WRITTEN ON October 8th, 2004 BY Peter Reed AND STORED IN Uncategorized

Am I alone in beginning to find some of the recent discussion a bit disappointing? (I include my own contibutions).

The FIPR list, for example, is an excellent requirements specification (matching best commercial practice for integrity, transparency, auditability and accountability….) but many of these are just the price of entry – not the reason to do anything.

The Guardian article rightly discusses efficiency and effectiveness of public services, which are worthy ambitions. But if all they mean is that it is easier to file a tax return, or to vote without visiting our local church hall, or retrieve a patient record, or renew a library loan then the ambition is way too low.

The public sector is under-funded but costing more than we are willing to pay; public servants are over-stretched but presented with an increasingly demanding agenda; public services are grounded in Victorian structures but facing an explosion in demand over the next generation.

Increasing take-up of DirectGov is going to help – how much – roughly?

So let’s recognise the wonderful things that have been achieved, but view them as a very small step on a long road, and raise the bar for the next phase of e-government.

Some of this is already covered, but what about…

• Wouldn’t it be better if specialised service were more readily available to all. So that, for example, pupils interested in pursuing a particular course of study need not be constrained by what is offered by their local school, patients could discuss rare conditions with a consultant without travelling to a remote hospital; academics could teach obscure subjects beyond their own campus….
• Wouldn’t it be better if casework followed the client, irrespective of which agency was providing the service, and wherever they were operating in the community. (and that the supporting technology was embraced because it was recognised as the most secure option, not despite concerns over privacy)
• Wouldn’t it be better if public services adapted freely to the needs of individuals, communities, and organisations – so that, all services used by the disabled were adapted for the disabled, by those who understood their needs; services for business were embedded in business solutions provided by their suppliers; each community shaped public services which addressed their own priorities
• Wouldn’t it be better if the debate was not whether e-government should be run by central or local government, but if e-government helped loosen the ties between service delivery and existing institutions, encouraged innovation and increased the range of options available (for both public institutions and the public)
• Wouldn’t it be better if e-government made it easier for creative ideas to be tried, for some to fail gloriously, for lessons to be learned, and for those responsible to be recognised, not condemned, and move on to an even better solution