Political Innovation - Latest Comments

Re: Crowdsourcing policy: First, create a crowd

TommyKaneko — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:14:41 -0000

I agree with all of those points - I guess my definition of design is broader than yours. I would argue that policy making is an act of design for example. You can even design design-processes!

Re: Crowdsourcing policy: First, create a crowd

Andy — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:25:07 -0000

I'm not going to disagree - design is absolutely vital! But... it's a
little simplistic to say that good design = good engagement. I've seen numerous good designs fail for very good (and quite predictable reasons). There is a
lot more too engagment than that. Design is a critical component... but so effective
process, building trust and well run models for
facilitation and managaement of the engagement cycle.
If we're going to build truly effective systems for modern democracy
there can be no silos - policy, process, design, tech, facilitation, even marketing... it needs all of
them and they all matter.

Re: Crowdsourcing policy: First, create a crowd

TommyKaneko — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:31:17 -0000

I think to address the problem of inclusion, we really need to do work on the design of "engagement platforms" for want of a better term.

For example, although the wiki (like Wikipedia) is a successful engagement platform, editing an article can still be a daunting prospect for many people (think of all that Wikitext!). The design of Facebook is far more enticing to get engaged with.

To sum up, good design = good engagement.

Re: The problem with think-tanks: An alternative model

John Pollock — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:25:00 -0000

Investing in better writing - words which take time to craft but are more likely to get read - would not go amiss, either.

Re: The problem with think-tanks: Quality

Dr Mick Phythian — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 07:43:39 -0000

A cynic’s guide to think-tanks

"A consultant is someone who borrows your watch to tell you the time, and then keeps the watch” is a popular saying among people who aren’t fond of consultants. Advertising executive Carl Ally (1924-1999) was credited with the saying by 1965. Robert Townsend further popularized the saying in his book Up the Organization (1970).

Think-tanks are a bit like a collective for consultants who claim to be doing it for the public benefit whilst still getting paid over the odds. Whilst popular during the cold war, I suspect some of the recent growth of them can be identified if someone could count the number of think tanks appearing during the Blair government, or even towards the end of the previous one. An many have identified the same era saw a profound growth in the number of consultants working in government, a number of whom went on to start or work for think-tanks.

What are think-tanks for? I presume to give the harassed and over-worked a rounded opinion of what the current socio-political problems are, and how they might be dealt with by whoever is paying the piper/think-tank. But, as in the piper/consultant analogy, if you are paying, you also might be expecting to hear the tunes you want, otherwise, you won’t pay again. So, how prepared are you to ask for bias-free sounds from your think-tank? In that case why are there right-wing think-tanks, left-wing think-tanks and centre think-tanks, if the thoughts are unhindered and not marshalled for the listening audience?

As a busy professional I’m inundated by surveys. Some of whom go on to try and sell my hard-earned knowledge back to me. I take part in meetings attempting to extract and share best practice amongst colleagues, where the consultants in the audience go on to recycle to me as their hard-thought theories.

Where does a think-tank improve on this (apart frm partisanship)?

Re: The problem with think-tanks: Quality

Rogerlwhite — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 06:44:41 -0000

Andy - I don’t
disagree with the idea that quality is a problem but I don’t think it’s necessarily
THE problem with think tanks. I think
the big issue is what you might call undeclared partisanship. Most of them start with a fundamental set of
beliefs rooted in a political or social point of view. They then seek facts that support what they
already believe in. This is not research
in an academic sense with a null hypothesis and a rigorous methodology to test
it. It’s fishing around to justify what
they want to achieve. That’s not to say
they don’t sometimes come up with good ideas but that’s another matter.

If
people think my characterisation of “undeclared partisanship” is unfair just
check out the names political think tanks use.
By and large they give no clue whatsoever to the political persuasion of
those involved, while use of words like “institute”, “policy” and “research”
imply a higher purpose. Even their visions
are sometimes bland enough to encompass anything from mainstream right through the
centre to mainstream left. But check who’s
working for them and who’s on their board and then you know why they’re
proposing what they are.

Re: No 8: The broadening inkblot: Self-improvement for people who read newspapers (and blogs…)

Paul Evans — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 09:44:23 -0000

In the meantime, Ed, have you tried Google Reader? Make sure your blog is registered at www.poblish.org as well, but check out this post on Slugger O'Toole from a while ago if you like?
http://sluggerotoole.com/2010/...

Re: No 8: The broadening inkblot: Self-improvement for people who read newspapers (and blogs…)

Ed Simpson — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 08:17:23 -0000

Anything that makes delivery of all the blogs and writers that I like easier is a good thing. I'm new to blogging and already struggling to get through all the stuff I like to read each day. Some sort of automated delivery system would be a godsend.

Re: Citizen engagement exchange

pferdy — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 07:14:18 -0000

No problem with your layers, just the sequence you use them.

Citizens only interact with a channel. It must be the first direct link. Unless I am missing fundamentally different.

Re: No 4: See Change – opening policy research to the public

Daniel Winterstein — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 09:00:03 -0000

Good ideas. But the costs could be prohibitive - a good TV documentary is not cheap or quick. Social media might provide better ways - more fluid and more open - of getting better engagement.

To play devil's advocate: One problem with transparency is that the government is often punished for it - even when they are doing good work. Being transparent means letting people see both the good and bad. But the papers (and special interest groups) will only focus on the bad parts. Transparency exposes your mistakes and your doubts - which inevitably provides ammo for sensationalist newspapers.

Are we the public mature enough for transparent government? If not, what can we do to improve things?

Re: No 5: Government information? Get the public to provide it!

Daniel Winterstein — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 08:49:32 -0000

Should state organisations listen to the public? Yes, definitely. And more than they do today.
Should they rely on the public for their information? No! We the public are often angry un-objective and mis-informed.

Lauren, you seem to be proposing the commercial equivalent of a company ditching it's profit-and-loss sheet for a count of Facebook likes.

Replacing all self-produced information with public feedback is taking a good idea to a bad extreme. Core operational information - such as crime rates and prosecution rates solved for the police - has to come from self-produced monitoring. Our opinions as members of the public are valuable as well - but they are not a replacement for good internal analysis.

Re: No 2: The politics of buying stuff

TheVadyGirl — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 16:31:11 -0000

This is an area that is being looked at via pre-commercial procurement and the work being down by the Technology Strategy Board

Re: No 5: Government information? Get the public to provide it!

Paul Johnston — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 05:23:30 -0000

Lauren - Mypolice is a great initiative (and not surprisingly I also like Patient Opinion!) but I am not clear if you are simply suggesting that lots of public sector organisations have similar candid friends or whether you are suggesting something different. After all, as I understand it the role of these two organisations is not to replace police or NHS self-generated information about themselves; rather it is (I think) about helping those organisations understand better the people they serve. So a (friendly) request for clarification :-)

Re: No 1: Towards Interactive Government

Tim Davies — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:09:17 -0000

Hey Gary.

Sorry for the slow reply - only just seen your comment.

There is definitely an expectations management question to be asked. I think one part of the answer lies in Mayo and Steinberg's suggestion in The Power of Information report that councils create space for peer-to-peer dialogue - not just citizen-council dialogue.

It is an interesting point that for effective interactive government, we'll need (a) government to be honest about what it can and can't do (part of the culture change question); and (b) many of the mediating institutions that help turn public debate into political discourse to become more interactive too...

Re: No 6: Citizen-control of personal information

Sam Markey — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:03:57 -0000

Very interesting - I very much like the idea of citizens managing theitr own personal data. However, I have some questions:

Certainly the evidence shows that people trust non-Govt organisations more with personal data than Whitehall departments (just look at how much info people freely give to Tesco / Facebook). Are we sure that a company (social enterprise or not) that maintains a national database of personal information is any more reliable when it comes to privacy than a Govt service? From where do we think cold-callers and other commercial bodies get their hands on our data...?

In addition, there are some forms of personal data that people don't get right - address being a good example. While it is valuable for people to keep their address / contact details up to date, those details will still need to be verified against an authoritative list to avoid minor but significant variations.

Re: No 4: See Change – opening policy research to the public

Ajayl Khandelwal — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:20:13 -0000

I completely agree with the main thrust of your argument. The problem with most high level policy papers and strategic documents is that they crowd out opportunities for discussion and involvement. Ethnographic films that capture the experience of service users, their life stories, and their ideas for improving and reshaping services have the potential to attract new audiences to policy making, as well as building the support for change and innovation. However, it may not be possible to make the film politically neutral. For instance, a film that focussed on an individual service user's choices could end up focussing on "personal responsibility" as the driver for social and individual change; whereas a film that focus on wider social and economic currents, would lead people to consider more complex causes. For instance, Wilkinson and Pickett (Spirit Level), have argued that people are more likely to follow unhealthy life styles in unequal countries, as the poorest members of the community feel inadequate when judging themselves against the richest members of the community. This theory is based on an interpretation of the data from 30 countries, but is hotly contested between left and right wing commentators. So, how would your ethnography, looking at obesity for instance, navigate between these competing interpretations, in terms of supporting a policy discussion? Or to put it another way, does your ethnography need a narrative and casual theory behind it? And can such explanations be politically neutral, and if so, how?

Re: No 2: The politics of buying stuff

Gary Fenton — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:21:58 -0000

Like the saying goes, no one has been fired for buying IBM. i.e. buy from the big boys, play it safe. This makes it hard for the small but innovative companies to get a foot in the door and start to grow, while buyers are paying premium prices and don't always get a quality customer service experience to back it up.

Re: No 1: Towards Interactive Government

Gary Fenton — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:09:02 -0000

Really good bullet points, especially the 2nd one. But I don't think local government have the human resources to enter into either light weight chats or heavy discussions with the public if it were made easy using social media tools and such like. They can just about cope with the current public routes in - email, phone and letter.

Making it easier for the public would see more people making contact with the council and more frequently too. (Which I agree would be very good news for the public if responses came back almost as quickly as they were submitted.) How would local government handle that without hiring more staff (tut-tut!) or completely retraining them, teaching them how to work faster and smarter? Perhaps they would consider outsourcing to an Indian TweetCentre. ;-)

Re: Political innovations – how to draft an introductory essay

Derekerocholl — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:29:35 -0000

Here is my post on the subject of political innovation - entitled a new form of socialism, more catchily know as "Get out More". Here goes "The way things are going we are being incentivised to adopt a stay in at home culture. In comparison to alternatives like going out to a pub, club, entertainment or sport venue staying at home talking to your "friends" through a social network on the web or WAP phone, eating a TV dinner and watching premium entertainment or sports events on the television is incerdibly expensive. Once we have paid for your broadband connection and Sky Subscription or have your Clubcard it is economically rational to use it to the full. The end result is we spend less and less time in each others company, we forget how enjoyable it was to meet real people, to find common interests, to entertainment and inform each other, and most importantly to collaborate with other in things that require physical as well as mental effort. Crucially we get an ever widening gap between the generations, the wisdom of the old is not passed on to the young and the exuberance a vitality of youth becomes a cause for fear rather amongst the older generations rather a regenerating. We need to reverse this trend we need to get out more, and we need a whole raft of policies aimed at enabling and incenstivising social interaction. To set the ball rolling here are some things that can be done to rebalance the equation - reduce VAT on eating and drinking in licensed premises, significantly increase VAT on alcohol purchased from supermarkets and reduce the hours at which they can sell it. Remove performing rights society levies and provide tax incentives for venues offering live music, theatre, poetry, and sports events etc and apply a heavy levy on subscription based entertainment provided for home use. I'll leave it at that for the time being other to say that if we want a socialist society we need to encourage socialising.

Re: No 2: The politics of buying stuff

brian — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 09:17:12 -0000

Really timely article - with less on offer in spending terms governemnt procurers really neeed to change. I suspect though that you might get blank looks if you suggested this in NI.

Re: No 2: The politics of buying stuff

Miljenko Williams — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:22:38 -0000

I think the risk-averse dynamics in government procurement are a mirror of a wider societal condition. I know from personal experience how the decision to buy software (for example) is in the hands of people at the top of a pyramid - people who make their decisions based on extremely high-level low-detail presentations, probably cribbed from external salespeople's sales literature rather than thoroughly examined from the ground up.

Arguments like "They use this system in other bigger companies than ours" always convince the risk-averse, and are commonly heard when swinging a deal.

There is also a tendency to engage fully with total quality management once systems are implemented - but the worker at the coalface never gets consulted as to the real needs of a process *before* the procurement is actioned.

I get the feeling that the top-down nature of decision-making in large organisations, and the lip service paid to involving those who really know how to define needs and manual processes before they are automated or multiplied, plays a large role in getting procurement more generally wrong. We need to change the approach, that is clear. We also need to change who we consult.