Channels, marketing and pin-point accuracy: Tower08 and the language of Transformational Goverment

Here are my written-up notes from the panel session intro I did last week. Many thanks to the organisers (to whom I’ve also sent private feedback)

Both our hosts, John Suffolk and John Higgins, know of my unease about the unfolding of Transformational Government and of the outcomes of a cosy bilateral relationship between the CIOs and Intellect. I’m sure that’s why they asked me to be here at Tower 08, and I hope that in exploring that concern I’m doing what they wanted, constructively, and without being either churlish or ungrateful.

Because they have been excellent hosts; we enjoyed a terrific dinner last night in stimulating company. I greatly enjoyed the Minister’s speech (with one quibble - see below).

We’ve been asked to talk about “channels”. Already I’m uneasy. Channels are what broadcasters beam at viewers. The channel is what IT vendors exploit, in one memorable phrase, to “kill the competition and hoover up their footprint”. My specific unease about the language of directive marketing mirrors a broader unease about Transformational Government.

It’s upside down.

It purports to be citizen-centric, but is based on the principle that we the government own the data, and we the government will join it all up, the better to do things to you.

Of course we need to transform government, but my fear is that the underlying motivation behind Transformational Government is not yet right.

We all need financial targets as a discipline. Money makes it possible, and can measure whether we’re doing is really needed. We needed the financial dimension of the Gershon efficiency review. Eithne at Fujitsu needs to meet her targets.

But I question whether money is the right motivator. It’s a poor guide to ethically complex questions. Whether or not we go to war, pursue GM or build supercasinos has tremendous financial implications. But money is not the best guide to what decision we should make in these situations.

Nor is it the best guide to how we should refashion the politics of participation, use personal data, shift into greater co-creation of public services define a mechanical, rules-based relationship between the individual and the state. These are deep and difficult questions.

Let’s get better at two things. We all, not least those who have concerns about Transformational Government and ideas about how it could be approached better, need to express ourselves better and more constructively. And we all need to learn to cultivate a better form of respectful listening so we appreciate the complexities and dimensions of what is being undertaken, and the underlying purpose of what others are trying to achieve.

Personally I’d like to see us reject militaristic language: less of the golden bullets and carpet-bombing. Tom Watson wants to “deliver services to citizens with pinpoint accuracy” as he speaks under the logo of Lockheed Martin, the world’s biggest arms dealer.

Let’s also move on from the language of manipulative centralised marketing. IPS ponders “various forms of coercion” for its ID system. TG talks of sharing of intelligence, driving take-up, exploiting technologies. It’s all focus, target, segment, execute. This is the discriminatory and coercive language of those who cancel 161,00 Egg credit cards, not the respectful, empathetic language of whose who place human dignity at the heart of their plans for public services.

It’s good that the voice of the customer has crept into the margins of the Tower08 event. It’s in the NCC town hall discussions shown as vox pops, Bob Johnston spoke in those terms, also with respect for those on the front line. Alexis Cleveland used emotional mapping to differentiate between the effects of an efficient school-meals decision versus a long-winded one. So that voice is here, and that’s a welcome improvement.

But that voice needs (as Ed Mayo describes it in his NCC booklet “Playlist for Public Services") to become the driving force of what we do. When you listen to it in the right way, it’s very articulate. You may not like what you hear, but at least you have a true starting point.

John Suffolk talks of “citizen-centric” and Tom Watson about open-source government, and the driving principles of the “Power of Information” agenda. If we start to fulfil the potential of these words we’ll be undertaking something really radical and worthwhile. This is not about the centre gathering, hoarding and sharing personal data, or broadcasting through new online channels how many veg a day we should all eat and what a good job our elected representatives are doing.

That’s upside down!

Instead of supporting human dignity, that drowns out creativity, participation, expressions of real need, feedback.

People are largely responsible for their own health, education safety and earnings through their careers. Rowan Williams says we should call people “agents” of public services, not customers or clients, because their role is an active one.

To put this the right way up again, the data should reside with them. They have the greatest motivation for looking after it and keeping it up to date. That puts the person at the centre of public services.

The final project I was involved in at Kable (now part of The Guardian) was ThePublicOffice, which helped service providers practise listening to people with complex service needs, then to rehearse designing services which met those complex needs. They quickly worked out that we need, simultaneously, channels of three sorts. This is easily illustrated based on health care:

1. We need a GP: a professional who is on our side, even to the extent of being pretty sceptical (as we heard from Ben Page) about the NHS
2. We it all goes wrong we need blue flashing lights and A&E, no questions asked (but with the allergy bracelet to hand)
3. Much of the time we need low-cost self-service access to information. NHS Direct online or by phone is fine. There’s no need to ask my address or date of birth, or indeed for any entitlement criteria.

None of these channels prevails at the expense of the others. Each has its time and circumstance. Clearly there are great cost differences.

To conclude, we need to turn Transformational Government right side up again. We need to start to use different language. My vision of the future (since John H asks us all) is that we predominantly control our own data as it relates to our case load for banks, retailers and public services. We use freely distributed open source software on local systems, or on web services such as personalised Google or Microsoft Healthvault. We share data as necessary with the parties we transact with. If we seek to defraud the system we lose the right to participate and the pattern of our activity is revealed, but if we play by the rules we can be anonymous or pseudonymous. Our data is with the person who cares for it most: ourselves.

Published by William Heath on 17/03/08 at 4:26pm

Comments

I’m struck by the inverse ratio that seems to rule the relationship between the eloquence and repetition of pleas for a more respectful, citizen-centric public services ethic and the stubborn refusal of the system to move in that direction. In fact I sometimes wonder if the intransigence isn’t some fiendish plot to provoke clever and insightly people to write more and more passionate essays on why the system needs to change, while all the time showing little sign of purposeful change, at scale.

The fact is that, too often, the public sector behaves in ways that betray either a real or a perceived hostility towards the people they are meant to be serving. And if it’s not hostility, then it’s at least a profound neutrality about people and their ability to become more engaged and responsible. Clearly, the public sector does not believe that ‘ourselves’ is the right place for the control of our personal data, or it would have overseen a wholesale handover of data which doesn’t look like it’s going to happen any time soon. Just ask the average GP if it’s a good idea for patients to be in charge of their own medical data. They are unlikely to agree...and who knows, perhaps they’re right.

So the contrast keeps striking me - the elegant, articulate and compelling arguments for change and the considerable institutional and cultural inertia with which, for the most part, it is greeted.

Reply by on 03/19/08 at 1:42 pm
William

are there any links to content about online marketing from this event? This is one of my main interests. I can’t see anything in the agenda and Tom Watson’s speech has that one vague reference to findability. Can’t find anything else either. Am I missing something? It all sounded very pat-ourselves-on-the-back but several years behind the online game - but I wasn’t there.

‘We’ve been asked to talk about “channels”. Already I’m uneasy. Channels are what broadcasters beam at viewers. ‘
... made me laugh, probably for different reasons 2u though ;]

Reply by Paul Canning on 03/25/08 at 6:17 pm
I dont think they explicitly covered marketing at thos event. I think a sort of rancid, second-hand view of marketing comes built into this way of thinking; it’s not fresh, intelligent, open to question.

Oh. Explain. Why did it make you laugh? (Sorry for delay in reply; spam burden has taken much of the pleasure out of comment admin, and sometimes comment content gets overlooked).

Reply by on 05/20/08 at 6:07 am
hi William

made me laugh ‘cos that’s exactly how it sounds to me - “beam at viewers” - and I just know that’s how they think. But it’s rare to hear this within egov. a recognition laugh I guess? sometimes one feels one’s banging one’s proverbial head against ... y’know what I mean.

did you catch my response to this - One year on: Ten answers for Minister Watson - Ten things not happening in eGov
http://paulcanning.blogspot.com/2008/04/one-year-on-ten-answers-for-minister.html ?

Reply by Paul Canning on 05/20/08 at 4:01 pm

Next entry: Sage of Omaha on public-sector pensions

Previous entry: You Can Get It If You Really Want

Ideal Government

Let's say what we want from e-enabled government. Let's observe government first-hand. Let's say "Wouldn't It Be Better If" (WIBBI). Become an ethnographer of bureaucracy today! It beats getting frustrated with public services.

Comment

Anyone is free to comment. Or mail with an article if you want to be an author. I'll post it up and send you a password. This whole thing is supported by Kable.

Authors

Member List

Sign up for new articles

Channels, marketing and pin-point accuracy: Tower08 and the language of Transformational Goverment

Comments

Ideal Government

Categories

Comment

Authors

Sign up for new articles

Copyright

Designed by...

Statistics

Channels, marketing and pin-point accuracy: Tower08 and the language of Transformational Goverment

Comments

Ideal Government

Categories

Comment

Sponsor

Authors

Sign up for new articles

Copyright

Designed by...

Statistics