DesignGov's public sector problem solving primer

DesignGov has just released the first iteration of their problem solving primer, a tool designed to share insights from the expertise and experience of decision makers and practitioners on what makes good problem solving.

Released on their blog as A problem solving primer, it's a great approach to start aggregating the combined wisdom of people who have to solve complex problems on a regular basis - particularly (but not exclusively) in the public sector.

DesignGov are seeking more viewpoints, so please consider making a contribution - your experience and insights may be valuable to others in ways you do not expect!

The entire work may be turned into a ePub (which I reckon would be a great idea and broaden its reach).


I was asked to contribute, and managed to write a piece that was far too long, so it has been shortened (with my approval) in the primer - however I thought I would include my full piece below.

It was in response to the question, 'What one thing would you recommend when dealing with limited resources and competing priorities?' and my answer was:

In every workplace it is necessary to manage situations where there’s limited resources and competing priorities.

While each situation may be different – a restrictive budget, changing environment or demanding boss – there’s an approach that has helped me work through many versions of this challenge.

I call it the Venn approach. It involves identifying synergies and similarities between priorities and designing solutions by reusing and repurposing work to meet different priorities.

The Venn approach involves the following steps:

1. Take a breath to understand the boundaries
   The first step is to put aside some time to understand the resourcing limits and priorities.
   
   Often we can get so caught up on delivering what we think clients and bosses require, we forget to confirm what they really need. We can also have a false understanding of the resource limits, thinking we have less resourcing than we can actually call on, not grasping the range of skills at our disposal, or mistakenly believing we have more resourcing than has been allocated.
   
   By taking some time upfront to truly understand what we have and what we need to deliver when it is often possible to identify opportunities to reduce priority conflicts, maximise how resources can be used and reduce the risk of being caught short on money or time before a priority is met.
   
   
2. Identify synergies and similarities
   While the priorities you have may be different, often there are opportunities to reuse some of your work to meet varied objectives.
   
   Whether it is reusing templates, processes, systems or outputs, there can be hidden synergies which allow you to more efficiently manage your resourcing to meet priorities with less strain and more cost-effectively.
   
   Whenever I have priorities which will recur, or have similarities with other duties, I look to create systems and processes that can be used to minimise the ongoing work to deliver outcomes – even where this involves slightly more resourcing upfront. This type of approach helps reduce future priority conflicts and frees more resourcing for new goals as they emerge.
   
   
3. Share the value
   Often others in your organisation would also benefit from systems, processes, tools and the outcomes you’re required to deliver. It is always worth networking within your organisation, identifying other areas who have similar needs and challenges to you and approaching them around resource sharing and support.
   
   Having worked in online teams across both government and the private sector, I’ve become used to having a range of teams from across organisations needing similar outcomes which, if they attempted to meet them individually, would not be cost-effective for any specific group. However by aggregating these needs and their resourcing a great deal more can be achieved and more organisational needs met.
   
   
4. Negotiate the timeframe and outputs
   It may be hard to believe, but sometimes managers instruct teams to work to unnecessary deadlines, or define the outputs they want when different (and easier to deliver) outputs may actually better match the outcomes needed.
   
   It is often worth checking with the person who issued the deadline whether it is really a fixed point in time, and under what conditions it could be shifted.
   
   It is also worth confirming the outcomes they need from a project, rather than simply delivering the outcomes instructed. Managers may not be aware of the range of ways an outcome may be met and you may find there’s an easier, cheaper, faster and even better way to meet their needs.

Read full post...

View summary...

Should councils run their mayor's social accounts or agencies their Minister's?

It is rare but not unheard off for Mayors (or other Councillors) to ask council officials to run their Facebook, Twitter or other social media accounts - or for State or Federal Ministers to ask agencies to run their social accounts for them.

This can raise challenges for council staff and public servants - where may this cross the line from apolitically to political?

From my perspective this is a matter where a council or agency needs to draw a clear line between the position and person of an elected official.

There's no issue with a council running social media accounts for the Office of the Mayor, or for an agency running the social media account for a Prime Minister or Minister where that account is the respective property of the council or government and is used to post factual and non-partisan information.

However if these accounts are to be held in the name of a particular office holder - an individual politician - or are to be used for political or electoral posts,  there's no way a council or agency can run these accounts without damaging its reputation for being apolitical.

In these cases, where a Mayor or Minister asks for social media accounts that they intend to use in a personal and/or political manner, councils and agencies have to be prepared to step up and say no.

I know of a few cases across Australia where this hasn't happened - the area is still too new, and some public officials do not yet fully comprehend the difference between apolitical and political social media accounts.

The media has also been slow to grasp the distinction and hasn't yet called many public organisations to account for inappropriate operation of Councillor or Ministerial social media accounts, although I have begun getting calls from journalists who are interested in learning which are the right questions to ask.

This is another good reason why senior public officials need to be across the risks and opportunities that arise from social media. Knowing when to say no to a Mayor or Minister to protect the reputation and apolitical standing of their council or agency is part of their job.

Read full post...

View summary...

What does the election of a Coalition government in Australia mean for federal Government 2.0 and open data efforts?

As I've blogged previously, when state governments in Australia have changed ruling parties there's often been a temporary hiatus in Government 2.0 and open data activity, if not a series of backsteps - however in almost every case the trend towards greater digitalisation, engagement and openness has resumes.

With the transition from a Labor to Coalition Australian Government the question social media and Government 2.0 practitioners in Commonwealth agencies will be asking is what is their likely future under the new government?

The new Prime Minister has made it very clear that his infrastructure focus is on roads and that he has a very limited understanding of the value and importance of digital channels. The Coalition was also extremely sparing in its use of social media throughout the campaign, preferring to slip under the radar and avoid risk rather than engage with it (and their lesson in winning the election is that this approach wasn't a negative).

I'm also yet to receive any response from Malcolm Turnbull or other Coalition parliamentarians in relation to my questions about their policy position on Government 2.0, open data or membership in the Open Government Partnership - even when Peter Timmins from Open and Shut personally contacted a number of members also seeking a response.

Fortunately there's at least some light at the end of this tunnel.

The Coalition released its egovernment and the digital economy policy platform on Monday 2 September. Amongst a range of topics from NBN to cloud computing, the platform states that the Coalition will release a policy to 'accelerate Government 2.0 efforts to engage online, make agencies transparent and provide expanded access to useful public sector data'

The platform indicates that the Coalition will be taking a 'digital by default' approach, similar to the 'digital first' approach that was beginning to be adopted by the last Labor Government,

Designate the Internet as the default way to interact with users, other than for defined exceptions. We will look to establish a Digital Service Standard and Digital Design Guide, modelled on the UK equivalents, to ensure consistent design of current and future services.

Also modelled on part of the UK approach, the Coalition also outlined an aim to "Seek to ensure every Government interaction that occurs more than 50,000 times per year can be achieved online by 2017."

While slightly less ambitious that Labor's goals, this is a pragmatic approach to prioritising high-frequency transactions for digitalisation - although it is worth noting that there's no evidence this would provide significant cost-efficiencies. Sometimes it is better to prioritise lower frequency, but higher transactional cost services for digitalisation to gain experience in the process, realise cost-savings and as 'quick wins' as they can often be digitalised much faster.

The Coalition has also flagged an interest in mobile service delivery. While no specific goals for making services mobile-ready were outlined in the policy platform, it did go so far as to require agencies to report what proportion of their digital services are not mobile accessible from 2015.

This is encouraging, but potentially misleading. An agency with hundreds of low-use services may find it far more difficult and expensive than an agency with a few high-use services to deliver and report a high proportion of mobile accessible services.

Equally 'mobile accessible' can easily manipulated to mean different things - I can access many services via the web browser on my tablet and smartphone which are still essentially unusable on these devices due to factors including poor design, form complexity, or the requirement for a human conversation to explain specific requirements (hard to call a service desk while using a smartphone to complete the online form).

The 'digital inbox' concept sounds like a great idea in theory, however its practical value depends on how well it is implemented. In fact this is the perfect project to have a start-up develop, free of the bureaucratic constraints of government.

Having previously worked on CSAOnline, which allowed Child Support clients to access their letters from the agency online indefinitely via a secure logon, I recognise that some government approaches to developing digital services can be poorly tuned to delivering on customer needs - costing far more and taking far longer than comparative start-up development cycles.

The Coalition policy section on 'Government 2.0 and Big Data' seems oddly named and reflects a very narrow view of Gov 2.0 as meaning open data and 'tech stuff', whereas most of the international Gov 2.0 community takes the broader view of Government 2.0 being about transforming how governments and citizens interact with the aid of new tools and techniques enabled by digital channels.

The section essentially focuses on having AGIMO ask communities and businesses which data should be made open - something they already do (albeit in a low-key way) and advocating support for public-private partnership proposals from industry and researchers to use big data for public benefit. There doesn't appear to be a budget attached to this latter approach, so what the statement "The highest return proposals will be supported to proof-of-concept and beyond" means is anyone's guess.

The Coalition policy doesn't discuss how the government will or should use social and other digital channels to develop policy, shape services, engage and empower citizens, or provide any guidance as to whether events and approaches to encourage and support civic use of open data will continue to be supported.

Overall it has a very transactional 'government as vending machine' view - which is good as far as it goes (creating efficiencies is valuable) - but doesn't consider the participatory democracy aspects of Government 2.0, where digital channels can be used to support and build democratic engagement, reduce the risks of government getting policies and services wrong and introduce more ideas and analysis to 'black-box' agency processes.

We live in a world where the experts don't all live within the walls of an agency - or an ideological group - and this hasn't been reflected in either the construction or policy instruments outlines in the Coalition policy.

For all these flaws and concerns, at least the Coalition has policies in this area, and overall it isn't worse (if not much better) than Labor's policies.

As the policy platform hits the 'road' of practical governance I am sure there will be a rising interest in how digital channels can support the Coalition's goals in government, and agencies will continue using social channels for communication, customer service, engagement and other purposes.

On that basis I don't expect much slowdown in Government 2.0 progress under the Coalition, although we are unlikely to see an acceleration (as the US did under Obama and the UK under Cameron).

Ultimately Government 2.0 is not an ideological topic - it is about effective governance - there's enormous opportunities in Australia for both conservative and progressive politicians to use the bandwagon to improve government in this country, if they are willing to step onboard.

Read full post...

View summary...

How Australia compares on the basis of voter participation and invalid (donkey) votes

We hear a great deal about the number of people in Australia that are of voting age, but haven't registered to vote, however we don't hear a lot about how Australia compares to the rest of the world in this regard.

I sought out some data from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) to compare Australia with the rest of the world, to see how well we had been doing in electoral participation - which provides some indication of how engaged citizens are with government.

IDEA has data on national elections since 1945 for about 235 countries. This is available online as tables (such as this one) as well as downloadable custom files (through this interface) and great quick snapshots - though there's no datafeeds or APIs available.

As such it took only a short time for me to download the data, plug it into a Google Fusion table and produce the below map and charts.

This shows that Australia is amongst the roughly 18% of nations which have compulsory voting for their parliaments.



Australia also compares well in terms of voter turnout, sitting close to the top of the list (6th as below - mouseover the graph for details) based on the latest election results (looking at the period from 2009-2013), despite being one of our lowest turnouts since World War II.



Our invalid voting rate has been creeping up, particularly since 1984, and is now amongst the top 30 in the world in their last election (looking at the period from 2009-2013) - see close to far right on the chart below. This indicates a growing disillusionment with existing political parties, but hardly one which is fatal to our system.



Finally, below is a view of the entire world based on voter turnout in their last election (looking at the period from 2009-2013) - click on the coloured dots for a run-down of the voting statistics for each country, based on their latest parliamentary elections.
(larger version here)



Based on this data Australia remains a highly politically engaged state, although we've been in decline for around 30 years.

It would be nice to see Australian governments turn around this trend, reversing the decline in engaged voters and improving civic participation at all levels.

Certainly there's lots of good effort underway to engage citizens more actively in government, although this may be being undermined by increasing disillusionment with the way politics is being played.

The answer might be a rethink of politics, rather than a rethink of government - although this would need to be driven by some very courageous politicians.

Read full post...

View summary...

Weird and wonderful uses for open data - visualising 250 million protests and mapping electoral preferences

One of the interesting aspects about open data is how creatively it can be used to generate new insights, identify patterns and make information easier to absorb.

Yesterday I encountered two separate visualisations, designed on opposite sides of the world, which illustrated this creativity in very different ways.

First was the animated visualisation of 250 million protests across the world from 1979 to 2013 (see below).

Based on Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone (GDELT) data, John Beieler, a Penn State doctoral candidate, has created a visual feast that busts myths about the decline in physical protests as people move online and exposes the rising concerns people have around the world.

Imagine further encoding this data by protest topic and displaying trends of popular issues in different countries or states, or looking at the locations of protests in more detail to identify 'hot spots' - in fact John has done part of this work already, as can be read about in his blog (http://johnbeieler.org/)


Second is the splendid Senate preferences map for the 2013 Australian Government election, developed by Peter Neish from Melbourne.

Developed again from public information, this is the first time I have ever seen a map detailing the flow of preferences between political parties, and it illustrates some very interesting patterns.

The image below is of NSW Senate candidates, and thus is the most complex of the states, but shows how this type of information can be visualised in ways never before possible by citizens without the involvement of traditional media or large organisations.

For visualisations of all states and territories, visit Peter's site at http://peterneish.github.io/preferences/

These types of open data visualisation lend themselves to a change in the way the community communicates and offer both an opportunity and a threat to established interests.

Governments and other organisations who grasp the power of data visualisation will be able to cut through much of the chatter and complexity of data to communicate more clearly to the community, whereas agencies and companies who hang back, using complex text and tables, will increasingly find themselves gazumped by those able to present their stories in more visual and understandable forms.

We're beginning to see some government agencies make good use of visualisations and animation, I hope in the near future that more will consider using more than words to convey meaning. 

Read full post...

View summary...