Walking the line between Skunkworks and Business as Usual
Several times recently I’ve heard the word ‘skunkworks‘ mentioned. Most recently it was in a Guardian interview with Mark O’neill, the ‘leader of the government’s IT ‘skunkworks’ team – as well as CIO of two prominent UK Government departments.
I have to admit to being fascinated by the idea of a skunkworks capability in Government. Ideally, a skunkworks team is untethered from organisational rules and structures, and allowed the freedom and flexibility to focus on solving problems and pursuing real innovation – which often means failing a good number of times before (potentially) achieving a measure of success.
I’ve made the argument in the past that innovation could be as simple as taking the practice of one sector and applying it to another, bringing about change and introducing a new way of achieving something. This often requires people who work across sectors and have the ability to spot latent needs in one sector that can be met by standard or best practice from another. This is briefly alluded to in the afore mentioned article when Mr. O’neill speaks about what Government could learn from its engagement with London 2012.
Skunkworks have historically been used to come up with solutions where normal business practice has failed or where significant leaps in technology are required, the success and output of which may later be put into production using Business as Usual (BAU) methods of production.
All of which leads me to ponder what kind of leap is Government trying to make?
It strikes me, from my brief sojourn into Government a couple of years back, having worked for commercial organisations across multiple sectors for more than twenty years, that Government departments could do with more exposure to how businesses plan and manage their IT, develop their digital services, and have an imperative to find a balance between the needs of the organisation and the desires and goals of their customers. Indeed, even the Government itself has gone down this route by engaging people like Sir Alan Sugar and Martha Lane Fox.
On the other hand, if the idea of the skunkworks team is to be a rapid prototype development unit – that doesn’t get too bogged down in coding, and spends more time achieving some of the balance I’ve referred to – then they could possibly introduce more rigour into the process of developing their IT and digital services, introduce the people who design these services in departments to their users, and look to build ‘just enough’ to accomplish a specific set of tasks, then possibly there is some educational value.
However, with a large proliferation of open source technologies on the market, and project management and user-centred design methodologies that many in Government fail to understand or embrace, I worry that what many will think of as innovation, is already so imbedded as BAU elsewhere that BAU will get mistaken for innovation (I recognise a degree of my own hypocrisy here).
One other thing the article mentioned was the use of Agile development. I’ve had the distinct ‘pleasure’ of working with agile in projects that range from quite small (new builds and enhancements) up through major software development programmes. The one thing I’ve learned is that it’s rarely applied the same way twice, and that people rarely follow its basic values (see link above for source):
- Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
- Working software over comprehensive documentation
- Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
- Responding to change over following a plan
Skunkworks teams, by their very nature, should be agile. However, how the work that comes out of a skunkworks effort is then rolled into the organisation can be another matter altogether. As you can imagine, a skunkworks team can roll out some small live applications, websites and enhancements, but when it comes to large-scale services development, the best it can hope to achieve is to do some proof of concept work, prototype, and inform the larger project that will follow. And that is where the many varied applications of the Agile process will show varied results.
Still, though I’m quite baffled by what a Government skunkworks team hopes to achieve – and from the looks of it in quite a public way (keeping in mind that most skunkworks projects are secret with some percentage of the ones that succeed becoming a product we might one day see, and the rest buried deep in a basement vault never to be heard from again) I fully intend to watch this space and see what comes out of it.
I also wonder what roles the Parliament skunkworks team, Directgov | innovate, dotgovlabs, and the shadowy Alphagov team might play in the short to medium term in working with Mr. O’neill’s skunkworks team in the digital space.
I think it promises to be an interesting next twelve months for UK Government digital.
Digital helps Government reduce costs… really?
I find myself thinking about Government’s desire to reduce costs by ‘going digital.’
It’s as though the very notion of something being online instantly results in reduced effort and cost and provides a useful and usable service to Citizens. In recent years, Government has seen digital as a means of reducing ‘avoidable contact’ – that type of contact that Government might not have to have with its Citizens face-to-face or on the telephone if it could service them digitally.
It could rationalise this by saying that digital was a progressive means of servicing a society of such diversity, breadth and distance that face-to-face was no longer an appropriate medium to provide services. Of course this begs the issue of the ten million or so UK residents who do not have access to or use of the Internet.
So then you need to create programmes to get people onto the Internet – because ‘digital exclusion’ would be counter-productive to a progressively digital society – and mean the Government now had to maintain both digital and face-to-face services, not realising any savings at all.
In all of this, the main issue is one of an anticipated reduction in effort and cost to Government. Such a strategy would have to look at value over the:
- Short term: The quick win solutions where Government can make information available to Citizens in low cost ways. This might include a slimmer, more efficient Directgov. It might encompass other efforts such as the data.gov.uk initiative, or even providing support to My Society, where a bit of investment could build on existing successful efforts to inform Citizens.
- Mid term: Creation of a strategy that focuses on the development of smaller more agile services that address very niche audiences and provide for the development of simple, centralised security frameworks that would allow Government to roll out these services quickly and efficiently.
- Long term: A revisit of all existing services, rating their effectiveness, rationalising them, and building them using user-centric methodologies that ensure they encompass the needs of the department and expectations of the users.
Of course, in evaluating the benefit of moving to digital, Government needs to be honest with itself about the amount of success it ‘allows’ users of digital services to have when using them.
For example, if a Government department responsible for providing a benefit to Citizens had a budget that could only pay that benefit to a percentage of all those who are eligible for it, would that department want to make the online application process quick and efficient, potentially resulting in over subscription to the benefit – or might it design something that is so complicated that only those with incredible patience and endurance might get through it?
In this particular instance, the issue is not about a choice to go digital – it is a strategic choice in how accessible you make the benefit. Under this circumstance you’d have to ask: is there any real benefit to going digital at all?
But allowing that not all services suffer from this potential complication, to realise some value from digital, Government needs to understand:
- Does the service belong online? There should be an assessment as to whether the service solves a problem that Citizens need solving, making access to information or benefits useable and simple, beyond the current mechanism for doing so.
- How big does the service need to be? Rule of thumb is that you should design the minimum amount required to complete the service or access the information – each incremental, low priority requirement built into the service reduces its chance of completion.
- Is your project led by technology, departmental requirements, the needs of the users, or all of the above? The reality is that the larger and more complicated the service, the more likely it is to be technology driven – driving out the needs of the business and the users. You need to find balance to be successful. Delivering something doesn’t always equal success.
- Can it be made simpler? Projects always get larger before they can be rationalised. Everyone’s requirements are thrown in, technology insinuates itself, stakeholders complicate things and somewhere along the way the end user has been forgotten – they are mentioned in meetings, and in people’s heads they believe they are representing the users, but in reality the complexity of the project has intervened and marginalised the people for whom it was originally intended.
Digital services will ultimately be accessible to all. We are in a period of transition from pre-Internet users to digital natives. In this interstice we have created a belief that it is ‘our duty’ to get everyone online so that they can experience the benefits that online has to offer.
I worry that Government forcing people online is not the answer – enabling can sometimes lead to bullying.
In a couple of generations this argument will have passed. Access to digital will be ubiquitous. All Government services will be made available online. And Citizens and Government will feel empowered to collaborate with one another to make this a better experience.
Really?
UK Govcamp was good fun. What happens next?
I’ve obviously waited a couple of weeks to write this. I suppose I didn’t want it to feel like a recap of the event by writing it within a day or so, or something that followed on the heels of a torrent of blog posts over the following week – some of which I’ve read, and some I haven’t.
I enjoy going to the Government barcamps. They give me a chance to see friends I worked with in Government, put a face – and voice – to twitter folks I follow and have the odd disagreement over blog posts we’ve all written.
As I wandered around attending sessions and talking to people – and before the day had even ended – I found myself wondering the same thing I did at last years Unconference (and the many other Government unconferences and events I’ve attended since) – what happens next?
I came away from sessions I attended feeling somewhat unfulfilled – not because the sessions weren’t interesting – they were. But because before the sessions ended I knew that there would be no actionable items for the attendees to take away with them, no driver to say ‘by the next time we come together we should have accomplished x, y or z’.
Note: This may have been a symptom of the sessions I attended and so I fully understand no one else may have had the same exact experience – as was pointed out in a blog by Public Strategist about the event.
While some of the sessions were engaging, it was actually the conversations I had between the sessions where the most interesting opportunities and issues presented themselves – with some actionable items.
These conversations hold the tangible things I’ve taken away from this year’s event.
It reminds me of literary theory I’ve studied where individual texts provide a rich canvas of insight into a subject, author or set of events, but the comparison of two texts and the analysis of the interstice between them often provide the deepest insights.
The sessions for me were those texts, and the conversations that occurred in between them the interstice where the real insights came.
Still, I look forward to the next event!
Open data is not a panacea – but it is a start
Today the UK Government officially launches its effort to open up UK data. This is a project that I am proud to have even a small part in developing. In certain circles there is a real fervour around the release of data, this being the essential ingredient missing to give citizens the power to manage their own destiny.
Wait.
If what I’ve been hearing is right, it sometimes seems there is a real belief that Citizens – not Government – will be developing ‘Services’ based on the data that is released. Who are these Citizens?
For years I have made the argument for the guy on the street. Let’s call him (as I so often do) Joe Bloggs. He works hard, spends time with his family and mates. In fact he represents a significantly large portion of the population. Is the supposition that he is going to suddenly take an interest in the release of Government data, teach himself how to code and do SPARQL queries, and develop his own ‘Services’?
Not likely.
So if not him – then who? Those who campaign for the release of Government data seem to fall into a few major camps:
- Those who want more access to information because it will inform their work – e.g. the press via MP Expenses
- Rights activists who once the data is free will move onto another cause – because that’s what they do
- Those individuals who encircle Government who continually talk about how they could produce far better ‘Services’ than Government, at a fraction of the cost and time
Better access to data for those who monitor Government and then report on its activities will have certain benefits. We can all agree that some portion of the expenses scandal was beneficial and could lead to positive change in Government spending policy. We should also acknowledge the reality – that probably 80+ percent of the scandal was merely spectacle to earn revenue for news organisations.
I will admit that the efforts of rights activists will help groups 1 and 3 above by fighting a meticulous battle to gain access to what many term as Public data in any case.
But what about those ‘Services’?
To understand the drive behind this, we need to understand that with the Government in a precarious position due to over-extension of resources during the Recession, anything that could lead to a reduction of costs will look attractive. Take, for example, the appointment of a Digital Inclusion Champion to get the remainder of the UK population online.
Why would the Government do this?
Because long-term, the consumption of digital services, that can accommodate millions in the way a physical location cannot, will result in cost savings through the reduction of said facilities and staff to run them. So who, in reality, will create those digital services? It will be same internal teams, companies and consultancies who currently work for Government.
In practical terms, they are the only ones who have the infrastructure and capital to go through ISO accreditation, PRINCE training, supply account and project directors, planners, technical architects, UCD experts, designers, developers, testers and hosting.
I am not saying there won’t be any applications of importance or use developed. But to make them robust in a way that they will need to be to accommodate the complete shift to online, they will require more thinking and better development than they currently undergo.
At this point in my diatribe, people often talk about applications like FixMyStreet from My Society. Don’t get me wrong. I love the work that My Society do, and I love FixMyStreet. I think it’s a fantastic crowd-sourcing app with a specific focus – I believe there should be more of these apps developed. But to integrate it with the ~434 Local Authorities, find the correct staff to deal with the issues, and ensure that it’s not simply a one-way communication or Broadcast tool, there needs to be a level of development, architecture and cost expended that would promote this app into the realm of the very Government services that developers often rally against.
I have been waiting for a single significant ‘Service’ to be developed over the last year, either in the US with its earlier release of data, or here in the UK with the slow drip-feed release of data into the developer community. I have been waiting for someone to explain what benefit to the greater Public will quantifiably occur with an open data policy.
In truth, I’ve been waiting for Joe Bloggs on the street to mention in passing – “Hey, just yesterday I did ‘x’ online” and have it be one of those new ‘Services’ that has been developed from the release of our data. (Note: A Joe Bloggs who is not related to Government or those who encircle Government. A real true independent Citizen.)
It may be a long wait.
The reality is that releasing the data is a small step in a long walk that will take many years to see any significant value. Sure there will be quick wins along the way – picking on MP’s expenses is easy. But to build something sustainable, some series of things that serve millions of people directly, will not happen overnight. And the reality, as Tom Loosemore pointed out at the London Data Store launch, it won’t be a sole developer who ultimately brings it to fruition.
Regardless, I’m looking forward to today’s official launch, not because it is a panacea to all of Government’s problems around developing digital services – because clearly it is not. I’m looking forward to it because I believe it is a necessary step to getting to whatever is next in all of this. The prolonged argument for releasing data has only left us in a grey space, waiting, anticipating and hoping.
With its release, I believe in short order the idea that the release itself will solve our problems will pass, and the real work of understanding the possibilities, engaging with Citizens to understand what problems they needs solving, and then wading into the sea of data to try to find some answers, will begin.
So today is a good step forward.
Las Vegas industry event – or London data store launch?
On Thursday, 7 January we experienced a bit of both. Ostensibly, most of us in London turned up for the official launch of the latest in Open Government efforts, the launch of the Greater London Authority Data Store – an effort not unlike DataSF, the Guardian Open Tech Platform or the UK Government Open Data initiative.
The event, CES Government 2010 (#cesgov10 for those on twitter), was styled around a Skype-provided video link-up with Las Vegas, which reminded me of why businesses still avoid extensive use of videoconferencing. The link was unreliable, and had to be re-established so many times that momentum of the event was difficult to maintain.
Even so, the early third of the event was interesting, featuring London Mayor Boris Johnson, and Deputy Mayor Sir Simon Milton. Boris was entertaining – and to be fair handled the vagaries of the video link with his affable humour and aplomb. I think he’s to be congratulated for opening such a ‘geeky’ event and I welcomed his comments.
Sir Simon handled the detail of the announcement and drove home that London is committed to transparency and would work hard to deliver in its data release. Of this I had no doubt going into the event. There has been a general movement towards transparency and open government and from the GLA’s initial session with the development community three months ago until now we’ve seen – in Government terms – substantial progress and commitment.
In Las Vegas, Aneesh Chopra, the CTO for the US Government consistently implied that all of the UK’s efforts followed suit from President Obama’s initiatives – a point that Carol Tullo, Director for OPSI was quick to correct when she had the chance by touting the UK’s ongoing efforts in this area and around open data in general. I would echo that by saying the Power of Information Taskforce report released in draft this time last year already extensively spoke of open government and free data.
The line-up of speakers included a representative from NASA (who seemed completely out of place), Gerry Pennel, London 2012 CIO, Ailsa Beaton London Met Police CIO, and a panel with Chris Thorpe from Guardian Open Tech Platform, Tom Loosemore from 4ip and Carol Tullo from the Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI). Expertly moderated by Professor Jonathan Raper, this panel could easily have lasted three times its allocated slot.
Tom Loosemore, in announcing 4ip’s ‘challenge’ to apply for potential funding, made a clear point that it would not be individual developers who received funding but companies who came up with good ideas and plans for developing sustainable services. This last point is one I’ve sometimes gotten into trouble with the development community for making
And while I wanted to talk about utility apps and mobile here, I think Chris Thorpe’s blog post on this event has already done a fair job of it. Suffice to say that I agree with him that apps that represent utility will be the ones that provide the most benefit and see the most success.
While much is said about transparency, openness and releasing mountains of data, I can’t help but think about all of the companies I’ve watched in my 16 years in digital, who collected data and analytics – and then couldn’t figure out what to do with it all.
There is so much pressure on Government at the moment from the press, developers and rights activists to release data that I can’t help but wonder how the average Joe on the street will benefit from it all. This is best summarised by an observation I made attending the Young Rewired State event last year. A group of 15-18 year olds came together for a 2-day hack event held at Google in London.
Somewhat different to the Rewired State held earlier in the year with adult developers, I felt the young hackers were more interested in solving problems:
- What is my safest route to school?
- Can I carry identification that simply states am I legal/not legal for purchase?
- How many minutes away is the bus – or have I missed it?
I guess this last bit is what I am waiting for. With so much data being released and on the verge of release (note the UK Government open data initiative) what problems do people need solved that they will find acceptable in a digital environment, that is useful and usable, and that we can source the right data to help solve the problem?
I found the CES Government 2010 event worthwhile and progressive. I think that the simple work is done, and that Emer Coleman and team – who did a magnificent job in pushing this effort forward – now has the difficult work of delivering on Sir Simon Milton’s promise that ALL GLA data sets will be in the site by the end of this month – and in maintaining momentum beyond the end of the month.
I think the battle with Tfl, the Met Police and others will be an ongoing one, and the only real proof of success in this effort ultimately resides in whether the average Joe on the streets has a need that is being successfully met using applications that are built using the data.
12/01/2010 – Video of Sir Simon Milton
UK Government
It was during my time as Founder and Managing Director of phunQube, a digital product design company, that I began my relationship with Directgov. We conducted research around authentication methods, providing wireframes, prototyping and user research. I continued my relationship with Directgov, post-phunQube, as a consultant.
I held two roles with Directgov, Head of Product Design and Head of Innovation, and later provided consultancy to the Cabinet Office, via the COI, to the Cabinet Office’s data.gov.uk project, which was being spearheaded by Sir Tim Berners-Lee.
While at Directgov I managed a team of Product Designers working on a variety of projects, to include developing a new semantic prototype of a future Directgov site. We conducted research, requirements capture, wireframe design, functional specifications, prototypes and user research. It was a true UCD project which underwent iterative design and testing.
I also set up the first Directgov innovate team, a skunkworks focussed on rapid design and prototyping, working with open source technologies, and developing relationships between Directgov and the open source developer community. We also defined and developed widgets which could be deployed and used by other Government departments, and mobile apps for transport and job search.
As part of this role I was also the Directgov Board member and one of the founding members of Dotgovlabs, a joint innovation initiative between Directgov, BusinessLink and NHS Choices.
I was also quite involved in Barcamps and Hackdays during this period of time.
Upcoming speaking engagements
5th Communia Workshop: Accessing, Using, Reusing Public Sector Content and Data
On 26 March 2009 I will be speaking at the 5th Communia Workshop: Accessing, Using, Reusing Public Sector Content and Data held at the New Academic Building at London School of Economics.
I’ll be speaking during the 14:30-16:00 session titled “Getting the right tools for the job: technology and communities”. I will be talking about innovation and data use in government. Be sure to register early for this event.
OpenGov
On 22 April 2009 I will be speaking and participating in OpenGov taking place at Boston Computer Society. This is a 1-day conference to discuss and debate the challenges and opportunities in using digital technology to enable transparency, engagement and collaboration in government.
I will be speaking and participating throughout the day. Be sure to register early for this event.
