Tell Us Once goes national

So I saw something on Twitter about the government’s intention to roll-out the Tell Us Once programme nationally.  And then someone asked me what I thought about it…

I think it’s a laudable goal to try to simplify the bureaucracy that citizens experience when dealing with the state in all its guises. However I think TUO is problematic for three reasons:

1. It’s not addressing the real issue, namely that the state is too bureaucratic.  TUO is a work-around because the state isn’t organised around actual people.  It’s sticking plaster that gives an artificial sense of coherence to a flawed system.  And everyone knows that papering over the cracks is unsustainable.
2. It’s not giving citizens control over their data.  It’s channelling data between bits of government and the scope for error is still huge.  Accepting that the hideous bureaucracy isn’t going anywhere any time soon, it would be better to make it clear to people who they need to contact with what information and how.  Then I can send one email (or better still an RSS feed)* to all the relevant departments and I can be sure that the data they get is accurate and that they actually get it – it’s my data, after all, and I firmly believe that a state employee does not have a role as an intermediary for my data.
3. The basic principle of the government sharing data between departments is fraught with problems.  At best it’s paternalistic and at worse it’s the stuff of Big Brother nightmares.  Sure, our current government might not be organised enough to actually make use of the data shared between departments, but it sets us on a dangerous path in which ultimately any information about me can be shared between departments and quangos – I don’t get a say in who gets what and what they do with it.  To some that sounds over-dramatic but there are others who have seen the effects of regimes that do this in their lifetime.

In short, Tell Us Once is a shonky fix for a bigger problem.  It does not give individuals control of their own data and it has very scary potential.

*Yes, some people don’t have access to email or RSS (though they are few) but we have to start somewhere.

VRM and the public sector

I spoke at VRM Hub this week about the implications of VRM on the public sector.  If you’re new to the idea of VRM (Vendor Relationship Management) then you should check out this nifty explanation by Adriana Lukas.

I thought it would probably be best to start with trying to figure out what I mean by ‘the state’, since we could be talking about a variety of bits of the spaghetti of government.  In fact, the full list of all the different bits are on the Direct Gov website.  There’s a prize if you can find the weirdest bit of government.  I’m also thinking that in some cases charities or voluntary sector organisations could count as ‘the state’ since they are often grant funded by the government and therefore do their bidding.

The big question is why VRM matters for the state – there’s lots of good stuff about how it can help us transact with companies better but not much out there on how it can help us improve the balance in our relationship with government institutions.  I think it’s crucial.  For a start off, interaction with the state is complex and you can’t take control.  We have little choice over how our data is used or kept safe (missing memory stick, anyone?) and we never have a complete picture of all our interactions.

We can be residents, citizens, customers, clients, patients, victims, criminals, volunteers and donors to name just a few, and we can be all of those things simultaneously.  In some cases, lives are at stake.  If we could understand more about our interactions with the state then we’d become better citizens – more informed people can take better decisions and maybe even provide for themselves, easing pressure on an already burdened system.

I nearly typed ‘broken system’ then because just the thought of introducing the idea of VRM to the public sector is not for the fainthearted.  There are lots of hurdles, from the extreme risk aversion (AKA ‘blame aversion’) of officials (‘what if no one shares their data with us????!!’) through to worries about digital inclusion (‘we shouldn’t adopt new ways of engaging digitally when there are still some poor/old/disabled people who don’t have computers or broadband’).

There is also the difficulty of going too fast.  I know – fast isn’t usually the problem with government.  But I’m very nervous about the rush to ‘scale’ VRM before any tools have been properly built or adopted.  We had some debate at the VRM Hub session about how you could authenticate your bits and bobs like your passport, birth certificate, driving licence and soforth in order to make it easier to transact with the government.

While it’s obvious we will need a way to do this, I think it’s too soon to start trying to invent those ways now.  I’m more interested in people being able to tell their local council their preferences, ideas, suggestions, needs and views and for the council to really listen to what people are saying and then design services accordingly.  Maybe once the state is used to interacting with citizens on their own terms we will start to see entirely new ways of transacting, and only then will we be ready to design solutions to help this more balanced relationship to scale.

While there are undoubtedly challenges to bringing VRM tools to bear on the state, there are also some open doors.  I think VRM will save state institutions money – possibly through having less of a need to store data (since we will be the source of our data); probably through deleting many of the pointless consultation teams that exist throughout local authorities and departments; but definitely through more accurate service design.

Another opportunity is the increasing acceptance that the government might actually need to have a relationship of sorts with its citizens – most recently expressed through the delightful ‘duty to involve‘ placed upon councils, which makes talking to people a legal requirement.  I tend to think that if you have to rely on a law to make that happen then you’ve already lost the battle, but at least it’s bringing questions of how best to talk to people to the fore – make way for social media and of course, VRM.  And with faith in political institutions at an all time low, there’s never been a better opportunity to introduce a radical re-think of the relationship between people and state.

If you’re interested in VRM and want to find out more, you should totally come along to the next VRM Hub meeting in June.  They usually happen on the last Thursday of the month in central London, and you will find details and sign-up here nearer the time.

Please sir, I want some data

I like this thing.  It’s an unofficial place where people can tell the government’s new Digital Engagement Director what they would like his task list to look like.

There’s lots on the list about freeing up data and getting government to be more open – I’d love to say DUH, because I think that’s kind of obvious, but alas we still need to say it.  We need to free up the  data sets so developers can use them creatively and make sites people will actually use.

If only we could go further, though.  I want to see the data that the government has about me – from my medical records through to my CRM record with Camden Council, my Congestion Charge journeys as well as my tube and bus journeys, every image of me on CCTV, even.  I could benefit from this information.  I could learn stuff about my travel habits, for example, and start to move around the city more efficiently.  I could cross refer my medical records with my dietary and exercise information to manage my health.  I could find out when and why I have contacted the council over the last few years and start to become a better informed resident, perhaps even pre-empting when the lids of my recycling boxes get stolen to be used as a makeshift sledge during snowy weather so I don’t have to order new ones every year.

Ever hopeful (?!) I’ve stuck my wish on the Digital Engagment Director’s list of Things To Do.  Give it a few votes if you fancy.