I am the recruitment bellwether (possibly)
I honestly think that the Government Digital Service (GDS to those who can’t be bothered to type all that) is recruiting by seeing who tweets regularly in my “Gov-Types” list on twitter and hiring them.
Clearly I don’t really.
I think that I follow some really interesting and innovative government types and the GDS is recruiting really interesting and innovative government types.
Make no mistake. This is a really, really good thing.
I want my government to be excellent. I want genuinely talented people to find roles driving innovation and transformation in the civil service. I want innovative, talented and creative people to be successful, to have rewarding and fulfilling roles and to work in the public sector.
The GDS is tasked with transforming government digital services. It’s recruiting talented folk. It’s working in innovative ways.
On finding that the excellent James Cattell is leaving the world of local stuff to join the world of national stuff I did tweet that I worried on the implications for local government. Not about James specifically (he’s good but other talented folk exist) but about inexorable the pull of the centre.
Actually is there a problem?
The arguments that say this is good for local gov:
- if the cabinet office is doing it then it strengthens the case for local authorities doing it
- these innovators that I see being sucked into Whitehall may not stay there forever and when they come out, imagine what skills and talents they will bring with them
- this is the 21st Century and GDS recruits aren’t locked into a black box and prevented from communicating with the outside world. Rather the opposite. We can collaborate, learn and innovate together
The arguments that say this is bad for local gov:
- if all the people with talent, drive and innovation go and work somewhere else, local government will be a poorer place
- the GDS is part of a vicious circle of London-centrism, the GDS is in London, talented people are in London, if you want to do innovative cool stuff you have to do it in London. One of the really great things about local government is that it is massively decentralised and, er, not really based in London
- as the GDS becomes better, faster and stronger the case for central government running local digital services will grow ever stronger
The arguments that say it makes no difference at all:
- there are a lot of talented people to go round. So a few of them sign up to the civil service, there are plenty more where they came from. And the GDS is pretty small in the grand scheme of things
- there are massive cuts in the public sector weighing very heavily on local government, these people wouldn’t have jobs for long anyway
- this is nothing new, the civil services has always saught to drag talented folk to London and the world has not ended as a result
Let’s build GDS Local..?
Most of these arguments seem to me to have some viability. There’s been some chatter on twitter today about a GDS for local goverment. Which I have, at that level, heartily supported.
It does raise the interesting question of what would it do?
Linking it to my bullet points above. I guess it would need to
- transform local government digital services (especially if they’d been innovating in Whitehall)
- recruit, nurture and develop talented innovative folk
- not be the only place where talent resides (or assume that it is)
- not be based in or near London. In fact better if it were decentralised across the country.
- be managed by local government (maybe local public services) not central
- be open, collaborative and innovative part of the central government and local government family as well as being part of the wider community
And I look at this and I think. What does this look like?
We already have FutureGov, KindofDigital, Helpful Technology and the govcamp movement?
Is it a digital innovation college: Bramshill or Easingwold for local government digital stuff?
Or is it a series of collaborations and partnerships?
Or to put it another way. What is the problem that we need a local gov GDS to fix that we cannot fix with what we have?
And my head starts to spin and I have to stop writing.
Image credit Horizonte de sucesos by Ignacio Sanz used under Creative Commons Licence CC BY-SA 2.0
I am strictly, seriously, not wearing any other hat than my ex local gov hat in this comment.
Co-production and collaboration mean not reinventing the wheel 326 times or however many Authorities we’re counting this week. They mean sharing developer talent for the greater good but also the passion and enthusiasm which seems to bloom in some places and die a quick death in others. It means spreading culture change through being inside and not outside. It means that being a change agent is not a job title but something you are, happen to be, that you can encourage people to open up about their fears, but more importantly help them fix the things they are afraid of.
It means saying we’re skint, lets help each other, it means use digital to breach geographical barriers but remember there are still people on the end of it.
Lots of things.
Problems? Reinventing wheels, silo working, lack of developer talent in local gov, pockets of excellence and innovation which stay in pockets and don’t become outfits, silos, people pulling in different directions instead of presenting unified fronts, people not sharing cos they don’t know how, think they shouldn’t, are scared to or think credit wont be given…. just off the top of my head, like.
Excellent stuff.
Though it has made my head spin even more…
Hi Ben
I commented on Twitter that it was good to have LG types working at GDS. This was based on my observation that civil servants who have been raised in Whitehall can be very ignorant about LG (eg they don’t realise LG isn’t an ‘arm’ of central government). So having a few LG types in GDS is a good thing. But I also worry that GDS may be sucking up all the best digi-types, from LG and anywhere else. God knows, its hard to hire developers!
Re the idea of a local GDS, this came up at the Localgovcamp recently. We were really discussing how LG could better share digital resources. After all, there are 433 organisations all doing more or less the same thing, so pooling resources for digital development has got to make sense.
Organisations like Socitm help LG share best practice, but lots of us agreed that there needs to be much more sharing of scarce, especially around digital innovation.
Thanks Vicky
Not least for making me see how I had framed the post from a local perspective. Absolutely agree that local folks should (and do) make GDS central much better.
Pooling resources does make sense. Indeed to propose the contrary would be pretty bold these days. But with sharing comes challenges of governance. Boring but important.
And we have to move beyond sharing best practice to driving change. Which raises further issues of governance.
I feel a governance post coming on…
There’s some great ideas here, but who would be included in a Local Gov GDS Team and what would they actually do?
Developers, designers, content authors, content editors, PR people?
LA websites are increasingly becoming service portals (in fact we’ve got proposals to make out main website only that and nothing else) so do you include customer service and back office teams too as LA websites become less about information propagation and more about service delivery?
This isn’t a criticism of your piece, it’s great, I just think it raises a load of questions. But that’s a good thing if you’re innovating or planning something new.
I think the main question to answer is what should a LA website do. What’s its main purpose or role.
I’m glad you think I raise a load of questions.
That;s really all I have.
Other than the general sense that there is something important and exciting to be done…
Interesting and thought provoking post Ben,
I’ve thought about this before, blogged about it before and am still not entirely sure what anything would actually look like.
I like your points about probably being able to do this without any formal organisational structures and glorious titles and stuff. My words not yours of course.
The challenge isn’t anything other than a political one in my view…if localgov as a sector really wanted this, really understood the value of such a thing then it would simply create it because to not create it would be foolish.
However there are many people doing great stuff and continue to do great stuff. GDS central as I’ll refer to it now needs to actually raise their profile among those who aren’t connected to twitter and other social channels as there are many people in councils who are still not entirely clear who or what they are and what the focus is.
I’ve reused many outputs from GDS (standards etc) in my council and have quoted where they are from but still blank faces appear when mentioning GDS.
Scale this across all councils and even more local at parish councils and you have a challenge to get the concept understood first.
I don’t believe an organisation needs to come together, in fact better and more organised collaboration and co-operation is in fact required and more consistent methods and approaches to sharing components.
I could go on but I’ll end up writing more than you :)
Thank you for raising the discussion again it needs to happen before someone actually creates something nobody needs or wants or disconnects with what needs to be resolved. I look 8 years into the future and we need something better than GDS in my view otherwise we will fail to exist. That is the reality most local councils face.
Coming from you that first line is a great review :-)
Since you were too modest to link to your post I’ll do it for you
http://digital.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/2012/03/07/does-local-government-need-a-local-government-digital-service/
Reading through these comments I am certainly more swayed in the direction of collaboration, co-production and inspiration than creating a new organisation.
And we have a lot of that already.
So maybe we’ve got what we need, we just need more of it?
More questions…
I’ve always thought it would be good for the localgov crew to work more closely together, but I could never work out how. As soon as proper work (and proper money) is involved, anyone mildly successful becomes a walled garden (a la futuregov) and sadly many who have had a part in building that success don’t see a return. I think I can say that about many who have been great enablers and supporters of the network.
So, an answer to the question ‘what do we need a localgov GDS to do that we don’t already have’. Provide a way to give us credibility, so that local government folks know it’s ok to talk to us about digital. Right now, I can say ‘I am a part of the localgovcamp network’ and that means nothing. How about creating a network that means something?
I’m sympathetic to this view but I would temper it with something an AD said to me years ago:
“Whenever I find myself saying ‘in my professional opinion’ I know I’ve already lost the argument”
Legitimacy surely comes from being able to show people you have the solution to their problem, not from being part of an “official” group.
Power could flow from being part of a formal organisation. But that’s not the same thing at all.
As several people tweeted today, we need to set the required and desired outcomes the Local Government Digital Service will achieve.
Some are obvious: –
1. Common formats for local government digital information, i.e. websites, social media, etc.
2. Open source platforms for both internal and customer facing systems – find it, innovate & share
3. Open data, open systems & open knowledge by default
4. Improved procurement processes to enable lean & passionate small & medium sized enterprises to work together with local government
5. Be cool, attract talent and inspire a new generation to code a better country, a la Young Rewired State
Simples, yes?
Hmm
Number 5 Yes please
Numbers 1-4 raise as many questions as they answer.
Again with the questions…
point 1 – this worries me a bit but I can see why it is here
point 2 – seems logical and already happens to some degree – but lacks co-ordination and scale
point 3 – bit of a culture change but again seems logical and many have been pushing for this anyway
point 4 – i think this is a red herring to be honest
point 5 – inspire a new generation is slightly beyond a local GDS remit in my humble opinion, but could be a nice side effect of greater collaboration and co-operation – attract talent to what? this assumes it is an organisation in its own right. be cool…who said it wasn’t already?
Interesting article however i dont necessarily subscribe to the concept of GDS on a local level. To me it seems conflicted with the purpose of the GDS and making data open and available. Not to say that it wont work but the costs associated with implementation and restricts ‘cross-border’ data analysis. In my view we need local reps. To help coordinate, promote, integrate and catalogue on a national level.
That’s probably the biggest argument against a GDS for Local Gov.
Each LA has it’s own political make up and therefore priorities decided by the voters of that district or county. One area might decide that supporting local business is a big priority for them so have a large directory of local services available digitally. Another might feel that their council tax would be better used producing something else so not offer this service.
Remember when the various ITV franchises used to a produce lot more produce local content, that to me, felt it was made by that area, for that area? Now it all seems the same, just badged slightly differently for each location.
A number of councils have already tried this. South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse for example and whilst this undoubtedly must have saved them money when re-developing their websites, doesn’t this say to voters, “it doesn’t matter who you vote for here, you’re going to get the same digital services as the next district”?
That said, of course there should be a move towards using common standards and a number of councils are already doing this, such as the those like Southampton and West Berkshire that have adopted Open311. A GDS for Local Gov could push forward things like this.
Partially agree about the ITV example and having local content available but they have moved on, they are now more consistent, user centric and with appropriate levels of localisation but at the end of the day the content maybe localised, but the way it was provided never was. You mention the political landscape. But why must this be voted upon?, it simply serves to restrict – life after iPlayer if you will – just make it easily accessable and available all the time and let users decide.
You ask why must which digital services a council provides be voted upon. If councils are websites, as someone recently said, then residents should have a say on which services their council provide, digital or otherwise.
Sorry if you think asking voters what they would like their money spent on simply serves to restrict. I don’t agree.
Apologies in advance for being pessimistic:
- my fear is that the road is not two-way; many/most of those heading London-wards will not head back to the provinces (I’m an exception having left London for Devon*)
- many/most of the talented people will probably leave the public sector once GDS has completed the big tasks (I’m an exception having left the private sector for local gov*)
LocalGDS?
- most of us out on the periphery are just trying to survive: GDS (might as well mention open data, social, innovation too) is not even on senior management radar (despite underling bleats)
- we’re duplicating effort, but if we collaborate it will be to the lowest common denominator
- will LocalGDS be “free”? If not, then I doubt we’ll be signing up
* – probably says a lot about my skills
I’d like to see us throw our energies behind making sure GDS style projects in localgov are well communicated. As Carl notes, outside of our bubble, senior localgov officers do not understand digital, agile and design. We need successful digital projects to be written up with the benefits made clear. This will help others get their own projects off the ground. It’s about money in the end, or at the very least taking risks with precious human resources. It’s painfully clear to us all that digital is one of the very few levers of change, but our decision makers, most of whom do not understand the web, remain to be convinced.
Some will be aware that I am programme manager for Patchwork (a Futuregov project) in Brighton, and to be honest I think partnerships are the best way to secure digital and design skills quickly, unless you’re very lucky.
It’s all about projects for me, being good enough to attract a bunch of councils to work as partners. I’m currently trying to develop a multi-council project around social care systems. Getting more than one council on the same page is incredibly difficult!
You can only do this project by project. I’m going to think about how to blog the next phase of Patchwork. It would be good to have a non-public space to do a “warts and all” version of my experience ..
(original comment got lost, so here’s another go)
Sorry to lob in a hand grenade…
Vortex: my fear is
- those sucked in to London are unlikely to head back to the provinces because they’ll find better opportunities outside local gov/provinces
- as public secotr contracts, it is inevitable that (a high percentage of) the best will leave for the private sector as happened in the civil service in the mid 90s (from which the service struggled to recover well in to the noughties)
LocalGDS
- love the concept, duplication across 430 orgs is highly wasteful and usually results in poor systems, processes
- suppliers continue to pick us off: replacement online payments system for 2013 is a classic example where we’ll end up with a pile of poo that neither officers nor the public will like
However
- us on the geographic periphery are barely surviving
- in that atmosphere LocalGDS is too novel a concept for senior managers firefighting rather than looking strategically
- the approach to shared services is too often the lowest common denominator not best practice
What we need
- proper local gov reorganisation, not piecemeal and not driven by political dogma or local battles (maybe undemocratic, but we’re facing local gov financial meltdown in 5 years or less)
- a proper drive from the centre (or somewhere – maybe the GovCamp movement) with political and DCLG buy-in to establish standards and, possibly, platforms that local gov can use “out of the box”
Some really interesting ideas here.
One of the things that exercises me is how even those using the digital tools, and proficient with them, don’t seem to be able to realise their potential to share best practice and get people out of their silos and working together. And I know there are millions of platforms out there, including KnowledgeHub, etc, which claim to be able to do this, but they are not doing what I think is needed, creating virtual teams who work together in real time. Why does GDS have to be in a physical location in London? Surely there would be savings to be had by people being based in cheaper places to live and collaborating online. And its current tendency to hoover up the talent and gather it together in one place excludes those with family ties and commitments who are not able to up and move.
Let’s create virtual teams with permanently open Skype connections and Yammer chats, able to talk to each other whenever they want to.
I typed a really long comment here, and it disappeared into the ether. I don’t have time to do it all again, so I will simply repeat my final point which is:
Why are we not making use of the digital tools to engender true collaboration? Let’s have distributed teams with permanently open Skype connections and Yammer chats, instead of collecting everyone with talent together in London.