David Thomas – DEFRA Digital
Being agile in a small agile organisation is one thing. Being a pocket of agility in a large and not necessarily very agile organisation is quite another. One of the points of friction is between conventional approaches to budget setting, typically with a strong focus on detailed advance planning, and agile approaches which make a virtue of early uncertainty and an exploratory approach. It’s clear that that’s not an ideal state of affairs, it’s less clear what the best way is of moving on. This post puts forward the radical approach of not funding projects at all, but funding teams instead.
The thought behind it makes a lot of sense, with the approval process becoming some version of managing a high-level backlog and there being a real efficiency gain from sustained team activity rather than fragmented project team formation. But in focusing on funding as the key tension to be resolved, the post slightly skates over what might be the larger issue of planning, where the gap between the aspiration to be precise and accurate and the reality of underlying uncertainty tends to be large. It may be that following the approach suggested here moves, rather than resolves, the friction. But it may also be that that is a useful and necessary next step.
It’s a surprisingly common mistake to design things on the assumption that they will always operate in a benign environment. But the real world is messier and more hostile than that. This is an article about why self-driving vehicles will be slower to arrive and more vulnerable once they are here than it might seem from focusing just on the enabling technology.
But it’s also an example of a much more general point. ‘What might an ill-intentioned person do to break this?’ is a question which needs to be asked early enough in designing a product or service that the answers can be addressed in the design itself, rather than, for example, ending up with medical devices which lack any kind of authentication at all. Getting the balance right between making things easy for the right people and as close to impossible as can be managed for the wrong people is never straightforward. But there is no chance of getting it right if the problem isn’t acknowledged in the first place.
And as an aside, there is still the question of whether vehicles are anywhere close to be becoming autonomous in the first place.
Simson Garfinkel – MIT Technology Review
A short and powerful polemic on why government doesn’t have needs (and thus why governments are different from users, which do). It’s a powerful argument, but a narrower one than the author seems to recognise. To the extent that government is a provider of services, there is much to be said for a strong focus on meeting user needs, and there is certainly good reason to think that behaving as if that were true has some powerful positive benefits, not least in that using the language of needs gives the best possible chance of not getting prematurely tied up with solutions. There’s a risk, though, that the consumers of a service are seen as the only relevant people, and their needs the only relevant needs. That’s sometimes true (or as nearly true that we don’t need to worry about it), but often there are social and collective interests in how a service operates as well as the individual one – which is one reason they are government services in the first place.
The post is also dismissive of describing the users of government services as ‘customers’. That’s a view which is more rigid than sensible – but that’s a debate for another day.
Charles Reynolds-Talbot – Medium
Developing policy in government is hard; applying the perspectives and skills of service design can help. That’s the disarmingly simple premise of this post (and the new blog it comes from). If we understand where there are risks in developing policy, and understand the ways in which service design approaches can help mitigate those risks, then we should be able to get first to better policy and then, as a result, to more effective delivery. The aspiration is a good one and the potential benefit is large – but as Paul Maltby has described, there are some real obstacles to effective dialogue between the two perspectives which need to be overcome.
James Johnson – Design and Policy
The user interface of a toaster is an unlikely starting place for an essay about the nature of design, but it turns out to be a way into a discussion of some challenging questions, including whether design is an exercise in democracy, an act of genius, or something else altogether. The conclusion is that the purpose of design is to make things more the essence of themselves, and that in this example, at least, it is to identify an ‘obvious but still unseen problem’ and to solve that problem in ‘in an elegant way that is also delightful to use’.
That risks collapsing into triteness, but the underlying question is a good one. Toasters have been around – fundamentally unchanged – for a century. So radically changing how they work (while at the same time barely changing how they work at all) is not a trivial achievement. It’s worth reflecting both on what lessons that might have for the application of design to public services – and on what obvious but unseen problems are waiting to be found.
Ian Bogost – The Atlantic
This is not a post which self-evidently belongs in Strategic Reading: it’s about how a software developer should work with her boss to get things done. But the suggested approach has two devastatingly simple elements which have much wider resonance, first that understanding the position and priorities of the organisation as a whole is important in addressing even what might appear to be quite small problems; secondly that based on that foundation, prioritisation can and should be a neat constant activity, driven by the need to manage down uncertainty. It’s worth reflecting on where else these ideas might provide and effective way of getting good things done.
Dan Milstein – Hut 8 Labs
Most of what appears on Strategic Reading is gleaned from social media in one way or another. This is the first which comes from a direct reader suggestion – so thanks to Stephen Gill. Interesting links are welcome, either through the site itself or by tweeting to @StratRead.
The success of Amazon has been told many times and in many ways. This is one of the less obvious and more compelling versions, focusing on the power of treating its internal systems and relationships as if they were external If they are good enough for other people to want to use them, that’s a good sign that they are good enough for Amazon to use for themselves.
It’s clearly worked pretty powerfully for Amazon. That’s interesting in its own right, but it also raises some important and difficult questions for organisations which are not Amazon, perhaps in particular for governments, which are quite heavily insulated from the consequences of customer satisfaction. Government is not the next Amazon, nor should it be, but it’s worth reflecting on whether there is a similar process by which a drive to quality improvement could be designed into processes and systems.
Zack Kanter – Tech Crunch
When demand fluctuates, the costs of meeting it can easily go up and its quality can quickly go down. Some public services seem designed to maximise peak demand, others need to be ready to respond to demand which fluctuates for external reasons. That’s an aspect of service design which is often overlooked: the need to optimise individual interactions and the system supporting them is much more obvious than the opportunity to influence (and in some cases directly manage) the pattern of activity over time. So it’s worth reflecting on the scope for improving both service quality and efficiency by better managing the flow of demand.
Eddie Copeland – NESTA
There is lots of attention and activity around the question of how government should be made to work better, and in particular how it should be made to work better with modern technology. There is much less attention given to the question of why doing that is a good thing. This piece is an attempt to fill that gap from somebody who has been thinking about these issues pretty much from the beginning. It’s an extremely good first answer, but it is, of course, not the only one possible. It will be interesting to see if others rise to the challenge Tom poses.
Tom Steinberg – Civic Hall
This is highly distilled very uncommon sense from a sharp observer of government in both the UK and Australia. At one level it’s about user research, which is unsurprising as that’s the core of what Leisa does, but the implications are very much wider – which is equally unsurprising as that is the ever less hidden power of user research.
As she observes, most people want to spend as little time as possible thinking about government services. Much follows from that simple insight.
Leisa Reichelt – disambiguity
A neat example of lateral thinking (and of the power of data) in government service design – can we make services more efficient by spreading demand and so lowering the expense of peak capacity?
As the post itself acknowledges, that won’t magic away the demand pressures on public services, but it does illustrate the value of what we might call second level optimisation – one above trying to maximise efficiency of the current way of doing things, and one below a more radical reconceptualisation of the service as a whole. All three are necessary, but the one in the middle is perhaps the one most easily overlooked.
Eddie Copeland – Nesta
This is a powerfully argued manifesto for service design in a digital age. It’s not good enough just to put a digital layer on top of organisational and service architectures which predate the internet: that results in services which are unstable and unscalable and so unsatisfactory and ultimately unviable.
There is much here which is persuasive and important, but it underplays a critical part of the overall picture. The new organisations and approaches Ben lauds have in common that they are all comfortable with the rhetoric of sharing, but they are all completely conventional market organisations whose relationship with their customers is one-dimensionally transactional. Amazon is the one partial exception to that, but even they do more to fit the institutional model of the pre-internet firm than to challenge it. Public services are – or should be – part of wider conversations. To define them solely through their transactions is to miss something essential.
Jakob Nielsen has been writing about usability since the dawn of the web. His approaches seemed to go out of fashion for a while, but there has always been a lot of evidence-based common sense in his approach. This post uses OECD data to demonstrate just how limited digital skills are, even in the most advanced countries and draws out the critical point that people who design, build, or even vaguely think about online sites and services are massively unrepresentative.
Or to put it another way, we can never be a normal user of our own services and even bus drivers aren’t like passengers.
It is though curious – presumably as a consequence of the way the research was done – that the test tasks described are very work focused. It would be interesting to know if task context and familiarity at least partly countered task complexity.
Jakob Nielsen – Nielsen Norman Group
Is user-centred digital government unstoppable? At one level the answer must be yes, we live in an increasingly digital environment and government is not and cannot be immune to that. Digital is well on the way to just being the substrate for how things get done. But just as twentieth century governments could be good at managing paper without necessarily being good at using it to communicate clearly and efficiently, so doing things digitally does not immediately imply doing them well. This post argues the positive case, that we are beyond the tipping point where ideas about rapid, responsive service design have a sufficient life – and strength – of their own to transcend the vagaries of individual leaders and services.
Tom Steinberg – Medium
This is a good simple and succinct description of what user research is and why it matters. It draws out the critical point that user wants are not necessarily a good indicator of user needs, not least because what matters in the end is not (or is not just) the immediate interaction, but the success of the underlying service in delivering the right outcomes.
Leisa Reichelt – Australian Government Digital Transformation Agency
A sketchnote on building a bank, in this case Monzo, which is one of a number of new contenders starting in a very different place from traditional banks. The same basic approach could apply much more widely to service design – and indeed to organisation design.
A smart and pithy presentation on what strategy is – and isn’t – from the point of view of a digital service designer. Sophie is also the author of Adventures in Policy Land – a reflection by an agile non-government non-policy person on creating government policy in an agile way
Sophie Dennis – Slideshare
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
This is a great example of what might be called macro user research, investing in understanding people’s own framing of and understanding of their situation and reflecting on how government service design should respond to that. Three broad themes emerge, the first of which is ‘conversational services’. Conversation is a powerful concept, and one all too easily overlooked in the design of high volume services. And it is the starting point for the Cluetrain Manifesto, one of the defining texts of the web, made of up of 95 theses, of which the first three are:
- Markets are conversations.
- Markets consist of human beings, not demographic sectors.
- Conversations among human beings sound human. They are conducted in a human voice
And of course ‘markets’ don’t have to be limited to markets.
Pia Waugh – New Zealand Government Web Toolkit
Most writing about algorithmic decision making is at a very high level, and often implies that a very wide range of decisions and processes will be affected in very similar ways. This article – originally a submission to a select committee inquiry on the subject – take a more granular approach, looking at how different approaches might be appropriate for different aspects of a hypothetical National Benefits Service, with an emphasis on ensuring that it is always clear how a decision has been reached, as well as what that decision is.
Matthew Sheret – Projects by IF