The Smartphone State: Is Digital Government Really Going To Be Better?
Democracy is inherently messy. Which means that when efficiency is imposed the results are not necessarily what anyone intends - or wants. JL
Michael Rundle reports in Wired:
The ongoing transition to 'digital government' is a phrase that, like
'cutting red tape', has been used in the past to justify more or less
anything -- from introducing new services to shrinking existing ones.
But it has also resulted in real benefits.
Blockchain and the sharing economy could form the basis of a new digital state, with tech companies providing key services, Cabinet Office minister Matthew Hancock MP has told WIRED.
"Unless 'gov tech' keeps pace with every other area of technology, government services will become more and more difficult," Hancock said ahead of a week-long trip to Silicon Valley and Washington DC to meet tech companies and share ideas about digital government.
"But also I don't see a great clash [between tech and government]. I don't really mind who does the things that need to be done. What I care about is getting the right results."
"So if you say there are people who enthusiastically want some of the new technologies to replace parts of government, [...] I'm agnostic on that. If we as a society decide to deliver a service for our citizens, I'm agnostic on how it happens, so long as it happens as well as it possibly can."
Technology such as blockchain, which underpins the digital currency bitcoin, could have uses at the heart of the economy and in theoretically reduce the "need" for a central bank, Hancock said.
"If user feedback allows people to know which services are good without a government regulation having to have an authority check on whether that service is good or not then that’s better isn't it?" Hancock told WIRED.
"Where a currency needs to have a central bank to manage it in order to manage an economy, that's obviously necessary to keep the economy on track, which is very important for people's wellbeing. But ultimately if people can pay each other in a currency that isn't linked to a particular geographic location then the need for that is less."
Hancock will visit Silicon Valley companies involved in the so-called 'sharing economy' (including Uber) and blockchain on the trip, while also unveiling a new 'digital fellowship' that will see the US and UK exchange experts on digital government.The Cabinet Office said the programme would see the two governments exchange "a number of high-performing digital specialists" every year, while also creating a 'digital exchange' fast-track for graduates to work with counterparts across the Atlantic.
Formalised with this week's trip to the US, led by Hancock and the government's chief technology officer Liam Maxwell, the programme will allow the two countries to share ideas on how to extend access to digital services to people without access to the internet.
It will also look for new ways to promote economic growth, and share learnings on how to foster independent tech hubs.
While countries such as Estonia are seen as leading examples of digital governments, projects elsewhere have been less successful. In 2013 the United State's bungled launch of HealthCare.gov, the digital portal to President Obama's healthcare plan, experienced technical issues and cost more than five times its original budget.
Hancock said the new exchange of digital experts with the US government was intended precisely so that the UK could learn from those issues -- and ensure similar mistakes were not repeated here.
"We've got to take an evidence based approach to this," he said. "Decent technology follows that evidence based, user focused approach to deliver for customers. That's what we've got to do too."
Civil service reform
The ongoing transition to 'digital government' is a phrase that, like 'cutting red tape', has been used in the past to justify more or less anything -- from introducing new services to shrinking existing ones. But it has also resulted in real benefits, via the Government Digital Service, including the recent and widely praised redesign of GOV.uk, which in 2013 won the Design Museum's Design of the Year award.
Since taking over from Francis Maude MP in May 2015, Hancock has defined his role as trying to "build a new state" that can be accessed almost entirely through a smartphone. "Not the all-encompassing state of the 20th century, but a state you can hold in the palm of your hand," he said in a speech to the National Digital Conference in June.
And, yes, a smaller state -- with many fewer civil servants. Whitehall is said to be bracing for up to 100,000 job losses before 2020, and £10 billion in budget cuts by the end of 2018, a process that will be outlined in the upcoming autumn spending review.
"Ultimately we don’t employ people in the civil service in order to employ people," Hancock told WIRED. "That is not the aim. We employ people in the civil service in order to run the country for the citizens of Great Britain."
As the minister with the role of digitising government, the job of managing the reduction of civil servant numbers -- and of reducing the waste which saw, for instance, government paying £5.5m in 2014 to maintain computers running Windows XP, or incur costs of more than £7,000 a year to run a single PC -- falls on Hancock's shoulders.
Getty/Shutterstock
"Government is a big organisation -- there are about 400,000 civil servants. But it's split into just over 20 departmental silos, any of which have their own agencies. Hundreds of different organisations. By putting in a common digital backbone you can save a lot of money, but you can also crucially make the whole thing work better together. So it's been done. It's been done in 20 individual services in the last five years. But there's a whole lot more to do."
Specifically Hancock points to a reduction in DVLA workers and costs, which he said has led to a quicker, more digitised and cheaper service. Other 'quick win' targets will include finding ways to process tax payments more quickly, and the payment of benefits.
But to harness the potential power of tech, government must find a way for nimble startups -- who often lack the financial security to make bids on lucrative public service contracts -- to be considered for public contracts alongside the bigger, more stable but inefficient companies. Hancock admitted there was more to do on procurement if startups are to break through and provide key services.
"Through the digital marketplace we've massively expanded the number of participants who service government contracts," Hancock said. "I want to see that go further [...] the scale and the need for universal reach in most services in government does make it more technically challenging."
On what specific gadgets government should use, Hancock only has eyes for Cupertino. He works on an Apple laptop himself, though one perched on a standing desk made of solid, dark wood -- a metaphor for the modern Tory party's relationship with tech, or how it would like it to be seen, if ever there was one.
"The best government IT is now on Apple laptops and secure iPhones," he said. "That’s because they provide a brilliant service. So we harness the market, if you want to put it in highfalutin terms. But the truth is that you use the best kit that's available."
But relying mainly on big companies -- such as Apple for hardware, and Google for buying placements in routine, key search results (such as the more searched-for 'registry office', when the term is actually 'register office') -- does not necessarily put government at risk, Hancock said.
"I think you've got to look at it down the prism of wanting competitive markets for goods and services in the same way that you do in running the broader economy. Just because players are big, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're anti-competitive."
Data protection and Security
The digitising of government raises obvious questions about security, and the management of public data. To successfully turn the supposed 700 interactions citizens have with the government into digital ones, a lot more data will have to be stored securely -- and even if that can be ensured, and recent hacks across major governments suggest that might never be possible, the public will still need to be convinced that the benefits outweigh the risks.
Hancock explained the key to making that case is simply making people's lives easier -- "that message can only ever be based on reality. You've got to actually succeed in doing that" -- but balancing that with a need for security.
"Clearly the security side is vitally important. So whether it's the identity assurance on the way in, or the protection of data and cyber security and protection from untoward attacks -- all these are critical."
Getty/Shutterstock
But the government's unclear and increasingly problematic relationship with data encryption, and its goal of maintaining a backdoor into encrypted communications, seems to undermine that effort.
"The powers that we take in order to do that are only taken because of known life threatening circumstances," Hancock said. "On the other hand you've got to do it in a way that enables and allows digital transformation to be unleashed."
Tech business
The UK tech sector has grown quickly in the last half-decade, with more than £1 billion raised by tech firms in London alone in 2015, compared to £10 million in 2010. In the UK as a whole, 47,000 tech businesses employ 1.46 million people, with 74 percent outside London.
In 2010, as part of the effort to underpin that growth, the previous government created Tech City, a £2 million-per-year publicly funded body which this week announced a new chair, Eileen Burbidge, a founding partner at Passion Capital. But while London's success has coincided with Tech City's creation, some have criticised the organisation -- particularly after it emerged it had distributed just nine out of an allocated 200 Tier 1 'exceptional talent' visas for tech talent.
Hancock defended the organisation, however, saying that while London's tech hub was "mature", Tech City itself "has been very successful".
"I think it's one of the interesting ironies of technologies and the collapse of distance due to technology is that actually putting a load of people who are doing similar things in the same place has become, if anything, more important. Because ultimately human interaction matters too."
In one sign of tech's maturity in the UK, Hancock will not visit the biggest names in tech (Google, Facebook et al) on his current US trip, precisely because each of them has a large presence in the UK already. But pressed on whether government should pay public money to support an industry that is visibly self-sustaining, Hancock said that "you don't want to let something slip through your hands just because you think it's reached maturity".
"You've got to make sure that it can fly safely," he said.
Humanity
Reducing the number of human beings directly involved in providing public services will not strike everyone as a move forward; some have expressed concerns that government will become colder, and less empathetic, even if it becomes more efficient. But it is a misconception to think that a digitised state necessarily becomes a dehumanised state, Hancock argued.
"Tech is an enabler of the human interaction. My relationship with my GP is very important to me because he's known my medical history over more than a decade. But that doesn't mean that I would'’t rather email him."
In what could be a message delivered from the stage of an Apple announcement, he adds that the key is to harmonise humanity with technology.
"You could improve what is vital human relationship through using technology, so it works better for everybody. If both of us have access to my medical records whilst we're having that conversation, that's better too. So tech is an enabler of human interaction, it is not a replacement for human interaction."
Well, not unless that human interaction was only ever a means to coping with boredom.
"When I'm trying to get a driving licence, I'm not trying to make friends with the person on the other end of the phone helping me through that process. Now sometimes you used to have to do that. Because you were going to spend an hour of your life with them, so you might as well share a joke. But if I can do it in three minutes flat [online], I'd much rather do that and then spend the time building my time with other people and getting on with the rest of my life."
As a Partner and Co-Founder of Predictiv and PredictivAsia, Jon specializes in management performance and organizational effectiveness for both domestic and international clients. He is an editor and author whose works include Invisible Advantage: How Intangilbles are Driving Business Performance. Learn more...
0 comments:
Post a Comment