First report – and first test – of the PBA

8 09 2010

We shall soon see who is more powerful in this country, the elected government or the civil service.

The Network for the Post-Bureaucratic Age today publishes its first detailed report on one way we can get better-for-less. This has been put together by some of the UK’s best thinkers on the subject, led by Liam Maxwell, IT specialist and Councillor at the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. It presents examples of where their approach has succeeded and a clear plan – a playbook – for implementation. But will government actually be able to put this into action, or will it be blocked?

The report – ‘Better for Less: How to make Government IT deliver savings’  (iBook here)- investigates the quagmire of government IT.

The British government currently spends somewhere between £16 billion and £23 billion on IT every year. The astonishing lack of clarity over expenditure is symptomatic of appalling failures in IT strategy, procurement, and process. This cannot be allowed to continue, especially during a time of spending cuts in frontline services. The annual cost dwarfs some government departments. It is three times the amount we spend on the army, more than the Department for Transport. Worse, it has been designed badly and, unfortunately this time, the process has been built to last. The problems come from ineffective procurement – much of which is waste.

Each year about the same amount of money is spent on the procurement process (the jumping through hoops to secure contracts) as is used to run the Foreign Office. Savings just in the procurement process – without even counting the savings from better IT –  could finance the entire Sure Start programme, they could fund 50% more school building. And even when the form-filling is done only 30% of projects work. Indeed government productivity has actually declined since IT was introduced. At a time when dynamic change is required –  to reduce cost and deliver better services – one of the principle barriers to that change has become government IT.

Liam and his co-authors are dedicated to bringing government into the information age, and have looked in detail about what should be done to deliver government IT more effectively, and at a much lower cost to taxpayers. The paper spells out exactly how government can deliver a better service for less money – a very different proposition to proposing mere ‘cuts’, where less money means poorer service.

The full report is available at http://pbage.org, directly here and as an ibook here.

We would really appreciate any comments from anybody who reads the paper: one of the central tenets of the post-bureaucratic age is that knowledge and skills exist within informal networks, not just companies and departments. We recognise this and encourage anyone to comment below, regardless of their political affiliations.

Stephan Shakespeare

Note: Stephan Shakespeare chairs an informal network of people who are interested in the development of policy towards a ‘post-bureaucratic age’, and has written about what this means  here and here

Advertisements




Government response to comments on the Coalition Programme

2 08 2010

On Friday 30th July, the government published responses, by department, to the public opinions expressed on ‘The Coalition: our programme for government’ website. In the past three weeks, the website published over 9,500 comments from the public on the Coalition programme on subjects as wide-ranging as defence, civil liberties and banking. In a video posted to the Number 10 website, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, hailed the latest developments thus:

‘The response has been fantastic and I’m pleased to see people have really engaged with this process. I hope people will see that this is different, it’s a permanent change to the way we run government, and that it is worthwhile engaging in this kind of process in the future. It’s important for us in government to remember we don’t have all the answers.’

His comments were echoed by Oliver Letwin, Minister of State for the Cabinet Office:

‘At last, government has realised that there are 60 million citizens who really do have ideas. Through processes like this, we can give real power to the people and make things open.’

In a statement on the Cabinet Office website, the government thanked those who chose to comment on the programme for government and reiterated its commitment to the use of open standards and transparency. Furthermore, the government hailed the opportunity for open source software to drive down procurement prices and avoid dependence on inefficient vendors. The government also announced that ‘Guidance for Procurers’ will be published in September 2010. The aim of this guidance is to ensure that new IT procurements for government offer the best value for money possible.

Charlotte Jee       (@charlottejee)





Will a minority government be less bureaucratic than a majority?

10 05 2010

Every new government, even one which aims to make widespread cuts in the public sector, will expand some parts of the central bureaucracy. The apparatus of state is too well-oiled to avoid this. In a majority government, unchecked by constitutional practice or public opinion, this can occur at breakneck speed – as they UK saw after Tony Blair’s landslide victory in 1997.  Each minister, each department, and each senior civil servant, looks to expand in influence and power. Who begins a new chapter in government without a desire to do this? The motivations may not be sinister, but the lack of any meaningful opposition or check, means that the outcome is usually inefficient, centralising, and bureaucratic government.

The minority government cynic:

Minority governments require consensus. The parties do not hold the same priorities, so the only way that any party can achieve anything is to give another party something that it wants. Government business is conducted essentially as a stitch-up; you back our bill, and we will back yours. Threats to withdraw support from both sides are frequent and loud. The central bureaucracy creeps outwards, as both parties must give more to each other in order to get more in return;  a cycle of buy-offs ensues.

The minority government optimist:

The parties do not hold the same priorities. Each party acts as a check on the other’s expansion, so extensions of the central bureaucracy are vigorously resisted, and only those which are very popular or extremely important can gain traction. Political capital is defended by preventing the other party from furthering its aims, and from protecting the most significant of one’s own positions.

Will a minority government be a more post-bureaucratic government?

A minority government will have neither the constitutional ability nor moral standing to take unilateral decisions; a process of primary consultation will have to be embedded into the ongoing workings of the state bureaucracy. This invites a shift in power back to localism, to self-regulation, and to emerging post-bureaucratic governmental structures, for all but the most fundamental national issues –defence, taxation and spending, Europe. It will be substantially more difficult for a minority government to interfere from the centre, especially in issues which are not governed exclusively on a national level.

What should be done?

It is possible that the transparency agenda will be sidelined discreetly, as neither party will be keen to advertise their backroom deals. On the other hand, keep an eye out for overt displays of collaboration between the parties, especially if the issue in question is especially important to one of them. When it seems too good to be true – it probably is.





The Big Big Society Failure?

21 04 2010

Senior Tories have come out against David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ idea, and the Tories look out-of-touch with an electorate who is expressing its frustration by turning to the Liberal Democrats in droves.

The ‘Big Society’ is a fundamentally post-bureaucratic idea: ween people off their dependence on the inefficient, autocratic state, in favour of civic activism and social responsibility. However, the Tories have been way off on delivering the message. A staunch Tory friend, who has campaigned ardently for a smaller state and greater civic activism, gave me the following response to the Conservatives’ proposals:

“The Big Society is an atrocious idea – can someone get them to stop talking about it. Imagine what the young professionals are making of it. Life is complex enough without saying as well as struggling to earn money and bring up a family you have to coach badminton to some illegal immigrants in Ilford!”

What went so wrong that someone fundamentally in favour of the Tories idea (and a longtime party supporter) can become so outraged at how it has come across?

  • The stress on civic activism placed emphasis on what people would have to do, rather than the idea that they would be ‘granted back’ their freedom.  The ‘Big Society’ appeared to be, somewhat perversely, another burden imposed by the state.
  • The ‘Big Society’ undermined the Conservatives’ commitment to ‘Compassionate Conservatism’. This let Peter Mandelson portray the well-meaning Big Society idea as the ‘agenda for abandonment‘. The Conservatives failed – totally – to demonstrate how being anti-Big Government could also be pro-Compassionate Conservative.
  • The presentation of the  ‘Big Society’ agenda agitated a nagging feeling amongst those skeptical of Cameron himself. The synthesis of Thatcher’s famous comment on ‘Society’ and the Tories’ anti ‘Big Government’ drumbeat was a little bit too PR-savvy when it came from CallMeDave’s mouth.  It sounded too-clever-by-half, as well as being too progressive: in other words, too Dave. Perhaps David Willetts could have made it stick.

Ali Unwin ( @aliunwin )





Thoughts from our lunch with Clay Shirky

26 03 2010

Just back from a splendid nPBA lunch with Clay Shirky, hosted at the Taxpayers’ Alliance. A few highlights below.

Clay spoke about four aspects of the web: the personal (e.g. Lolcats); the communal (e.g. Yahoo Groups for cancer sufferers); the public (wikipedia, linux); and the civic (The Pink Chaddi Campaign against the Hindu Ram Sena).

He argued that the status of the first two groups, the personal and the communal, were least under threat. In these groups, the value is contained within the groups that use them, and it rarely permeates out. Public and civic value are much harder to achieve, especially when they attempt (as civic value does) to challenge and then to change well-established cultural norms.

What conditions need to exist to create public or civic value?

1. A platform which is appropriate to the audience and activity. Clay used the example of the crowdsourcing platform that The Guardian ‘assembled overnight’ to allow readers to trawl through the mass of MPs’ expenses data. The Guardian owns lots of technology structured to produce a national newspaper, but the platform needed a quick and easy way to comment, leaderboards of participation, and easy reporting.

2. Rhetorical norms. Internet stories which create civic or public value are framed as stories of interest and amusement – rather than treated as victories for civil rights or ‘serious’ issues. Clay argued that these stories are not ‘one-offs’, but part of meaningful change in the world.

3. Cultural norms. Clay claimed that he realised as a teenager that while it was ‘stupid’ to do anything productive in your free time, it was totally acceptable to watch TV  for an average of 20-30 hours per week. Free time is an important resource, and the cultural notion that is acceptable or even preferable to passively consume television as your main activity still stands as a blockade in the way of creating civic value.

A New Angle on Transparency and Open Data

Clay offered a couple of iconoclastic caveats about transparency in government. He cited the example of the ‘Sunshine Laws’ enacted after Nixon’s resignation. One of the unintended consequences of the laws was to cause the lobbying industry to mushroom. In the days of obscurity, politicians could take lobbyists’ money from all sides, and then claim that they had voted however they liked. When their votes were made a matter of public business, the lobbyists could check their ROI in an instant.

Another problem Clay identified was that of the use of open government data. He claimed that the technical problems of opening government datasets were easily surmountable, but that understanding and ‘creating stories’ out of the data was neither easy nor guaranteed. There is also the issue of scale in collaboration. Small-scale projects need as much collaboration as possible, whereas large projects often need ways to limit collaboration. The example used was of the ‘average’ wikipedia editor who only makes one edit, and does not want to become burdened by the system.

Recognizing Temporary Power

Clay also argued that the state will struggle to harness the utility of local collaborations, until it finds a means of recognizing that power has both a geographical and a temporal locality. Groups will come together to solve an issue, then disperse. The Coalition for a Passengers’ Bill of Rights in the US is a prime example.

These groups present some new challenges to government. First, they will not accept compromise in the manner that other stakeholders will. They exist to get a result, and their temporal status means that they cannot be placated by promises of future rewards and have little incentive to compromise.

The Role of Women

Clay proposed that involving women in both the design and implementation phases of projects is an important way of facilitating successful participation, both at a local community level and in large bureaucracies.

Ali Unwin (@aliunwin)





Briefing note for Conference 1

23 02 2010

Why move beyond the bureaucratic age?

The past few decades may come to be seen as the testing to destruction of the centralised state. As the likes of Simon Jenkins have chronicled, power began to gather at the centre under the Thatcher government, and continued to do so under Labour. Much of this was well-intentioned: ministers were trying to push through economic reform against the bitterest resistance, or ensure that massive new public spending would lead to better services. But the Leviathan’s limitations are increasingly obvious:

  • The public services that citizens rely on (and pay for) are often unresponsive to their needs.
  • At the same time, the choice, openness and speed-of-access available in other areas has changed popular norms and expectations. People are less inclined to be grateful for whatever they’re given.
  • The fiscal crisis means there is no more money for public services. Improvements must come through reform, not added investment.
  • The anti-politics Zeitgeist, which was already discernable before last year’s expenses scandal, has diminished trust in the state. People are less willing than ever to defer to the judgement of politicians.
  • Individual responsibility and social capital have been crowded out by the expansion of the state.

The emergence of post-bureaucracy

Part of the answer to these problems lies in devolving power from central to local government, something all the major political parties are notionally keen to do. Britain, after all, is perhaps the most centralised polity in the democratic world. But a more profound change may be achieved by relinquishing various kinds of power – such as access to data or control over public money – from government at any level to individuals and communities. Such ideas have come to be known as post-bureaucratic.

In the pre-bureaucratic age, before the emergence of mass communications, power was held locally. The central state simply lacked the means to reach into distant communities. The invention of the telegraph helped to bring about the bureaucratic age, when power shifted to the centre. Government no longer merely fought wars and set strategic directions, but began to command and control broad aspects of daily life. The genesis of the post-bureaucratic age lies in another technological leap forward: the internet. Society has moved from no mass communications to centralised mass communications to decentralised mass communications. Citizens can access information once limited to a centralised political class, and enjoy a power to publish that was once confined to an equally centralised media.

However, the success of the PBA ultimately depends on the use of technology, not on technology itself. That is why the NPBA includes thinkers, entrepreneurs (of the social as well as commercial variety), journalists, campaigners and public-sector workers, as well as people with a technological expertise.

What PBA can do: More for less

Reviving social capital that has been crowded out by the state is perhaps the loftiest aim of post-bureaucracy. The bonds of trust and contact between people may grow if they collaborate to shape government, rather than just passively receive its services. For example, residents could get together to vote on exactly how public money is spent in their neighbourhood.

But the political reality of the moment is that any big idea must be judged ultimately by how it helps to ease the fiscal crisis. In the coming years, public services will only be improved through reform, not through extra investment. It is here that the PBA comes into its own.

Transparency by itself can eliminate waste. Last summer, Windsor and Maidenhead council began publishing real-time information on the internet about the energy consumption rates of some of their buildings. Local people could see how much energy was being used in the town hall or their nearest leisure centre. Energy bills in those buildings have since fallen by 15%.  The mere knowledge that they were being monitored was enough to get council workers to switch off unnecessary lighting and unused computers.

Transparency can also save money in less direct ways. Take procurement. At the moment, the government contracts with a handful of large companies to provide certain services. Small businesses, which may be more efficient, are locked out by the opacity of the tendering process. If, however, the full details of all government contracts were published online, entrepreneurs could examine them item-by-item to see whether they could undercut the established contractors. The potential for savings is enormous. If the government shaved just 5% from the cost of its procurement contracts, £7 billion would be saved every year. And few doubt that the savings are there to be made. Steria, a French company that contracts with government, says the operating margin it makes on its contracts with the British government is almost double that on its French contracts.

What PBA needs: Data, data, data

Post-bureaucratic success stories all comprise three chapters. First, data that was once withheld by the government is made available to all. Then, members of the public (including individuals, businesses and media organisations) seize upon it, sometimes adapting it to their own needs and using it to get actively involved in that particular area of government. Finally, the service in question is improved, either through innovative solutions provided by the newly informed citizens, or through better behaviour by the newly scrutinised public-sector workers. In short, information leads to participation, which leads to change.

The Parliamentary expenses scandal was, in a sense, a ‘beta’ version of this model. Data that had been assiduously guarded by the Commons authorities was finally released (albeit through a leak rather than a voluntary decision). Newspapers went through the thousands of pages of receipts and showcased the most egregious offences in presentable form. And the behaviour of MPs has, it is probably safe to assume, changed forever as a result, regardless of what new rules are adopted by the Commons. The mere fact of a watchful and angry public has ensured that much.

The foundation of all post-bureaucratic policies is, therefore, open data. Without it, the process cannot even get started. With it, not much more is required of the state. The NPBA is ultimately a campaign for see-through government.

The difference between data and information is critical. Data in its raw form can be ‘mashed’, ‘crunched’ and generally played around with by entrepreneurial citizens to produce useful online applications for other citizens. The release of official data by Kevin Rudd’s Australian government has led to lots of open-sourced applications, including crime maps and a website showing up-to-date information about faults in roads and other public infrastructure called “It’s Buggered, Mate”. In San Francisco – a locality hardly bereft of programming talent, admittedly – the release of official data sets has spawned applications offering directions based on real-time traffic information and a map that allows residents to check for drug offences that take place near schools. Closer to home, the likes of mysociety.org have turned data into applications such as fixmystreet and faxyourmp.

The lesson of all this creativity is that the government may not have to do much to foster post-bureaucracy beyond taking the strategic decision to release data. The resourcefulness of the public (or at least, motivated sections of the public) will take over. As some politicians and civil servants concede, it is often the state’s own interests to be open with its data. The government’s attempts to package and present information arouse suspicion, as the collapse of public trust in official statistics has shown. It also costs money and time. Above all, solutions to stubborn policy problems that are confounding politicians and civil servants can be ‘crowd-sourced’ from outside. ExpertLabs, an American non-profit, builds tools that allow government to tap into communities with specialist knowledge.

Indeed, these self-interested reasons may be why the campaign for open data enjoys a political tailwind, particularly strong in the English-speaking world. Barack Obama has signed an open-government directive. The governments of Australia and New Zealand have released lots of machine-readable official date. In Britain, the Labour government began publishing reams of data last year (and launched data.gov.uk last month) and the Conservatives have pledged to go further, promising to release all government contracts worth over £25,000.

Still, the NPBA should work towards a more radical ‘right to know’ than currently exists at national level in any country.  Britain’s Freedom of Information Act has given ordinary people greater access to official information, but it remains a half-hearted and essentially bureaucratic stab at openness. Citizens must apply to see specific bits of information (not, it should be noted, the raw data from which it has been derived) and wait patiently for a response. There are few consequences future for public-sector bodies that prove uncooperative.

A truly post-bureaucratic alternative may be to publish online all raw data produced with taxpayers’ money, apart from that which impinges on national security, personal privacy and other sensitive areas. This could be enshrined in a Freedom of Data Act. Citizens would no longer have to make a request; they would own all that they have paid for, and could access it online. Withholding data would be an act of theft.

The purpose of the NPBA conference

The weakness of PBA is its newness. As yet, practical examples of post-bureaucratic policies are few, minor, and spread throughout the world. We know what stronger local government would look like. We cannot say the same of post-bureaucratic government. The purpose of this conference is, in part, to give greater definition to the fuzziness of PBA – to furnish what is currently a compelling philosophy with practical policies. Questions for the sessions to answer include:

What should be the relationship of citizens, government, and business?

What are examples of post-bureaucratic policies to improve public services?

How will PBA save money?

What are examples of post-bureaucratic policies to encourage civic and political engagement?

How can people be helped to use the new power they will be given? Is it a matter of ‘training’ citizens, or should government simply let go?

Exactly how will government data be made open to the public? What kind of new legislation, if any, will be needed?

Where should transparency not be introduced? For example, should the advice given to ministers by civil servants be made public?

Please see the programme below for the organisation of sessions, which are intended to move from broader themes to implementation.

What is this Network?

In the ideal stage of the Post-Bureaucratic Age there is no ‘inside government’ and ‘outside government’ – everyone helps to govern. In his opening presentation to the conference, Bill Eggers says that building and managing these networks should become a core competency of government. This may be the future of government: creating structures that make use of the talent, experience and effort in the population. But can government actually do this? Or does it happen some other way – from the bottom up?

We think we should be pushing for the most radical versions of the ideas (while also understanding the practical first-step applications). So rather than call for more publishing of government-owned data-sets, we say citizens already own all data produced by government and that keeping it inaccessible is a form of theft. Where some say the government should reach out to the people, we say the people should just walk in. We want windows opened and doors removed. See-through government, walk-in government.

Among us attending this first conference of the NPBA are many related networks – of citizens, government, academia, business, media, and politics. The NPBA will be a network of these networks, to support, critique, oppose, and cajole those who occupy the formal seats of government.

Take part by emailing network@PBAge.org. And if you can, help us build the website PBAge.org into a major resource and platform for sharing ideas.

Our next event is a lunch meeting on the 26th March with Clay Shirky, author of ‘Here Comes Everybody’, and our next conference is scheduled for June 14th.

By Janan Ganesh and Stephan Shakespeare





22 Feb – The Conference for the Post-Bureaucratic Age

9 02 2010

Hi,

I’m writing to invite you to the conference launching the Network for the Post Bureaucratic Age.

It explores current trends in social, political and technological change, and what this means for a new government. We have an array of first-class speakers and panelists, including David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party, Martha Lane Fox, the government’s digital inclusion champion, together with entrepreneurs and innovators from business, media, public services, campaigning, and government.

This isn’t just a showcase of new thinking, but includes active drafting of an innovations agenda and benchmarks for the next government (be it Labour or Conservative). It will seek to make progress towards a Freedom of Data Act. It launches a Network – conceived as a post-bureaucratic think tank working online and through events – to take these ideas forward. There will be a pre-conference briefing paper for participants from myself and Janan Ganesh (of The Economist).

If you would like to attend, please respond to RSVPtoPBA@yahoo.com

Spaces are strictly limited to please respond early.

Hope to get your involvement! All the best, Stephan

Event:                     Network for the Post-Bureaucratic Age

Date & Time:         9am to 6pm, Monday 22nd February 2010

Purpose:                To set the agenda and benchmarks for a Post-Bureaucratic Government

Schedule:

9:00-10.00 Registration

10:00-10.15 Welcome and Introduction (Stephan Shakespeare, YouGov)

10.15-10:45 Keynote Address by The Rt Hon David Cameron MP

10-45-11:15 Coffee & Networking

11:15-12:45        Session 1: will focus on the themes of social, political and technological change, and what this means for a new government

Chair, Rory Sutherland (Vice Chairman & Creative Director, Ogilvy Group)

Speakers: Bill Eggers (author of “If We Can Put A Man On The Moon: Getting Big Things Done in Government”; “Government 2.0: Using Technology to Improve Education, Cut Red Tape, Reduce Gridlock, and Enhance Democracy”; “Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector”; Fellow, Manhattan Institute; Global Research Director, Deloitte)

Martha Lane Fox (Government Champion for Digital Inclusion, Co-founder lastminute.com and Antigone, a charitable fund)

Edward Wray (Chairman and Co-Founder, Betfair)

Kristian Segerstrale (CEO and Co-Founder, Playfish, Co-Founder Glu Mobile)

Sarah Beeny (Founder and CEO, MySingleFriend.com & Tepilo.com)

Eric Baker (Founder and CEO Viagogo)

Peter Bazalgette (TV Producer, Digital Investor, Chairman Sony Music TV)

William Heath (Founder MyDex, Ctrl-Shift, IdealGov blog)

12.45-1.45 Lunch & Networking

1.45-3:15                              Session 2: Post-Bureaucratic Government and the ‘More-For-Less’ agenda: how we drive innovation through the public sector

Chair, Neil O’Brien (Director, PolicyExchange)

Speakers: Skip Stitt (former Senior Deputy Mayor and Chief Operating Officer for the City of Indianapolis; COO of ACS Inc, Washington DC)

Liam Maxwell (Cabinet Member for Performance, Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. Leading the Transparency Initiative and street-level Participatory Budget process)

Professor Mark McGurk (Guy’s and St Thomas’s Hospital Trust)

Toby Young (author of “How to Lose Friends and Alienate People”, now creating a new type of ‘free’ school where access to a good education is not based on income)

Jonathan Kestenbaum (CEO, NESTA)

Adrian Ringrose, (Chief Executive of Interserve Plc, Chairman of the CBI’s Public Services Strategy Board)

Martin Brookes (Chief Executive, New Philanthropy Capital)

3.15-3.45 Coffee & Networking

3.45-5:15                              Session 3: Setting the Agenda and Benchmarks for a Post-Bureaucratic Government; towards a Freedom of Data Act

Chair, Stephan Shakespeare (YouGov)

Speakers: Heather Brooke (author and freedom-of-information activist who led the movement for the full disclosure of MP expenses)

Tom Steinberg (Founder of MySociety, TheyWorkForYou, FixMyStreet, WhatDoTheyKnow)

Matthew Elliot (founder, TaxPayer’s Alliance)

Peter Kellner (President, YouGov)

Peter Hoskin (Spectator Magazine)

Richard Allan (Director of Policy EU, Facebook; former LibDem MP)