A view on the PASC Report on Change in Government and why just "doing stuff" will come into its own

I have just finished reading the Public Administration Select Committee's (PASC) recent report on Change in Government (pdf). Undoubtedly much effort has gone into it, with contributions from many wise people; but I can’t help feeling that it misses something very important, which makes the thrust of its conclusions …er …wrong. This thing is Complexity...

Everywhere things are getting more complex. I believe that (probably some time ago) we have crossed a sort of Rubicon to a place where the conventional wisdom of government is a lot less reliable. It’s as though the laws of physics have changed. To me the problems we face, such as the particularly acute ones in government IT, are arising because we are trying to make sense of this new place using old laws; and it's not working.

If you are not familiar with the concepts of complexity - take a look at David Snowden's Cynefin or Rittel & Webber's Wicked Problems. The essence (drawing on the language from Cynefin) is that there is a difference between the Complicated and the Complex. When things are Complicated, cause and effect can be predicted: when they are Complex, they cannot. In a Complicated world the way to do things is Sense>Analyse>Respond: collect information, analyse that information then take action on the basis of the analysis. In a Complex world things are different because the Analyse bit is just too hard to do. The right response is through iteration of Probe>Sense>Respond: take some action, see what happens and take some more action.

Up to now, we have built pretty much everything around us using the Complicated model; it has even put men on the moon. The model has served us very well and pervades the workings of government. Take a look at the Conclusion section of the PASC's report...

"The challenges facing Whitehall will require a Civil Service reform programme more extensive in size and scope than attempted for many years. We have received little evidence that the Government is engaging with the factors that determine the success of such reform programmes, namely establishing the appropriate scope for change, setting clear objectives and timescales for reforms, and ensuring central coordination and political support. Most importantly, we have no sense of what the Government thinks a reformed Civil Service will look like. Without a clear set of objectives, Civil Service reform and, therefore, the wider public service reform programme will fail.

Most Departments are aware of what they are seeking to achieve, but we have seen little evidence that many Departments have thought clearly about how they will make these changes or the nature of leadership required to implement them. We are concerned that any change to the Civil Service must overcome substantial inertia. A cultural change to accept new ideas, innovation, decentralisation, localism and the Big Society, necessary if these flagship government policies are to succeed, will only come with leadership and a clear plan.

We consider that in preparing for the necessary reform there is no substitute for the development of a centre for the operation of Government which is truly world-class and properly equipped to support delivery departments throughout the reform process and beyond. The scale of the challenges faced by the Civil Service call for the establishment of such a corporate centre, headed by someone with the authority to insist on delivery across the Civil Service. We propose to return to this issue in any future examination of the role of the Head of the Home Civil Service."

Summarising, this Conclusion says that, for reform to be successful, the Government needs a clearer vision, better planning, stronger leadership and enhanced central control: an archetypical Complicated approach. This thinking is further starkly highlighted in paragraph 64 of the report, which says...

"...but the Government’s approach lacks leadership. The Minister [Francis Maude] rejected the need for a central reform plan, preferring “doing stuff” instead. We have no faith in such an approach."

This instinct to follow the Complicated approach is deeply, deeply ingrained in Government culture, hence the reaction to Mr Maude's ideas. To the PASC, the ideas do not fit - they sound unprofessional - and, were this an essentially Complicated situation, I would think the same. But, if we are dealing with a mainly Complex one then Mr Maude is probably right: "doing stuff" is precisely what is needed; provided, of course, it is the right "stuff" and is properly part of a Probe>Sense>Respond approach. Going through months of analysing, visioning and planning would be a waste of time and resource. Whether Mr Maude is advocating "doing stuff" for the right reasons is another issue but I was encouraged by this exchange in a transcript of an evidence session in the report (Q214)...

Francis Maude: When we started talking about how we are going to support mutuals, the first response was: “Well, we need to have a plan, a programme, and devise rights and systems and processes.” And when I reflected on that, I thought, “I could not think of a better way of killing the idea dead.”

Chair: That may well be true, but that is not an argument against having a plan.

Francis Maude: Well no, it is, actually. The right approach is to find people who want to do this and support them, and as they try and set up their cooperatives and mutuals find out what the blocks are.

(Perhaps Mr Maude is becoming one of my Wicked Politicians?)

I should make it completely clear that I am not advocating a wholesale let-it-all-hang-out-Man approach to management across government. The Complicated stuff will still be there and will still need the Sense>Analyze>Respond approach; but it is crucial that we become good at spotting what is Complex and then handling it the right way because that's where the big problems are likely to be.

To me, Civil Service reform feels significantly Complex; and we should deal with it according to the appropriate laws of physics.

But maybe I have got this Complexity thing all out of proportion and it isn't as important as I make out. Let me know what you think.

Agile Tea and the Four Ex Model

Today I spoke at Agile Tea, a networking session run by the Innovation and Delivery team of the Government Digital Service. As the event was in the cafe of House of Fraser in Victoria Street (very nice: you should try it), there were no whiteboards to write stuff on. So we used the floor. Here is a digital version of what I said: hang on to your seat...

Huge thanks to Abby Peel and Mark O'Neill for inviting me; to Steve Lamb and Paul Norris for photos; to Jon the very understanding manager of the cafe and to Vince for coming an awful long way to stick 6 bits of tape to the floor.

Presentation to the UK Defence Academy: Creating cultures that cope with complexity

This post is a summary of a talk I did on complexity and culture in the context of government IT at the Design of Information Systems Symposium at the Defence Academy at Shrivenham on 14 Sep 11 (see abstract). It's intended as a reference for those who attended; it does not have the details of some of the examples that I talked about on the day and may well lack context if you weren't there...

Introduction

The Internet is bringing game-changing complexity to Government IT. Whilst there are significant technical issues to be resolved, the real challenge is in promoting cultures that will allow appropriate responses to emerge and then enable those responses with the right technology.

Complexity

The challenges of government are not just getting more complicated; they are getting Complex. Which is subtly different. Essentially: in Complicated situations cause and effect can be predicted - in Complex ones it can't. This is all explained very neatly in David Snowden's Cynefin Model and in the ideas behind Wicked problems. Whilst reasoning and design work beautifully for the Complicated: in the Complex they do not. Complexity needs sensing and incrementalism... which seems like winging things. Which is troublesome, because the right way is potentially counter-cultural and, for many, will feel just wrong. And this (I'd say) is the principal reason we have the problems we do in government IT.

When things are Complex... Think Grow not Build.

Culture

In the past when things were just plain old Complicated we were able to think our way to a solution, build it, do the 'business change' and Bob was one's uncle. When it's Complex, we have to be more agile: designing and building and changing all at the same time. We must be able to Explore the potential of a new capability whilst we are starting to get benefit from it; and this is inherently risky because it's often not possible to do all of the i-dotting and t-crossing necessary for smooth and efficient routine operation at the same time. It's particularly awkward doing this in organisations that are culturally dead keen on smoothness and efficiency (see my mutterings about the recent Public Accounts Committee report on Government IT). And, whilst Complexity is turning things upside down, the Complicated stuff hasn't gone away either. Everything needs to be jigged together nicely: we need to grow new cultures around old ones and everyone involved must understand why different situations need different approaches. We must match culture to the maturity of developing capabilities and make sure that we do the right things at the right time (which is explained in more detail in the How to think about IT - 4Ex Model). Bottom line: in Complex situations - if we don't make room for this exploratory culture - at best we will under-achieve and at worst we will end up in deep ...er circumstances.

When things are Complex... Explore before you leap.

Community

It is difficult to nurture cultures that cope with complexity inside ones that have have grown up to cope with... well... nearly the opposite. In IT, working in an agile way can bring significant, unexpected change, which can create headaches for security teams, support services, policy people and all sorts of other folks. These problems cannot usually be designed away, so it is crucial to involve those likely to be affected right from the beginning. Not by listing them on a stakeholder management plan, but making them genuinely part of the community creating the new capability; so that they feel purpose. Some may be heavily engaged and some not much at all, but it's important that they all feel involved and valued. It's only with this involvement that the inevitable risks and issues of working in this way can be handled quickly and pro-actively. It's doesn't take much for a critical stakeholder to gum things up by just doing their job. The distinction is that when it's Complicated you need to build teams to solve problems: when it's Complex you need to grow communities to improve situations.

When things are Complex...Ask "Show me the community".

Openness

Complexity creates enormous and immediate demand for new capabilities. It will not be possible for IT departments to provide everything everyone wants, so it will help a lot if there is a way for others, who have the necessary development skills, to build things when they are needed. These people could be hired-in teams, IT departments in partner organisations or even gifted amateurs in the bodies of organisations. The iPhone is an example: Apple provide a robust technology platform and facilities, for anyone with the skills, to create applications for it - there are now nearly 500,000 iPhone apps that Apple could never have created themselves. It's possible to do the same sort of thing within organisations and I reckon there are three important bits to consider: open technology that is available to all; open services that enable others to use that technology; and, crucially, open behaviours that create a cohesive, helpful community around the technology that will ensure that technology is used. And this openness starts with friendly, can-do, inclusive behaviours from everyone involved and not really the technology: the culture thing again.

When things are Complex... Make stuff open (and be open yourself).

Collaboration

In Complex situations, traditional means of coordination through organisational hierarchies are not responsive enough. Organisations need to be more spontaneous; when faced with a problem or an opportunity, people need to be able to respond themselves rather than wait for managers. This means people need the facility both to identify the others they need to work with and then to coordinate that work effectively (see The Flood). Tools like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Wordpress are transforming interaction and cooperation in our private lives: there is a huge opportunity to use similar tools within organisations to transform the way we work. Incorporating social capabilities in our work tools and creating the culture to use them effectively will take time but I believe that this is now pretty much non-optional; see, for example, The rise of the networked enterprise or Social Power - The coming corporate revolution. Whilst currently there is huge emphasis on creating tools to store and distribute information, in dealing with Complexity, it is more important to connect People with People than it is to connect People with Information.

When things are Complex... Build 'Social' into everything.

Conclusion

Complexity changes the game; and to be successful we need to allow new cultures to emerge...

If you were there, I hope you found the talk useful. Please do carry on the conversation by leaving a comment below.

Complex is not the same as Complicated...

...well, it isn't according to the Harvard Business Review article - A Leader's Framework for Decision Making - by David Snowden and Mary Boone that, deservedly, has just won an award from Emerald (a publisher of research work). The article explains a set of organisational situations - termed Simple, Complicated, Complex and Chaotic - and how to manage them. It is excellent and well worth the $6.95 HBR will want from you for the pleasure of reading it.

There is a lot of good stuff in the article but, for me, its exposition of the difference between Complicated situations and Complex ones is the important bit. I think that plenty of stuff goes wrong (not least in Government IT) because folks try to deal with Complex situations using Complicated strategies. I won't explain: you'll need to read the article.

The article is based on David Snowden's Cynefin Framework, the theory of which you can see him explain in this YouTube video. My earlier post about Wicked Problems also talks about the same ideas. But read the article.

Managing change: think 'organism' not 'mechanism'

This is about managing change in organisations. It's about organisms and mechanisms; the model of the world we carry in our heads; and the importance of words. The model of the Industrial Age was all about mechanisms. Naturally.  But, the Knowledge Age is about organisms.

Today, if you work in an organisation, listen to the conversation and the words people use.

How much is 'mechanical' language?...

• "We must build a new team."
• "We need to make this happen.
• "This set-up is not working."
• "This approach is broken."
• "Lets put together a plan"

And how much is 'organic' language?...

• "We should grow that community."
• "This project is not really flourishing."
• "We need to germinate some new ideas."
• "Let's propagate that way of doing things."
• "We are properly in the manure." (OK this one is a joke.)

If you want to change a mechanism, there's no point getting your gardening gloves out: you can't grow a new flywheel.  Equally you can't build a new hydrangea. Or an organisation (really).

Whoever chose the term 'organisation' was smart: they put a GREAT BIG CLUE in the word. When it comes to changing organisations: think organism not mechanism.

And use organic words.

Because words change minds.

How to think about IT

Most of my work in the past few years has been in helping Government organisations be more effective and agile (had to get the word in) in delivering IT. This post explains a model that I have been using to help our clients understand and manage the life-cycle of IT delivery from a business perspective. I am wary of overdoing the consulting-model thing but many folks have found this one useful and some have been nudging me to write it up for some time. So here it is. See what you think. The presentation is in the form of a Prezi. If there is a blue arrow: click it and the Prezi should load. The main control buttons are in the bottom right of the presentation window below; waggle your mouse there and they should appear. There's a Full Screen button and Back and Forward arrows: click and hold the Back arrow for an option to skip to the beginning of the presentation. Unless you are endowed with Clark Kent eyeballs go for the Full Screen option.

Hang on to your seat...

Do leave a comment: is there stuff that could do with explaining better;  do you know of other,  more instructive models; or perhaps you think we have gone bonkers and are miles off beam? Please let us know. Also, since this is the first time we have used Prezi, let us know what you think of that too.

Thanks

Entrepreneurialism in government: 'one ring to bind them all'?

I have just read - Public Service Entrepreneurs - a really good piece about public sector reform by Andrew Adonis. In it he talks about the need for radical reform of public sector delivery and, in particular, fostering an entrepreneurial approach...

... [an] entrepreneurial mindset will be essential. We need to break away from a view of public services that focuses on the efficient and effective distribution of state resources and instead focus on the opportunities to improve people’s lives, ...

...and goes on...

The reason many struggle with the concept [of the reforms] is that it often fails to translate into practical reality for people on the ground.

This makes great sense to me. Lately, there has been much written and discussed about new ways of doing things. A lot of it has focused on principles and governance and structure and process - all of which of course are important - but I have seen very little emphasis on the new behaviours that will be necessary to make it work.

Take a look at the new Government ICT Strategy. It is (genuinely) a sound document, but read the foreword: there is nothing about the human element of the change. To me it's just unthinkable that we could make such huge reforms without attending explicitly to culture, attitudes and behaviour.

If we are to make lasting change then it is really, really important that we have a simple behavioural model that can be expressed in a few words and that can be very easily understood and confidently adopted by everybody, wherever they are or at whatever level. I think that Andrew Adonis has picked just the right thing ("one ring to bind them all" perhaps). "Be entrepreneurial", is all the instruction that will be needed.