If we set up a UK-Feedback mechanism about public service quality, why would people want to use it? Tom S rightly presses me to post the list we came up with in the Mitre on Monday (cheers Rob for coming all the way from Liverpool).
Reminder - the aim is to get thorough, level-headed pro-forma descriptions from all and sundry of what experiencing a public service is actually like. Not rants, gripes and opinions. But with suggestions of the ideal way to solve the original issue. Filling the web forms in will take time, There is no monetary reward. So why do it?
Our brainstorm ideas were -
“It will fix my problem”
Good feeling of self-righteous worthiness
“I’m angry and I want to let off steam”
Strong emotion I want to release
Let me say “thank you” in a public way
This might change policy
“That’ll teach ‘em”
“We’re not alone” (esp when you see your own experience in context)
Saves time - more efficient way of doing a process yould do anyway (ie better than existing feedback mechanisms, assuming they get used)
I delegated the problem; now someone else is dealing with it
*important to have unique URL for each report*
I might win a hamper if I get “Report of the day”
Show civic pride in your area
Tell the country how good your school/council is (not in a yucky way, obviously) (or indeed, yes, yucky if that’s what you like)
Understand how your school/council compares with others
Parking catharsis
Hilarity. And there will be real comedy.
Wednesday we met again dressed our smartest to discuss UK Feedback with a first-rate management consultancy. This was to explore how well the output would support large-scale change management. Testing questions, very encouraging, no promises mind.
Earlier that week I’d discussed it with a local Friends elder, since JRCT projects have to conform to Quaker values. She was pretty to the point - is this really the best way to spend effort, energy and JRCT resources to improve social justice? I’m not sure she was convinced, but she was at least confident it was being done with integrity.
Published by William Heath on 21/01/05 at 11:54am
Next entry: "The #1 requirement: Resilient in the face of digital identity attacks"
Previous entry: 30,000 Dweep "to disappear"
This page has been viewed 508574 times
Entries: 1625 | Comments: 2662 | Trackbacks: 206
Most Recent Entry: 10/08/2008 09:58 am
Most Recent Comment: 10/07/2008 12:14 am
Members: 185 | Logged in: 0 | Guests: 41
Most recent visitor: 10/08/2008 12:08 pm
Most visitors ever: 443 on 10/12/2005 02:21 pm
Here’s a scary thought: if you spend time in San Francisco and buy the San Francisco Examiner, you will see a column (daily, if I recall correctly) where particular local or state government problems are identified, ranging from pot holes in roads to poor experiences in the health sector, and the person responsible for that issue in the government agency concerned is named and is asked to give a date by which the matter will be addressed. And the editor of the column seems to follow up fairly rigorously, too. It’s not done in a ‘name and shame’ way, but rather in a way that highlights the ‘citizen service’ responsibilities of the agency and official concerned.
I wonder if it could be a model for something bigger and better?
Reply by on 01/22/05 at 7:29 am
Nice thought...I’d like to get hold of some examples.
Reply by W on 01/22/05 at 4:06 pm
I lied! It is the San Francisco Chronicle not Examiner, and here is the link to the latest, typical examples:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/01/22/BAGT0AUFE21.DTL
Reply by on 01/24/05 at 2:27 am