Digital is boring - it's time for purpose-based transformation

One reason I've posted less frequently in this blog over the last few years is that, frankly, digital in government has become boring.

Digital is now well-embedded in virtually every agency and council at every level of government in Australia and New Zealand, and mobile & online have now been the primary channels for citizens to engage governments for almost ten years.

My predictions back in 2006 that all government communicators would have to understand digital tools as part of their engagement mix have largely been realised, with social being well integrated into agency communications. Albeit this is still far too outbound only for my taste in many organisations & there's continuing overly restrictive social media rules in place for public servants via the APSC which I know are causing a number of quality candidates to avoid applying for government roles.

Cloud is widespread, if not fully understood or embraced and open source and open data are part of the landscape - although there's not been the full value yet realised in my humble opinion.

Digital as a profession has splintered into a range of specialist roles, with clear career paths and their own conference circuits and communities of practice. Meanwhile digital savvy senior executives are no longer as rare as hen's teeth, albeit not yet as common as Canberra taxi drivers with political opinions to share.

Design Thinking and Innovation are everywhere (even buzzwords), and Agile has climbed out of ICT into policy and service delivery spaces, adding value in most places it touches.

It's true that many agencies are still in the throes of Digital Transformation - but this has moved largely on from updating foundational systems to true value creation.

In sum government has advanced in how it understands and uses digital to improve governance and service delivery while reducing costs,  however similar to the old tale of King Midas, Digital has become more Bureaucratised - something government does to everything it touches - fit into the hierarchy and tamed, rather than transforming the basis of how agencies govern.

As such I think it is time to stop talking 'digital transformation' and start talking 'purpose-based transformation'.

Previous Digital Transformation often (incorrectly) put the emphasis on the Digital rather than the Transformation, being more of a lift & shift approach where governments supplemented or replaced physical transactions and locations with digital equivalents.

There was some service transformation undertaken, with each process looked at individually, or even within the context of specific personas and life events, to redesign them to be slightly easier to use.  However there haven't been the mechanisms in place (structure, financing, capabilities or legal frameworks) to reinvent the relationship between government and citizen, or government and stakeholder, or government and supplier.

As a result, despite shiny new online transactional services, supporting systems and growth in their use, there's still overall a lack of clarity in many agencies about how these transactions meet or support the overall purpose of the agency itself. While the transaction might be seamless and secure, what is the 'price signal' it gives to citizens using it?

Are citizens nudged to be good auto-shoppers, self-servicing their needs, or is there a bigger purpose being met in how these digital services help citizens to meet their actual needs, rather than complete a form and press a button?

Purpose-based Transformation, which I raised in a conversation over lunch with Pia Andrews this week, is all about getting back to understanding the roots of why an organisation exists and what is is trying to achieve. It is then about testing whether the current organisational design has a laser sharp focus on fulfilling that purpose through their every interaction - whether with citizens, organisations or other agencies.

Revisiting, and restating that underlying purpose and validating whether the organisation is currently fit for it becomes the first step in a transformation approach that builds on everything we've learn through digital and focuses it on the value proposition of the organisation, rather than the value stream from a specific service or process.

Taking a purpose-based approach allows an agency to think about all its procedures, processes, services and systems from a different perspective. One that is ultimately user centric through a focus on why the organisation exists and expressly seeks to achieve.

In this Purpose-based transformation context, Digital becomes an enabler of the approach and new experiences, rather than an end in its own right.

The goal is measured based on how well the purpose is delivered, rather than on the take-up and cost-savings from transactions.

The outcome of such a Purpose-based Transformation is a redesign of the structure and organisational procedures, systems and services - root and branch - leveraging digital to rethink the entire organisation from the ground up, not simply for specific processes or systems.

Imagine what could be achieved with a purpose-based transformation to address some of the underlying challenges that digital transformations have sometimes simply wallpapered over.

Read full post...

View summary...

Governments are getting serious about innovation capability

The Australian government has been touting the importance of innovation for several years now, with the Coalition's innovation agenda recently conceded to be a political failure due to its lack of resonance with the Australian public.

However underneath the politics, government agencies across Australia and New Zealand have been vigorously expanding their innovation capability, as the The Policy Lab at Melbourne University recently reported.

"A vibrant public sector innovation landscape is emerging in Australia and New Zealand. Public sector innovation (PSI) units are increasingly being established by governments to bring new insights and approaches to policy design and the delivery of public services."

The Mapping Public Sector Innovation Units in Australia and New Zealand 2018 Survey Report identified at least 26 PSI units across Australian and New Zealand government at different levels, across agency-run, agency-led and industry-led units - and that only counts the units the researchers were able to identify, which missed units such as The Garden from Accenture and some deeply embedded innovation teams within certain government organisations.

Notably a number of these units remain new, with a quarter less than 12 months old, and more than half less than two years old, and small, with half employing 5 or less staff. As a result many of these labs relied on consultants and contractors with specialised skills to function effectively.

In Australia all of the agency-owned & led innovation units were focused on a single (funding) agency, whereas New Zealand has established two cross-government units, which work broadly across government.

Interestingly most staff at government-based units were long-term public servants. These units did not draw significantly on external talent from Australia's innovation networks - which raises alarm bells for me in terms of building a blend of talent with broad experience across the innovation ecosystem.

My personal experience with these innovation units has been mixed. Some are still very locked into public sector norms, and find it difficult to produce more than iterative innovations, whereas others have embraced the freedom to innovate and are already providing significant returns. In my experience the more diverse the staff experience, and the more 'liberated' from public sector norms, the more effective these units tend to be.

The areas of policy these units worked in were quite diverse, ranging across 'social issues, housing and welfare’, ‘Public administration and governance’, ‘Education’, ‘Health’, ‘Indigenous and Maori issues’, ‘Transport’ and ‘Policing, crime, and the justice system’ - a good sign that the value and need for innovation is  being recognised broadly across government, if not deeply.

Now while I have had concerns about some of these units turning into 'innovation ghettos' - where agencies tend to look to these units to provide the bulk of innovation within agencies, there are strong signs - particularly in New Zealand - that in many cases these units are functioning more as facilitators and amplifiers for innovation rather than innovation mines.

In my view there's plenty of innovation across government and the long-term challenges to realising this innovation as progressive improvement of government services, effectiveness and efficiency have included hierarchies stifling innovation based on source, poor pitch/amplification skills, limited capability to scale & execute, perceptual fears and budget mismatches.

If government innovation units can address these challenges effectively, then the future for these units looks bright.

Read full post...

View summary...

Roundup from GovHack 2017

Starting in a single Canberra venue in 2009, GovHack is now the largest open data hacking competition for government worldwide, with over 3,000 participants, coaches, mentors and organisers across 36 venues around Australia and New Zealand.

Over a 46-hour period participants including coders, creatives, data crunchers and facilitators, redesign and reimagine citizen services and use open data to visualise fresh insights into government decision-making, taking part in a competition with over 80 prizes and a prize pool of over $250,000.

The event is organised and run by volunteers, but GovHack has support from the Australian and New Zealand Governments, all Australian state and territory governments and many local governments across ANZ, as well as a range of corporate sponsors. This was the first year that the Northern Territory became involved with the event.

Many senior public servants drop into the event over the weekend, and have a keen interest in using ideas from GovHack within their agencies.

This year Accenture was the Platinum Sponsor for GovHack, the first time a corporation has taken such a significant interest in the event - a trend I hope continues as these types of event gain steam as a creative way for companies and governments to innovate quickly.

Accenture sponsored two awards, the ‘Into the New’ award for Australia challenged participants to demonstrate innovation and new thinking in all forms. This could be new ways to experience and interact with public data or new approaches to citizen experiences that help citizen and governments journey into the new together. It attracted 138 entrants from around Australia, from a total of 373 projects submitted.

Accenture’s ‘Re:Invention’ award for New Zealand challenged participants to design a citizen experience that builds on something government already does to deliver a more effective and engaging way of interacting. It attracted 12 entrants from Wellington, Auckland and Hamilton, from a total of 66 New Zealand projects submitted.

GovHack by the numbers

While GovHack itself is over for 2017, state award events will be held in August, and an international Red Carpet event for National and International Award winners in October. You can view the closing video from GovHack 2017 here.

All the projects created this year are online in the GovHack Hackerspace, available for inspiration and learning – remaining online to provide hundreds of fresh perspectives on how government can deliver more value to citizens.

you can read more about GovHack 2017 in this LinkedIn post by a mentor, or on Twitter.

Read full post...

View summary...

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...

You've Been Hacked - how far should governments go to protect against the influence of foreign states?

Like most people with a broad digital footprint I've been hacked multiple times, usually in fairly minor ways.

Around ten years ago I had my PayPal account hacked through malware in the Amazon site, costing me $300.

PayPal staff insisted this was a legitimate payment for goods (which I hadn't ordered) being delivered to my legitimate address in Norway (despite having provably never visited the country). I've been very cautious & limited in my PayPal use since, and never recommend them.

Over Christmas last year my Social Media Planner site was hacked and seeded with malware. Fortunately my IT team was able to identify, isolate and address the matter, without affecting visitors, but costing me financially (two weeks downtime). It's fine now BTW, with extra protections in place.

I've had a Skype account taken over by someone in Eastern Europe, who used it for phishing before I could reclaim it, had basic account details stolen in Yahoo, LinkedIn, DropBox and a range of other large-scale hacks of commercial services over the last five years - excluding the Ashley Madison hack (I've never been a member).

I'm not the only one affected by any means, well over 10 billion accounts were hacked in 2016 alone, with Australian politicians, police and judges outed as affected in at least one of these hacks (and a few in this one too).

Much of this widespread hacking results in the theft of limited personal information. On the surface it may appear to pose little risk to individuals or organisations. 

However the individual reuse of passwords and usernames can turn these hacks into a jackpot. This allows hackers, and clients they sell hacked data to, to access a wider range of accounts for individuals, potentially uncovering richer information that is useful for identity theft, economic theft, intelligence gathering or for influencing decisions and behaviour.

Despite all the reports of hacking, it seems many people still treat this lightly - the world's most popular password remains '123456'.

Most governments, however, do not. Securing their networks is a major challenge and a significant expense item. The data agencies hold has enormous political and economic value that could be easily misused to the detriment of the state if it falls into the wrong hands, or into the right hands at the wrong time.

It's not simply about troop movements or secret deals - early access to economic or employment data, access to the 'negotiables' and 'non-negotiables' for a trade deal, or even to the locations and movements of senior political figures (to know who they meet and for how long) can be used for the financial and political advantage of foreign interests at the expense of a state's own interests.

For the most part, Australia's government is decent at managing its own network security. This isn't perfect by any means, but there's a good awareness of the importance of security across senior bureaucrats and largely effective ongoing efforts by agencies to protect the secure data they hold.

However in today's connected world national interest goes far beyond the networks directly controlled and managed by governments. As we've seen from the US (and now Germany), political parties and individual politicians have also become hacking targets for foreign interests,

This isn't surprising. Politicians, potential politicians and even academics have long been targets for funding assistance and free or subsidised study trips to nations hoping to cultivate influence in various ways. In fact these approaches provide some positive benefits as well - by creating personal relationships between powerful people that can lead to improved national relationships, trade deals and even avert wars.

Hacking, however, has few of these positives, as we saw in the release of Democratic National Congress emails by Wikileaks, which were most likely obtained through Russian state-sponsored hacking and likely was designed to influence the US's election outcome.

Whether you believe the cumulative findings of the US intelligence community or not, it is certain that foreign states, and potentially large multi-nationals corporations, will continue to target political parties, and individual politicians, seeking insights into how they think and levers of overt and covert influence for economic and political gain.

Hacking will continue to grow as one of the major tools in this work.

The Australian Government is taking this seriously - and kudos to them for this.

However even this focus on political parties neglects a wide range of channels for influencing current and potential future politicians. What about their other memberships and personal accounts?

Politicians and potential politician are well-advised to position themselves in various community and business groups to improve their networks, build relationships and future support. They are also just as likely as other Australians to use the internet - for work and personal reasons.

This means they're likely to have numerous online accounts with both domestic and foreign-owned services, with varying levels of security and access control. 

On top of this, it's not simply politicians who may be the targets of influence. Political advisors and activists often shape and write party policy positions, despite never being publicly elected. Influence an advisor and you can influence policy, as the many registered lobbyists know only too well.

Equally bureaucrats across government often are exposed to material that could, if shared with foreign interests, cause some form of harm to a state. We've seen this in insider trading by an ABS staff member, where the economic gain to the individual public servant outweighed his good judgement and public duty.

While bureaucrats are security assessed to a significant degree (unlike our politician) and selection processes are in place, backed by rules and penalties, to screen out the 'bad eggs', the potential for public servants to be influenced through hacking their personal accounts has risen along with their internet use.

Right now we're in an environment where the number of attack vectors on a politician, an advisor and on individual public servants, is much higher than at any past time in history - while our tools for protecting against foreign influences have not kept up.

Of course this goes both ways - our government also has the capacity, and often the desire, to influence decisions or negotiations by other states. We've seen ample evidence of this, although it isn't really a topic our government wants to discuss.

The question for me, and I don't have a solid answer yet, is how far technically should a government go to limit the influence of foreign states.

Should governments merely advise political parties on how to secure themselves better?

Or should governments materially support parties with trained personnel, funding or even take over the operation of their networks (with appropriate Chinese walls in place)?

What type of advice, training or support should agencies provide to their staff and Ministerial advisors to help them keep their entire footprint secure, not just their use of work networks, but all their digital endeavours?

And what can be done to protect future politicians, advisors and bureaucrats, from wide sweeps of commercial services collecting data that could be useful for decades to come?

We need to have a more robust debate in this country about how foreign states and commercial interests may be seeking to influence our policies, and decide as citizens the level of risk we're prepared to accept.

Until this occurs, in a mature and informed fashion, Australia is hurtling forward into an unknown future. A future where our political system may be under constant siege from those who seek to influence it, in ways that are invisible to citizens but more wide-reaching and dangerous to our national interest than any expense scandal.

If this isn't the future that we want, then it is up to us to define what we want, and work across government and the community to achieve it.

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...

Defining and celebrating effective Australian leadership

Victor Perton, former Victorian Parliamentarian, Government Advisor, Advocate, Board Member and one of my mentors founded AustralianLeadership.com in 2016 with the mission to "celebrate, understand and improve Australian leadership."

He interviewed me on the topic of Australian Leadership in late 2016 and recently posted the interview, which I've replicated below.

For other great interviews, visit his AustralianLeadership.com site where he's collected a variety of interesting perspectives on leadership in Australia.

Victor Perton: Craig, what do you see as the unique qualities of Australian leadership?

Craig Thomler: One of the most appealing and positive qualities about Australian leaders is their approachability. Australia has much less of a sense of hierarchy than Europe or Asia, and this egalitarian attitude displays itself through a readiness for leaders here to engage with, and listen to, people at all levels of their organisation and to be open to engaging with a wide range of people from outside their organisations.

This leads to an increased willingness to entertain new ideas, as well as an improved understanding of the needs of different groups and results in decisions that are more inclusive and attuned to customer and staff needs.

Another unique quality is how laid-back Australian Leaders commonly are. This allows them to more effectively manage difficult situations without significant apparent strain, simply taking challenges in their stride. This quality isn't universally positive, on occasions, it can lead to a lack of attention to detail, or giving up a level of control over events, which can lead to additional downside risk in certain situations.

Finally, in my experience, Australian Leaders are commonly more collaborative than many other leaders around the world. This exhibits itself more commonly between organisations and in the decision-making processes of leadership teams. Often the ultimate leader in a leadership team is seen as 'first among equals' rather than as a level above others in the group, reflective of Australia's egalitarian outlook.

Victor Perton: Craig, what are the qualities that Australians seek from their leaders?

Craig Thomler: I believe that Australians value approachability and 'down-to-earth' practicalities in their leaders. We don't commonly place leaders on pedestals or exalt them. We accept that they are humans, with flaws, and, to a degree, accept those flaws as part of the characteristics that makes them good leaders.

Leaders who see themselves as 'above' others, due to expertise, experience or position, or who portray themselves as flawless, tend to be less credible to Australians and less believable as leaders.

Australians also value honesty and a sense of fairness in their leaders. Leaders who do not exhibit these traits consistently rapidly lose their shine and then their effectiveness.

Victor Perton: Craig, what is the finest story of Australian leadership you have experienced or observed?

Craig Thomler: Probably the finest act of leadership I have observed in Australia in the last five years was by Lieutenant General David Morrison AO, whose position on sexism and violence against women, per his video statement in June 2013 (see below) demonstrated clear and effective values-based leadership on a topic that other Australians in leadership positions - both public and private sector - had been unable to grapple with.

His statement, which reverberated around the globe, drew a clear line in the sand on appropriate behaviour not only in the Australian Army but across the Australian community.

Read full post...

View summary...

Australian Public Servants want the right to comment respectfully on political and policy matters online

I've been monitoring the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) public consultation on the current social media guidelines for Australian public servants (APS).

While they clearly aren't interested in comments from former or potential future public servants, having neglected to publish, or even link to, my comments - which I submitted to the APSC four weeks ago - there's been 109 public comments published from current public servants.

While there may be private responses to the consultation, or other public comments as yet unpublished, I've analysed the comments available and the viewpoint points consistently to one conclusion.

Australian Public Servants overwhelmingly want the right to comment respectfully on policy and political matters via the social media channels of their choice.

It's clear from the responses that social media is increasingly seen as a normal way to communicate - like chatting at a barbeque or on the phone - and public servants increasingly feel the medium should be treated in the same way, with an emphasis on the 'social' rather than the 'media'.

Only nine of the publicly published responses supported the current guidelines for public servants, which state (in part) that:

6.2.7 When employees make public comment in an unofficial capacity, it is not appropriate for them to make comment that is, or could be reasonably perceived to be:

1. being made on behalf of their agency or the Government, rather than an expression of a personal view
2. compromising the employee's capacity to fulfil their duties in an unbiased manner—this applies particularly where comment is made about policies and programs of the employee's agency
3. so harsh or extreme in its criticism of the Government, a Member of Parliament from another political party, or their respective policies, that it raises questions about the employee's capacity to work professionally, efficiently or impartially
4. so strong in its criticism of an agency's administration that it could seriously disrupt the workplace—APS employees are encouraged instead to resolve concerns by informal discussion with a manager or by using internal dispute resolution mechanisms
5. a gratuitous personal attack that might reasonably be perceived to be connected with their employment
6. compromising public confidence in the agency or the APS.

 Whereas 90 of the published responses stated that, to quote from one respondent,

It is important to recognise that, as citizens, public servants should have the right to express an opinion on key political issues providing they do this respectfully and that the issues they are commenting on do not not relate directly to their area of employment.

This view was represented many times, using different words and phrasing...

I can see that there is an argument that there should be more caution about what is said about the area in which you work, but why should I be prohibited from making comment publicly about immigration policy or environment policy if I don't even work in that area?

...if I want to make a comment about the work of my department in my position as a customer of that department, or as a taxpayer who has an interest in the direction of government programs generally, I ought to be able to do so.

Remaining a-political should not preclude someone from criticising an individual's performance in government… Questioning obviously wrong policy is not straying from the APS code of conduct.

People should not be persecuted or railroaded for making public comment in their own personal time on any social media platform regardless of what the posting is about or responding to that is not work/employment related.

If the APS are censored from making any criticism of the government of the day and their policies, it's going to be even harder to encourage good people to want to work with us. 

As an employee of the APS I am 100% committed to upholding the Values and Code of Conduct whilst at work, and in situations that are in connection with my employment. As a citizen I have my own set of values and beliefs and shouldn't be forced to remove myself from public debate on social media platforms just because I am a public servant. 

Having the right to vote, by default, forces you to have a political opinion. While public servants retain the right to vote, they should also be able to voice that opinion.

We should have freedom of speech, so long as we speak respectfully about issues

Public servants should be allowed to say anything on social media during their unpaid time.

If it does not relate directly to the programs administrated by their agency, preventing APS employees from engaging in public discourse as private citizens is excessive and oppressive.

No matter how distasteful, racist, sexist, or whatever an opinion is, a person should have the right to express that opinion, provided it is not obviously linked to an organisation.

Public servants should have the same rights as any other Australian to comment on the government of the day and political matters.

Some were even more blunt,

Every vote counts. So EVERY voice should have the ability to be heard… Why is the government so afraid of the people?

It's unfair and oppressive to expect that because someone works in the public service that they can't be affected by political and social issues and therefore have opinions about the issues which may affect them and the people who are important in their lives. 

Why pretend we agree with everything we're told to do? It's like an atheist praying in Church to make their religious parents happy. As long as expression is respectful, it should be permitted.

When a politician says something stupid (which many of them do) I should be allowed to comment that they said something stupid.

While others questioned whether the government's current policy suggested that public servants were not trustworthy or that Australian democracy was broken,

In 10 years of working in Government I have only ever seen fantastic, impartial and evidence based decision making, and this is despite the fact that as humans, Public Servants naturally hold opinions. To imply that they cannot be trusted to comment responsibly on social media is to imply they cannot be trusted anywhere. Why does the medium change things? I.e. if we're questioning the integrity and trustworthiness of the Public Service; why should it be limited to social media? Either we are trustworthy everywhere, or we are not.

In Australia we have a liberal democracy. Public servants are part of that democracy. As such the boundaries on political and social commentary should be set quite generously for all, public servants included. In our history we have fought totalitarian regimes that have sought to inhibit free speech, my father and grandfather both fought for freedom and democracy. I see the curtailing of free speech that all citizens currently have as a huge infringement on hard-fought and won rights.

People who work for the public service have just as much right to question the Government in a democratic society as the next person. If they don't, then how democratic a society is it?

 Any democracy that cannot deal with criticism, regardless of the source, is no longer a democracy.

Only a few believed the current limitations were fair,

To protect public servants from any erosion of trust now or in the future, I believe they should not be posting anything critical.

I have worked for three federal government agencies in my working life and am proud to have done so; I believe in what these agencies stand for and deliver to the Australian community. I am not about to bite the hand that feeds me. If I find a significant shift in agency policy and practice which would be at odds with my own belief system and make being a-political in a professional role impossible I wouldn't hang on for any length of time I would simply leave.

No matter who your employer is, whilst you are in their employ, I believe you should respect that bond and not do or say anything that would damage that company's reputation.

A minority (14) suggested that public servants should conceal their connection to the public service while posting, to prevent an obvious link to their employer, while a few others pointed out that this wasn't really a protection at all.

My suggestion would be that APS employees should not list their Department or Agency as their employer on social media sites. They should not divulge any information that is not already available on public record and should not publically denegrate their employer. Ooutside these restrictions, I should be able to have the same rights as Australians who work in the private sector.

A more effective result could be achieved by instructing PS employees to remove any identification as a PS employee on their personal social media accounts and to not permit comments which identify their opinion as being related to their employment. Without any identification to the person's employment, it's difficult to see how someone can perceive an employee as making comment on behalf of their employer.

On the topic of whether public servants should be able to comment on their department and work, opinions were split. 36 respondents clearly indicated they believed that public servants should not comment on their own work and agency, whereas 14 directly stated that they should and a number of others were ambivalent.

The arguments were fairly clear on both sides.

Those opposed to talking about their work and agency said it could compromise their ability to do their job impartially, and potentially release information that shouldn't be public.

Those that supported talking about their work and agency pointed out that they were the best informed about their areas and could provide critical facts and information into the public domain in ways that could enrich and improve the public conversation. They also noted that at times they were also customers of their own departments, and as such should have the same rights as other customers.

...if I want to make a comment about the work of my department in my position as a customer of that department, or as a taxpayer who has an interest in the direction of government programs generally, I ought to be able to do so.

I should be able to comment on policies and topics in the public spotlight that affect me, my family or my field without fear of reprisal from my employer - particularly where the discussion is not at all related to my employer.

It is said that Qantas staff can't publicly criticise their employer, so nor should public servants. But Qantas doesn't confiscate 20% of my income. Qantas doesn't tell me what I can and can't buy, sell, import or smoke. Qantas doesn't tell me who I can and can't marry. Qantas can't send armed men into my house to arrest me. Qantas doesn't decide what my children are taught at school... Public servants have a duty as citizens to participate fully in political debate, including in relation to the programs they administer. 

A few believed the existing policy was clear,

I do believe the social media stance is perfect as it stands.

Yes they are clear. They do not appear to require revising.

But most respondents felt otherwise,

...this area is extremely grey and needs not only definitive clarification, but absolute determination as to what can and can't be said on political issues without fear of reprisals or recriminations.

Overall all respondents agreed on one point - that public servants should be respectful when they engaged.

Hi, I think that we should have the same rights and rules of every Australian Citizen. We should be able to speak our mind, even to the point of a difference of opinion with a Government Minister, providing we do not denegrate our department, our managers or colleagues.

It is now up to the APSC as to what they do with this information and how it affects the next iteration of the APS's social media guidelines.

Read full post...

View summary...

It's time to start talking about open innovation - how do we share innovations across society?

Innovation is one of the global buzzwords today.

From Parliament House in Australia to the remotest regions of Africa, the world is talking about innovating to solve old problems using new techniques and emerging problems using old ideas in new ways.

As a career entrepreneur and innovator, I'm supportive of these innovation agendas - innovation is an important and useful tool for organisational adaptation and problem solving within rapidly changing environments. 

Provided innovation is embedded and practiced as business as usual, rather than treated with lip service or ring-fenced into irrelevance it can be a powerful technique .

Thus far public discussions have largely focused on how we make organisations more innovative. How do we adjust cultures, structures and the legislative and policy frameworks that surround them, to help organisations embody that innovation spirit.

That's an important conversation - and very much a work in progress. 

However there's another conversation we need to have that might be even more important over time.

How do we share innovations such that their impact is magnified in ways that reshape industries and societies, not just individual companies and agencies.

Now this isn't a debate about the value of intellectual property (IP) ownership. There's strong and good reasons for individuals and companies to be able to protect and control the use of their new ideas and techniques. I'm broadly supportive of the current IP model used globally, although it can be cost-prohibitive and onerous and can (and has) been misused on occasion by those with the money and power to do so.

However there is a distinction between IP that should be protected and innovations that should be shared. 

For example, imagine how different the world would look today if an ancient Greek city-state had applied modern IP rules to the technique and process of democracy.

If the democratic process had been patented, on an ongoing basis, the concept and practice of democracy may never have become the modern standard for governance, against which all other models are regularly tested.

Now that's an extreme, and potentially absurd, example, but given the legal changes made over time to IP law to continue to globally protect the likeness of a cartoon mouse, perhaps not totally implausible.

There's many examples of innovations that only become valuable when shared, or have their value multiplied by collective use. The internet is such a modern innovation, with its base 'operating systems', IP addresses and HTML, available freely for reuse by billions around the world.

Other such innovations include the 3-point seatbelt, the global standard for protecting car passengers, which was invented and patented by Volvo in 1959, then given freely to the world to improve safety standards.

In 1959, Volvo invented the 3-point seat belt, then gave free license to all other car manufacturers to use it. pic.twitter.com/ONsdhmrpt9

— Vala Afshar (@ValaAfshar) December 8, 2016

As a more recent example, in 2012 Tesla did something similar, 'opening up' many of its electric car patents, declaring they would not sue companies that used them under certain circumstances, in the interest of helping to build an ecosystem of car and component makers that expands the market for electrical cars.

There's other examples of innovations being 'open sourced' in some way to help share them. For example CKAN, the open data portal platform developed by the Open Knowledge Foundation, is open source - which has led to its widespread use by governments globally.

aGov, the Drupal platform used to deliver GovCMS, is also open source, and now deployed in over 400 instances around the world.

In both these cases vendors monetise these platforms through providing support services - but the platforms themselves are freely available should an organisation wish to go it alone.

Other examples of shared innovation include the code bases developed for government services and apps through Code for All and it's country-based affiliates, such as Code for America and Code for Australia.

Companies are sharing their AI research (and sometimes the code) - even the notoriously private Apple has recently announced that it will be taking part, in order to stay competitive in this fast changing field.

Governments are also, in certain cases, sharing their code - such as the US Army, which has shared code from its cyber defense systems to help tap the experience of others to improve their capabilities, and to help other organisations improve their own cyber defences.

The US Government even open sourced its open sourcing policy, along with a range of services it has built, so they can be easily reused by other governments.

There's been a little of this in Australia as well. The National Map is open source, as are several other systems. The Digital Transformation Agency has also worked in this space, open sourcing the code for their Alpha gov.au site and the text for its Design Guide.

However most innovation that could be shared is still not shared in a structured way.

Certainly events such as the new Public Sector Innovation Awards help raise awareness, and reward, innovations across the public sector, and can generate some informal sharing post event. Networks such as the Public Sector Innovation Network also play a role, at least in helping share ideas within the network itself, if not with the wider community.

But these are still largely inwards looking. They neither provide formal ways for agencies to share their innovations with other agencies or the community at large, or for agencies or those outside government to locate relevant innovations that might support their own endeavours, with a blueprint on how to implement them.

They also are poor tools for bringing innovation into government from outside - for learning from the daily innovation activity across more than 2 million businesses in Australia, and hundreds of millions worldwide.

There's really no current consistent structured method to find the right needles in that global haystack, the shared innovations that would transform an agency, company or community, solving problems and lifting their effectiveness.

This conversation, about how we share innovations effectively, is the one we need to have to scale the fantastic innovation work being done behind closed doors across Canberra, across Australia and across the world.

Without it all the work going into transforming organisations to be innovative is simply creating new types of silos, where innovation happens within a room and is poorly shared or built on by others who could leverage it.

I also believe that in this broader discussion of how to share innovations wisely and widely, we'll also find answers to the question of how to make organisations more innovative, as sharing will promote greater thinking about innovation 'within the walls' as well as without.

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...

Australian Government submits Australia's first open government National Action Plan

Over the last four years the Australian Government has engaged in a stop-start process towards becoming a full member of the international Open Government Partnership, which now counts 70 countries in its membership, plus is beginning to explore state-based membership as well.

The Open Government Partnership was founded five years ago by eight countries to foster open government around the world, providing a forum for countries to share their initiatives and make ambitious commitments to open up government, in various ways, to public scrutiny.

While Australia was invited to be a founding member, the then Government never quite got around to joining, and the process since then has been slow and torturous.

However in the last year, with renewed support from Prime Minister Turnbull, a consistent process has seen the goal of having Australia become a full and active member finally achieved (after a brief hiccup due to a national election campaign slowed it down).

I've blogged previously about several of the consultations and steps that have been taken in 2015-16 to progress towards this achievement, and have supported the process in various ways where I could, both formally and informally.

There's been a number of other people instrumental in finally arriving at this point, both significant movers and shakers within Australia's small civil society movement and within the public service and I congratulate all of them for this achievement.

While Australia's National Action Plan won't go far enough for some, and the consultation process was not as structured or inclusive as others would like, actually getting a plan at all has been a huge achievement given Australia has had five Prime Ministers and four governments in the last six years.

Also this is only the first National Action Plan. It lasts for two years and is expected to be renewed after that point.

Now that Australia has started this process, the goal should be for all participants to ensure that each new National Action Plan is more ambitious and inclusive than the last.

Australia's First Open Government National Action Plan - December 2016

Read full post...

View summary...

CSIRO ON Innovation Bootcamp report - Innovation thriving in the public sector

I was privileged to attend CSIRO's On Innovation Bootcamp on Wednesday and Thursday this week, a two day intensive for CSIRO, university and other government teams transitioning concepts from government scientific research towards becoming startup companies.

This was the third round for the ON programme, with approximately 80 teams having now gone through the process to some degree. It was my second ON bootcamp as a volunteer mentor.

Hosted at UTS in Sydney and facilitated by Pollenizer's Phil Morle and Tristonne Forbes, 8 CSIRO teams, 10 university teams and one from the Defence Science and Technology Group went through the bootcamp program.

They spent two days testing and validating their customer, product and market assumptions to confirm whether their concepts could truly make it as a commercial product in the global market, then pitched their new businesses to three judges with extensive startup capital experience, competing for ten places in the 12-week ON Accelerator program.

The teams were supported by about 25 volunteer mentors from a range of startup and corporate backgrounds, as well as CSIRO ON's staff.

Comparing this bootcamp with the last one I'd attended, this time the teams were more mature. Many had prototypes and had either tested their products or found their first customers. Several brought along product samples, or wore team t-shirts emphasising their spirit and focus.

This maturity made it only more intensive as the teams thought through their MASSIVE vision, developed their roadmaps to success and tested their value propositions against the needs of their potential customers.

During the bootcamp all of the teams went on a huge emotional rollercoaster. Some arrived with a clear vision of their product and markets, but found that their target customers didn't perceive the problem they were addressing, or weren't prepared to pay for a solution.

Other teams were still forming (one I worked with hadn't met before face-to-face), or still saw their concept as an interesting research project rather than as a compelling commercial offering, and had to rethink their roles, approach and language.

I witnessed several amazing breakthroughs where teams realised that their initial thinking needed some adjustment, and pivoted their product, market or customer target to increase its chance of market success.

At the end of the two days all the teams had made amazing progress, and gave stunning three minute pitches. I don't envy the decisions the judges will have to make.

I've included a series of tweets below from the pitches which highlights each team's area of focus. Frankly I could see 90% of them going on to become successful, either as a business or licensing their technologies, with a number having market maker potential for creating global change.

Remember that all of these are public sector innovations - government-funded science that has become potentially valuable technology with vast commercial potential.

The list below is in the order of the pitches.

Virtual Training - VR training for healthcare professionals and families incorporating AI

Virtual reality training in #healthcare #OnAccelerate #Alzheimers #VR #virtualreality pic.twitter.com/HgHG8L8FbN

— Idea Spies (@IdeaSpies) December 1, 2016

NutriThick - an intensively healthy drink made from Australian seaweed that counters vitamin deficiencies amongst older people

A drink made from #seaweed that prevents and treats #osteoporosis #ONAccelerate #healthcare pic.twitter.com/MBzSfGfuX3

— Idea Spies (@IdeaSpies) December 1, 2016

RadVet - a tested cancer treatment for pets, that has already been successful in humans

A product to treat #cancer in #pets that has been tested in humans #ONAccelerate #vet pic.twitter.com/zX84at6RHm

— Idea Spies (@IdeaSpies) December 1, 2016

MICE - a secure image sharing service for Doctors, to accelerate treatment through providing information to specialists

#Healthcare access for everyone with an app that provides images to doctors so patients can be treated outside #hospitals #ONInnovation pic.twitter.com/4XAzvclP7h

— Idea Spies (@IdeaSpies) December 1, 2016

Green and Gold - a genetic approach to activating the leaves of plants to produce renewable fuel oils, including aviation fuel

Liquid gold made from green leaves #ONInnovation #aviation #greenenergy #tobacco #jetfuel #sustainability pic.twitter.com/EBsFPTjfR4

— Idea Spies (@IdeaSpies) December 1, 2016

VitiApp - a decision support system, particularly for vineyards, that helps farmers and their consultants make better decisions and produce improved wines and crops

A system that helps #farmers and their consultants make the best decisions for their crop #ONAccelerate #wine #agriculture pic.twitter.com/Q41V4i7euf

— Idea Spies (@IdeaSpies) December 1, 2016

detectORE - a simple in-the-field testing solution for mining samples to accelerate decision making and save money

Making #gold sample analysis possible overnight -faster and cheaper #ONAccelerate #mining pic.twitter.com/XwB7nRXURp

— Idea Spies (@IdeaSpies) December 1, 2016

Going for Gold - a non-toxic gold extraction technology that replaced the cyanide currently in use and can also increase yields for smaller gold miners by 50%

A non toxic chemical that that can be used to recover #gold -so no need for #cyanide #ONInnovation #mining #regulation #government #danube pic.twitter.com/lRSk3ikEcj

— Idea Spies (@IdeaSpies) December 1, 2016

DrapeMeasure - a disruptive patternmaking system that uses 3D mathematics to provide faster and more precise measurements of 3D shapes (such as people for clothes), that has applications across the fashion, building and design industries

A #pattern making system that makes #fashion fit the first time #ONAccelerate #tailoring #innovation #STEM #designer #luxury pic.twitter.com/jwyTgp1Axr

— Idea Spies (@IdeaSpies) December 1, 2016

LuciGem - who have developed stable nanoscale diamond and ruby probes to explore and understand live cellular environments

Probes that track #drugs in the body to test them #ONAccelerate #ruby #diamond #healthcare #pharmaceutical pic.twitter.com/H2jrNzJsl8

— Idea Spies (@IdeaSpies) December 1, 2016

Passive Radar - a system using environmental radio sources to map objects, providing enhanced situational awareness for military forces without revealing their locations with active radar

The ability to see without being seen- passive #radar #ONAccelerate #Defence ##passiveradar #ADF pic.twitter.com/6XxKtXUbAr

— Idea Spies (@IdeaSpies) December 1, 2016

Wildlife Drones - who have developed an enhanced animal tracking system six times faster and able to collect substantially more data than existing methods, with applications across wildlife research, agriculture and pest control

A radio tracking system for tracking #wildlife- #ONAccelerate #innovation #conservation #livestock #drone pic.twitter.com/3hN4QiQbVp

— Idea Spies (@IdeaSpies) December 1, 2016

Feraliser - an indigenous-driven initiative which transforms feral pigs into fertiliser, providing regional jobs and improving environmental and social outcomes.

#Sustainable jobs for #indigenous #communities in #remote areas eliminating #feral pigs and turning them into #fertiliser #ONAccelerate pic.twitter.com/zHFm9cysAZ

— Idea Spies (@IdeaSpies) December 1, 2016

SensorCloud - a data integration and analysis service that can digitally transform the agricultural value chain, by equipping agronomists and farmers with integrated and improved intelligence for decision-making

A #digital #transformation service for #farm #consultants so they can add value- #ONAccelerate #agriculture pic.twitter.com/ahm0hLm9jg

— Idea Spies (@IdeaSpies) December 1, 2016

Australian Silicon Photonics - a group that has developed a low heat and energy consumption solution for moving data within data centres, and eventually within devices, allowing our digital networks to grow enormously at much lower cost and impact

A #tech for #data centers that uses much less #energy and delivers more #computer processing power- #ONAccelerate #DataCentre #innovation pic.twitter.com/tiMPLMlwnu

— Idea Spies (@IdeaSpies) December 1, 2016

D-Tech IT - an automated fish identification system for tracking fishing catches at source to avoid catching the wrong species and increase the efficiency of fishery operation

A way to provide #fishery visual detection for 100% of catches (now 5%) with realtime monitoring-#ONAccelerate #dolphin #seal #conservation pic.twitter.com/SYdh3rQkye

— Idea Spies (@IdeaSpies) December 1, 2016

IOkeeper - a cloud security system that allows individuals and organisations to encrypt all the data they place or transfer through the cloud, keeping it safe even when cloud providers are hacked

A way to keep your #data safe in the #cloud even if the cloud provider is #hacked- #ONAccelerate #photography #legal #innovation #encription pic.twitter.com/s0UmXhzrhs

— Idea Spies (@IdeaSpies) December 1, 2016

DentalAR - a training system for dentists that uses augmented reality to quickly upskill students and allow trained dentists to access vital new information in real time to improve patient outcomes.

Training #dentists with #AR to save time and reduce costs -#ONAccelerate #dentalschool #dentalhealth #innovation #AugmentedReality pic.twitter.com/r3kiqotLl5

— Idea Spies (@IdeaSpies) December 1, 2016

Robotic finger orthosis - a 3D printed custom robot exoskeleton managed by a mobile phone or smart device that helps people to recover more rapidly and completely from hand injuries

#Robot #tech that fixes #hand injuries #ONAccelerate #innovation #heathcare #handtherapy pic.twitter.com/7Ke8S4nKx7

— Idea Spies (@IdeaSpies) December 1, 2016

Read full post...

View summary...