WRITTEN ON December 9th, 2005 BY Colin Muid, Maana AND STORED IN Uncategorized

I have read all (well, most) of the stuff which has been posted. the debate
is starting to go down a route of looking at the technology-related issues,
the project-delivery-failure issues, and the ICT market-related issues. The
one area which , in my humble view, is addressing the right sort of point is
about identity.

Why do I think this? Because the whole point of transforming government ( we
used to say re-engineering, but the management consultants need to change
the fashionable words again) is to stop, and reflect, and ask ourselves the
question:

How should we design the organisation of public services to support the
nation’s needs now that digital technologies exist?

We should then ask ourselves the questions:
1. Do we have the right constitutional, legal, just, democratic and
accountable framework to cope with a digital world?
2. Does the capability, and the will, exist in the nation (not just
government, and not just public services, and not just the ICTophiles) to
seize opportunities to redesign the way government-commissioned services can
be provided using, where appropriate, digital technologies?

I do not presume we can start with a blank sheet of paper ( or should it now
be a blank computer memory?). There is bound to be some pragmatism required
because of legacy ( and I don’t mean computer systems, I mean the nation’s
history as a democratic, socially responsible State) and because “the way we
do things here” is a properly powerful restraining influence, in the right
context. But I still have the strong impression that the Transformational
Government approach is about filling holes in the “make do and mend” fabric.
This is ok, so long as we recognise that is what it is. It is unfortunately
the poverty of ambition that emerges from it.

That poverty of ambition is coupled with (and here I am on all fours with
many of the correspondents) the underlying, undebated, asumption that
identity must be controlled, now that computers are around. For all that I
know, that view may be the will of the people. But I have seen no evidence,
and heard no public or philosophical debate, that makes me think we have the
right approach to it, in a free and democratically accountable society, yet.

I have some positive observations on Transformational Government, but within
the context of its limited ambitions, and with some caveats.

Trying to join things together in a more concerted way is fine. But it does
require “systems thinking”. However the mandarin culture is not noted for
its development of systems thinkers, or not until they leave office, at any
rate. So there remains an uphill struggle for Ian Whatmore and the CIOs to
persuade their mandarin colleagues to undertake systems thinking. Perhaps
Ian should ensure every policy wonk in government has read Peter Senge’s The
Fifth Discipline; The Art and Practice of The Learning Organization as a way
of beginning that process.

Shared services. The notion of is fine. But only so long as there are
safeguards which prevent illegitimate use of personal information. There is
not much offered about the latter.

Professionalism. Fine.Well difficult to argue with that, except to say that
once upon a time in the UK the public sector was the largest provider of IT
training and the largest source of IT expertise for recruitment into the
private sector. What happened? Well, a government policy decided that IT was
a skill and service that was not required as part of the civil service, so
it all got outsourced. Guess what? That was a wrong policy, implemented in
the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. Of course we won’t make a mistake
like that again, will we?

Leadership and governance. Of course it must be addressed. However, see all
above, but especially the bits about systems thinking, policy making,
evidence-based decisions, culture, and learning from history and experience.

Portfolio management. Hmm. I don’t follow the claim that portfolio
management will cure the ills described. But it might help people to
understand that many things are inter-dependent and if you push on one part
of public services it often causes an equal and opposite reaction in another
part.

Supplier management. Some sensible looking stuff here. Much of which is
revitalising what used to happen before the demise of the CCTA (it has to be
said!).

Innovation. There are only so many people in the world who are innovators.
Why should it be a surprise that not much innovation actually comes from
firms, or from public service organisations? The important thing to ensure
innovation in public services is to encourage it, wherever it occurs.