Let’s cook up a plan to create an open source style feedback mechanism about public sector service quality - a wikipedia of what public services are really like, and a wibbipedia of what they should be like. JRCT is looking for projects like this so I’m going to send in an application form, and develop it using the open-source model (by which I mean i’ve put my half-baked thought on line and am open to suggestions for improvement). Version 0.1 is meant to cover -
.
Draft description in max 100 words
Public services are a vast complex machine run without an intelligent feedback mechanism. We need to bridge the gap between people who know what it’s like to give and receive these public services and those responsible for decisions about them. Project [name reqd] takes objective, structured evidence from those directly giving and receiving public services and plugs it in where it’s needed. It’s an independent, open-source census by mystery clients. All methods, software and results will be public domain under a creative commons licences
So where did the idea come from?
The idea comes from
- working on Council tax customer service delivery (analysis for councils of comprehensive nationwide service assessments) by BEM Research and Kable, June 1993, a census of service quality based on observational “mystery customer” research conducted over two days on every single council operating the council tax.
- observing “Wikipedia”, the collectively created online worldwide free encyclopedia. The content is interesting, and the editorial rules which breed shared factual recording, including dispute resolution, even more so
- submissions to the Ideal government on-line brainstorm about e-enabled public services (October to December 2004 - www.idealgovernment.com) notably from (well - certainly Nick, Stefan, Adriana, Louise, Steve J, Helen S, David...and more no doubt)
- conferences run by the Institute of Ecotechnics and a specific discussion with Mark van Thillo, chief technical officer on the Biosphere2 project about the role of feedback mechanisms in making complex systems sustainable
- discussions with Citizens Advice (formerly Nacab) about outsourcing and computerisation of public services, including a presentation at NACAB annual conference in 2002
- cool online public service stuff like UpMyStreet, TheyWorkforYou and the NOMS/GEMS idea.
Why is it crucial?
Because we’re not making sufficient progress improving public services and those at the top are too insulated from the realities faced by front line public servants in giving and the neediest among us in receiving. Also because the culture of spin and targets is eroding trust in government’s PR about service quality levels.
How do we set about achieving it?
1. Define aims
2. Form core project team
3. Define procedures for “observational research” (ie this is not a complaint mechanism - it’s a scientific feedback mechanism)
4. Create software engine to record observations in a retrievable structured format, with graphic outputs
5. Controlled pilot study using experienced observational researchers
6. Roll out so anyone can contribute in moderated format. ("Anyone" means any person with direct personal experience of UK public services, who can describe their experience according to our rules and transmit or have it transmitted to our on-line service. Digital divide issues might mean we need to accept forms and key them in, but this would require resource)
7. Communications plan to deliver results to contributors, commentators, and those in a position to make public services better
What help do we need (people, resources, funding) and how do we find it?
1. One day a quarter senior management consultancy to advise on process and troubleshoot
2. Design - select by competitive tender
3. Software expertise - co-operative open source model, with generous reimbursement of expenses
4. Research expertise - we request this from Kable and from NOP which is now UK market leader in observational research (having acquired BEM in 199?)
5. Media relations - select by competitive tender
but above all…
6. Contributions from people who experience public services and
7. Considerate attention from those who can put this evidence to good effect
Who benefits?
1. Recipients of public services who find it hard to articulate their needs and get their requirements taken seriously
2. Welfare helpers and advisers
3. Taxpayers
4. Those trying to form rational evidence-based policies
How do we know it’s working?
0. Credible plan, research rules, software engine, design
1. Successful pilot
2. Wider take up by volunteer mystery clients
3. Coherent lessons and a body of useful evidence
4. Reaction to the evidence in media
5. Successful engagement with service deliery organisations
6. Better policies, improved services, better feedback
Will the world be a better* place afterwards?
If accurate, observed and objective feedback leads directly to service improvement and more effective use of tax then this delivers social justice. At the very least there are many situations where one feels far better for having the chance to record just how it is one has been treated, and how it is one would wish to have been treated.
What are the risks? What might stop us? How would we overcome it?
The work may be controversial, and results will have to be delivered in a measured and considered way. What is important is the longer term effect of our feedback loop, rather than any initial shocks and surprises. It will require firm independence coupled with resolutely cheerful optimism that services can be improved. if those at the top can be helped to understand the realities at the giving and receiving end.
It might be unpopular with government. In my experience public servants can take the view that it is an outrage to report on their activity without their permission. However, I think this view can be politly rebuffed as long as methodology and objectivity can be shown, and one has no axe to grind other than improving service quality, securing better value or lower administrative costs, and restoring trust in the state and in public services.
It might attract substandard, frivolous input - the online equivalent of junk mail or graffiti ie spam or actionable or insulting language. It will need an on-line editorial process to deal with this (eg moderated input) but peak workloads might present a challenge.
All the risks of systems design (overload, scalability, backup) would need to be addressed.
Are we done after five years? Or does it carry on?
The work of setting it up will be done within 18 months. Whether or not it remains vital, capturing general imagination and interest and commanding the respect of those in charge of public service delivery will be a question of how well it is designed, presented and whether it is seen to be having any effect. We may have dropped the idea in that timeframe. But even if it is as successful as we could hope it seems unlikely that public service would have improved to the extent we would want to see within that timeframe.
*Better is defined in this context by JRCT as more just and more peaceful
Wrap up...
