The full speech is shown on youtube here. (Full video below thanks to IPAA - Institute of Public Administration)
He talks extensively about public management reform and public services and has written several books.
In this speech at IPAA 2013 in Canberra he talks about the need for Dissolution, Revolution and Evolution in the public service.
What struck me as quite interesting were his comparisons on public sector reform and how all too often there have been many big ideas that are pushed through by politicians and interest groups in government that have either not fulfilled their full potential or failed altogether.
Dissolution, Revolution, Evolution
His speech highlights the ideas that have led to a Dissolution, Revolution and Evolution of the Public sector. Dissolution sees the recognition of the public sector as sub-optimal if not coupled with private sector. Public versus Privacy sector efficiency debates will see advocates on both sides of the coin however. Revolution sees citizens involved as active agents in reform not passive recipients. Finally Evolution is all about governance and that governments need to create a network of private sector, non-profits and citizen associations to manage the entire network and work together for better reform.
This idea that everyone plays a role is important because when many people are impacted by a solution they should all play a part in the discussion at least.
Pollett goes on to show that none of these ideas is particularly new and all have inherent problems. However they are based on solid premises that have some good about them and it is their good that should be taken up and pushed forward to be combined with the other ideas to create a more rounded basis for reform.
Current problems
Another area discussed was the theme of broad level, holistic ideas of reforms in government and how these blue-sky approaches were not very effective in addressing specific problems.
Bunched up in this are some generalized concepts to solve problems that turn out to be better at just shifting the way we look at the problem more than being productive ways to find solutions.
Furthermore, specific 'best-practice' methods of approaching solutions to a problem are in fact problematic and are based on widespread notions. In fact, customised solutions that address specific problems are more likely to be successful here than a blanket coverage approach to an overall problem.
Where does the knowledge lie
Combining knowledge is key here, academic, expert and recognised best practice and this is crucial when solving problems. He mentions the need for involving even citizen groups in these talks and when bringing all these types together, academics, governments, experts, citizen, the need is to make it possible to have them all talk to each other rather than at each other.
This is rarely the case however in real life and what could well help guide and manage the early stages of public reform instead are few and far between in actuality.
Diagnose the problem
A very important piece of the puzzle is diagnosis and Pollett suggests that the initial definition can be deceiving if we only look at the 'presenting problem'. This could be only a surface symptom or misleading stereotype and what is required is more in depth questioning and thorough diagnosis.
What is required?
What is needed then is a way to bring all of the important stakeholders together because not one of them is more important than the others and all are needed to diagnose the problems and come up with solutions. Importantly, the widespread knowledge amongst the group really does mean the sum of the parts is greater than the whole.
Opinion
The presentation cuts to the very heart of public sector reforms of any nature and I look at from a technology perspective. Australia and the various government agencies that are engaged in providing better data services to the public are all too often restrained by technologies that are limited in helping solve the above issues. This is because they have various flaws that limit how easily stakeholders can come together. Perhaps why the groups here tend to talk at each other rather than to each other.
For example whilst the mandate is to share a large amount of data, an agency might be restricted with who they can share that data with because the technology precludes them from being able to sufficiently protect (confidentialise) the data. Furthermore, some technologies don't allow easy creation/validation of data to go to specific parties and the time-frames to build requested reports is long. The quicker data can go out to those who need it, the more useful it becomes.
If technology solutions were able to solve these problems it would pave the way toward making public sector reforms of sharing data with the public and researchers much more successful.
Imagine a platform that allows for large volumes of data to be shared with various users, researchers and the public for example, yet has the highest levels of government confidentiality attached. Also, imagine that this system was easy to use so that data custodians could fulfil many data requests easily or even automate this process. Imagine again that this solution exists already and is being used in government. To all three you would be correct and the agency in question is the Australian Bureau of Statistics. For almost 3 decades now they've been working with Space-Time Research, a Melbourne software vendor, to provide solutions that do all this and more for the Australian public.
I'd like to see a model like this being used in other areas of government where joined up data is a vital part of reform. Advantages of this include creating a solution based on a proven platform that has delivered many benefits to researchers, statisticians, the Australian public and others.
The results could see portals that are specifically able to access unit record data for those accredited folks such as researchers and other portals that show similar but more protected information that gives enough insights to non-accredited requesters of data such as the general public.
Having this will increases the ability for conversations to take place about things like better health or transportation planning. Just like in Pollett's article it could well bring the academics, experts and public together to discuss the topics. Not only does it even the playing field between these stakeholders but it also helps ensure greater success for government projects, big and small.
What is also clear from Pollett's speech is that there are multiple approaches to solving problems and not a one size fits all solution. The shape of reforms to solve public sector problems should also govern that technologies underpinning the solution need also be agile, and adaptable to change to shape specific solutions. The best way this is done is from having a solid, easy to use, safely protected and fast platform that can be used as a base from which specific, pointed, customised solutions can be built to solve various problems. For example, the platform could be used to handle predictive analytics capabilities with a simple cloud analytics plug-in over the top for law enforcement or emergency management initiatives. It could be used to add various mapping technology to help with transport and urban planning initatives. It is all about the strength of the base platform that allows for more data and more safety that allows these specific problems to be solved by customised solutions.
If this advice is heeded then the future of public service reforms will be quite productive and effective. That is not to say that they are not doing this today, there are many more initiatives in the space of data sharing than there have ever been. What is missing is the overall effectiveness of these reforms to really bring people together. If there was some way that this could be helped by technology then I am all for pushing that agenda to the very highest echelons of government and decision makers. In a world where useful, meaningful and effective technology is used, people getting easy access to data that in quick and safe manner will be the norm. The preparation of the data will not be a burden to prepare and empowered users will serve themselves. As Pollett says, it is a type of guided integration that is necessary at the very start of public sector reforms and it is a rarity in both Europe and here in Australia. That could well change however.
Like Christopher Pollett said, what is needed is this Dissolution, Revolution, Evolution. What I'm saying is that the tools are here and they are more than ready to be used.
No comments:
Post a Comment