Neil Tamplin – Technology Meets Culture
How would you organise to impede transformational modernisation? You might set your face against all things digital, you might add as much stultifying process as you could find, you might just do things the way they have always been done.
This post explores how best not to do digital transformation, which turns out to be rather an interesting way of thinking about what it takes to do it successfully. There is a risk though of its becoming a form of confirmation bias: of course all those old ways were bad; of course the new ways are good. The risk is not that that is untrue, it is that it is not the whole truth. So perhaps there is another, harder, exercise to do after this one: assuming that the people who came before were neither malign nor idiots, why are things the way they are? What about the current way things were done has genuinely outlived its usefulness, and what was there for a reason? That’s not an argument for just keeping things as they were, but it may be an argument for making sure that we don’t throw away solutions without being clear what problem they belong to.
Rules are made to be broken. That’s an idea with considerable support from those on the receiving end of rules, rather less so from those who set them. Rules are the very essence of the Weberian bureaucracy which infuses governments and there are good reasons – fairness, clarity, consistency – why that is so. But that also means that bureaucratic organisations are designed to frustrate evolution and thus innovation – which is perhaps one reason why bureaucracies rarely communicate a sense of being on the cutting edge of innovation. And while bureaucracy is often used as a pejorative synonym for government, in this sense almost all organisations of any size are bureaucracies. Becoming adaptable and responsive isn’t just about breaking rules, it’s about adopting the expectation that rules are made to be broken.
What we get wrong about technology boils down to two things. The first is that simple, cheap and pervasive – and often near-invisible – technologies have more transformational power than things which are more obviously new and shiny; affordability beats complexity. The second mistake is to think that the impact of a new technology is driven by its technical availability, when the key date is its transition to economic and social availability, with lags which are sometimes very short but which can be very long indeed. This essay draws on examples from the invention of printing onwards to make the point that we might need to look in less obvious places for the technologies which will drive the next round of change.
All of that’s another way of putting the thought pithily expressed by Roy Amara:
We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.
Tim Harford – The Undercover Economist
The people with the shiny ideas and the shiny kit can see that change is essential and just know that their ideas are right as well as shiny. Unaccountably, the less shiny people with the unfashionable kit fail immediately to see the inherent rightness of the cause. This post has the superficial form of a rant, but it is a rant based on some important observations and a question without an easy answer: how do transformation teams understand and address the user needs of those whose fate is to be transformed?
Alex Blandford – Medium
Technology is never neutral. What gets developed, how it gets developed, and how it gets used are all driven by social, economic and political factors. People who build services are never neutral either and can certainly never be normal users of their own services. This article looks behind the internet of things to reflect on how completely frictionless transactions move power from consumer to provider, how what is normal for designers of such services is very different from what is normal for many of those who will find themselves using them, and how technology – and the data it moves and organises – is always about power.
Adam Greenfield – The Guardian
Strategy is often seen as being about objectives and destinations. But there is no point in wanting to get across an ocean if you don’t have any means of getting there. Disruptive external change demands a response – but the nature of that response depends on where you start from and what means of transport are available, as much as it does on where you think you are trying to get to. Though the advice to set up a pirate camp within sight of the far shore depends on there being usefully positioned islands – and on being able to distinguish the Indies from America.
Catherine Howe – Curious?
There’s more to innovation than having ideas. The innovation has to solve a problem (albeit sometimes made harder by the owners of the problem not knowing they have it). This article is written very much in a private sector context, where the test of successful innovation is sustainable profits, but it’s well worth thinking about how parallel issues play out in other kinds of organisations.
Tendayi Viki – Medium
Some organisations manage to stimulate and thrive on innovation, others struggle to break out of their current world. Ideo, the design consultancy which knows a thing or two about this has identified six factors which drive organisations’ innovation capability (and has created a tool they call Creative Difference based on them). At one level there is nothing surprising about those six capabilities (perhaps it would be more surprising if there were), but they combine to make a good challenge to organisations on whether they are capable of being – or even really want to be – innovative.
Katharine Schwab – Co.Design
The future is mostly just what happens. But it’s also partly what is imagined and encouraged to happen. This article is about companies in the business of telling stories about the future. Whether they are predicting a future, telling stories about a future, or making a future happen is the central question, which is touched on but never answered. And unsurprisingly, but equally unspoken, the imagined future meets the very present needs of those who commission it.
Kyle Chayka – The Verge
When new technologies arrive, they usually claim to be offering compelling solutions. But all too often, the clarity of the solution is not matched by the clarity of understanding of the problem it is claimed to solve. Despite the listicle headline, this is an excellent post setting out five tests for distinguishing the genuine new opportunities from the hype.
Eddie Copeland – NESTA
Click on the image to see it as a large pdf
Governments have not generally been places of experimentation, but there are increasing numbers of experiments across the world in how to do experimentation, many of them referred to through this post. The last and perhaps most important of the reflections is on the culture of orgainsations which allows experimentation to flourish, including the principles summarised in the graphic.
Jesper Christiansen, Bas Leurs and Giulio Quaggiotto – NESTA
Is government organised so as to make innovation difficult? That’s not a new question (to put it mildly), but this post approaches the question through the lens of organisational debt, which produces some slightly newer answers. Not surprisingly, though, there is nothing very surprising about those answers: large, cumbersome organisations with a conservative approach to change need more than just simple ambition to become something else.
Eoin McFadden – NESTA
A commentary on the newly published government digital strategy, interesting less for what it says about the substance, and more for what it says about how to create strategies in a political context. Without strong political (and democratic) foundations and a clear route to delivery, a strategy will fail, however strong its analysis and conclusions.
Matthew Cain – RSA
A telling example of the kinds of work automation is now reaching: automated interpretation of complex legal documents removing the need for skilled human scrutiny. Also interesting on the focus on technology innovation – high levels of investment and explicit recognition that some initiatives will fail.
Hugh Son – Bloomberg