for Ageing and Disability, the Hon. Andrew Constance MP and he, like Wyatt Roy, was enthusiastic for change and drove an innovation agenda.
We co-designed the policy with people with disability and their carers. Living Life My Way was a policy hack of sorts where government collaborated with service users and service providers. Where it didn’t meet expectations was that little actually happened after the ideas and exchange.
It ended up being a great big expensive exercise with good intentions but little change. A few years later the outcomes of the scheme remain underwhelming.
Last year in the AFR, Laura Tingle highlighted the frustration with the burgeoning costs of the NDIS trial sites growing out of control. We hear that bureaucrats are hiring more consultants, commissioning more reports and there are concerns about how a scheme of this magnitude will be managed out of State and Territory governments in the next year or so.
Let’s deliver outcomes
In my humble opinion, the current set of bureaucrats working on the NDIS need to meet Paul Shetler, CEO of the Digital Transformation Office (aka the PM's Tsar) and his team as well as Pia Waugh of @AusGovCTO. They need to invite Paul and Pia to facilitate innovation dialogues to help the NDIS get back on track with the help of hackers from the innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem. Hackers who will apply their smarts and collaborate in order to solve this wicked problem without needing to spend any more money.
If anyone is listening we need to hack for disability to see how we can stretch existing budgets to extract more and deliver better outcomes for people with disabilities, their families and carers.
A similar idea was generated last year by the Cerebral Palsy Alliance (CPA) andUTS called Enabled by Design a design-a-thon bringing together people with disabilities and designers to hack practical solutions for accessibility, usability and desirability. We have some incredible minds in the innovation space that have done much for health and disability – Prof Hung Nguyen and Dr Jordan Nguyen are transforming health technology with their engineering, artificial intelligence and tech driven focus.
Delivering PolicyHack
StartUpAus will curate the content of the OurSay platform and the hack and Assistant Minister Roy and his office will deliver packaged outcomes and suggestions to relevant agencies for consideration and action. Policy Hack is a brilliant initiative and with a bit more notice and planning we can make an enormous impact on any big spend issues and, I believe, bring more efficiency and innovation to government.
The PolicyHack model presents a powerful method that can solve a lot of wicked problems for government. PolicyHack can be the darling of Expenditure Review Committees and razor gangs because it gets bureaucrats thinking outcomes not just process. It gets them collaborating to make change not compromises and it delivers breakthrough ideas that solve problems and create opportunities. Which as we know sits at the heart of good policy.
What next?
The challenge now is what happens next? Craig Thomler says “the devil is in the delivery and while perfection should not be the enemy of trying, communication is key, transparency about the process, outcomes and community engagement is integral to the process.”
We haven’t nailed it yet. I think we need to invest some time in doing that. Coming together is the beginning. While we generated amazing ideas, I don’t know what will happen to these ideas post hack. Go to any of the hack sites and you see the promotion and maybe the winning ideas and teams but no further info beyond that.
My proposition
Here are four steps we can take to deliver an outcomes driven hack.
- Start with cross sector thought leadership groups to design the parameters and set the policy agenda.
- Align the right agencies (State and Commonwealth) with innovators in teams to co-design solutions.
- Set up a Post Hack Incubator so that the ideas can be further developed and piloted. These pilots must be supported both by government (through recalibrated funds and resources) and the innovation community.
- Keep talking to ensure all stakeholders remain engaged and informed by sharing the process, the results of implementation and the success or otherwise of outcomes.
We should be so lucky
I for one want to thank the Hon. Wyatt Roy, who, backed by the Prime Minister, the Cabinet Secretary Senator the Hon. Arthur Sinodinos AO, the Hon. Paul Fletcher MP Minister for Territories, Local Government and Major Projects and a growing number of Ministers, Members and Senators including (Fiona Scott MP and David Coleman MP) our champions of change, have seen the constellation of government, corporate and the innovation community align.
We need to deliver outcomes from PolicyHack and develop an ongoing program of hacks for change because it is time that we did things differently and moved into a new paradigm where collaboration is key and where we get shit done, because our communities, economy and ultimately, our future depends on it. If not us, then who? If not now, then when?
Read more about the mechanics of PolicyHack in Gavin Heaton's blog Wyatt Roy's Policy Hack - A view from the inside.
Anne-Marie Elias is a speaker and consultant in innovation and disruption for social change. She is an honorary Associate of the Centre for Local Government at UTS.
Anne-Marie has recently joined the Board of the Australian Open Knowledge Foundation.
Follow Anne-Marie's journey of disruptive social innovation on Twitter @ChiefDisrupter or visit www.chiefdisrupter.com
Tags:
blog,
crowd source,
development,
digital,
gov2au,
guest,
innovation,
leadership,
open policy,
policy,
transformation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)