We can now agree that the reform of the public sector is now a clear priority. This is a simple framework that provides a systemic view of what needs to be considered. My journey into the sprawling public sector landscape has immersed me in "realities on the ground,” experiencing what it is like for fellow people to live in our diverse communities, understanding how the multi-layered aspects of our lives challenge so many of us at various points in our lives. While also exposing me to the perspectives of local government in its various designs of 'services', power dynamics, and support. And the link this has with policy making. The patterns that are evident are a myriad of silos, misaligned incentives and bureaucratically applied power over others, that point to a system that is suffering from its own chronic disease. The evidenceSince the 1980's the public sector in many countries decided to try out a new way of working. One that is more efficient, that is based on the private sector principles, where competition is used to drive efficiencies, and where people are seen as customers. Regardless of what we individually think about how appropriate this is, we now have plenty of evidence that demonstrates its ability to create a better, leaner public sector. The simple answer, is that it has failed. This failure is despite the huge amounts that have been spent on improving the current services - we are still in a downward spiral. - Demand is rising for support and health. - Services are increasingly stretched. - Prevention activities have been almost eliminated. - People are certainly not more satisfied with their lives and their communities. Many of us are now actively looking for a fundamentally different approach. The systemic reform frameworkOne of the fundamental issues that we have in place today is a focus on reductionism in the design of our public services. Reductionism is characterised by the splitting up of end to end processes into departments, departmental targets that drive sup-optimisation, managers that manage numbers, the assumption that value created can be quantified, basically the paradigm that a complex public health services can be designed as though it behaves like a machine. The people working in those services are treated like robots following fixed standard instructions. The opposite of reductionism is systems thinking. Here, we look at the whole, and work back into the detail. We understand how things work by making sense of what is going on from a human perspective. Value is understood in ways that are real to people. Prevention is seen as the primary achievement of the purpose public sector. We know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing My conclusion from immersing myself and observing the patterns of thought and behaviour at multiple levels within the system hierarchy is that systems change needs to be thought about on at least a 4 systemic levels: 1. Mission. A new wholistic pragmatic vision and policy design approach for politicians/policy makers and leaders. 2. Paradigm. A new systemic paradigm & principles, replacing the reductionism of New Public Management, that focus on value, people, communities, and prevention. Fostering a new way of collaboration and systemic action together with citizens. 3. Organisation. A new organisation metaphor that calls for a new way of managing, embracing flexible ways of working. And designing by learning through experimenting. That align with the complexity of the reality of the public sectors ability to create value. 4. Relationship. A balanced relationship between the public sector and the value it creates by engaging with people at every level. Moving from 'power over' to 'power with'. Focusing on the ability to catalyse the support and wellbeing to sustain and grow its citizens and communities sustainably. The levels are not distinct, but are simply four different areas of focus of the whole system. Each level is intertwined with the next in such a way that each feeds into each other, and none can be understood or developed without all the others. Mission is defined by the strategic direction and where the vision resides as to what the health service is about. This is defined by leadership derived from the true purpose of our local communities and health. The way it is described is through statements which represent the focus as would be described by those that it serves. And the mission is made up of other, more detailed statements, that together make up the whole. The mission has to be understood and directly actionable at every level of the whole system. Paradigm refers to the primary model or theory that the principles that we define of how we understand and design our public services are derived from. Currently, the prevailing paradigm is referred to as New Public Management (NPM). NPM, developed in the 1980's, is based around the paradigm of private sector business and management models. It focuses on citizens as the recipients of the services, mirroring the customers as a consumer. Its focus is efficiency and good service delivery. It can be recognised by decentralised service delivery models, financial control, value for money, increasing efficiency through identifying and setting targets and continuance monitoring of performance. Control is enabled by handing over power to senior management. Performance is assessed with audits, benchmarks and performance evaluations. NPM commonly uses competition through private sector companies, to deliver what were formerly public services. More recently, NPM is also the ideology of increasing efficiency through the use of digital service design. The mechanisms of NPM are in legislation, guidance, policies, government and political ruling, the definition of measures, and the allocation of funding. Over the past decades there have been numerous examples of alternatives to NPM. Organisation is the body of expertise that we see as a service type. Elements of health and local government provision are examples of such organisations. They are the mechanism by which the public sector is structured and operates. This is where value is created, and it therefore the hub through which the principles of the paradigm are actioned in our communities and with individuals. Over time the influence of the paradigm through to the organisation is the rise of a type of management thinking and action that is derived directly from NPM, based on measuring activity and compliance to rules, documenting actions, the creation of fixed job roles, the standardisation of work through service delivery, the design of individual specialist departments, the minimising of risk, and the use of digital technology as a primary communication mechanism. Relationship is the interaction and influence that the public sector has on individuals, families, and communities. This consists primarily of human, power based and behavioural concepts that then create the reality of people. It is both the most important, and most elusive level, in that this is where the engagement and value is created between each group, trust is developed, and knowledge resides. The formal mechanisms of data, costing, and other logical mechanisms are hardly relevant here. The approachIf we managed to fundamentally shift the whole direction of the public sector in the 1980's, then we know it can be done. We can do it again. And rather than go towards New Public Management (NPM), we need to remove NPM and design a new paradigm.
0 Comments
Work together, as cross-functional self managed collaborating teamsHow can we break free from falling into the trap of silo departments working against each other, and empower staff to work together in a seamless, error free, flow of work that adapts to rapid changing circumstances? Here we are going to learn from ‘the liberated method’ and ‘self managed’ teams. Failure is in-built within usAs soon as we enter the world of work, we are programmed to design work into departments, with a department manager that decides how we work. We work to targets and perhaps our speed and output are measured. Time and time again, staff come to the manager with small issues that they themselves can resolve! These departments then move work onto other departments, who then complain about the quality of the previous work. Silo working is endemic; something that always seems to be there. Why? What can we do about it? How can I as a manager empower staff to answer their own questions. I want my staff to work together with other departments so that small operational issues are ironed out. The problem to fix first The answer as to how to fix this, first requires us to answer why this occurs in the first place. And the answer that we find is the cause is due to the design of organisations that we have inherited from the industrial revolution. We think that by creating departments, and putting a manager who guides that department, at its head, and incentivising that manager. We think that we will have designed the most efficient way of working. In some cases it is true, but one of the principles behind this design is that people are treated like cogs in a machine. In effect, the staff do what they are instructed, usually a fixed defined role, designed to follow a standard process. The manager wants a standard process so that they know exactly what people are doing, and the work can be measured at various points on the process. Let’s call this design the machine paradigm. Strangely we find that by creating optimised departments we maximise their output, but this occurs at the expense of other departments. Doing this we actually sub-optimise the whole. Why? Because an organisation rarely works like a well oiled machine process, it tends to be far more complex, with all types of knowledge moving dynamically around. The human self managed teamLet us name this alternative approach, 'self managing'. This is more focused on recognising a human system rather than a machine, The term ‘self managing’ does not mean that the manager is not needed, it is where direct instructions and rules can sometimes give way to staff working and deciding together. To do this we need to start from a different place than the machine paradigm. In an organisation, we need to ask who creates that machine paradigm? The answer is that it comes from the managers of the organisation, through their instructions, their behaviours, their adherence to processes, and measures. So lets begin this change by the manager deciding to let the staff know that they wish to change their management approach, from a machine to human. When the managers role shifts, then so do those of the staff. Step 1 The first step has to be a recognition that the behaviour and approach of the manager has to change first. Get your staff together, and say and do something that signifies this change. Dont do it in a ‘management is telling you to do this’ style. Say something that is direct and honest to your staff — not in an email! Perhaps something like this; ------ “For so many years now, we have been working with fixed processes, and you are audited against those processes and measures. You can simply come into work, and just follow these instructions, then go home. It does not really use your capability that you have a people. It does not have to be like this. We could create a better way of working, where you can actually contribute and participate in making the work we do more better. We can make our work more interesting, we can work together with other colleagues in other departments. I dont know everything. In fact, you all together know far more than I do. What do you think? Listen to the responses….. OK, lets start with a small group and see how it goes. Let's do this together.” ------- Notice the use of we to focus on the whole department, and I when the manager refers to themselves changing. Dont use a script, and when there are comments or questions, engage with people honestly. Dont tell, answer with enquiries. One important change I often see, and that is very powerful, is when a manager says “I don’t know”, they they are unsure. And they often complete the sentence with “we need to find out”. Step 2 Do something different and exhibit new behaviours. For example:
A good place to start to set up a self-managed team. This is not just about doing something, but there needs to be mechanisms so that the new ways of working can be enabled. This is about moving away from individual working, to team working. Bringing people who need to work together around a common set of data, and be able to discuss work together is a necessity. A good first place to start, when working with a group from different departments of the service, is to help them to begin to change their culture of how they work with each other. To achieve this one of your tasks is to create a safe space where people begin to be free to achieve step 2; feeling that they can express themselves without fear of embarrassment or ridicule. Loud voices and ego behaviour has to be eliminated. This is critical to setting up and new culture. I find that this takes time, and I have to ensure that people, when they are behaving in the old ways of hierarchy and dominance, are then asked to listen what others have to say. As the manager, you have to learn how to listen, without simply responding with the answer you think best. Creating a safe space is not some touchy-feely good deed. Traditional machine based organisations are based on staff complying with instructions, rules, behaviours, the culture. If we look at this, we realise that compliance is based on fear — the fear of not complying, and neing seen as failing in the job. So a safe space is simply the removal of those things that create fear. You as the manager being in the room might simply be creating fear. If so, leave the room for awhile while they discuss a certain topic. Come back and perhaps ask for the summary of what was agreed. You are not there to agree or not. Or perhaps you will ask someone else to lead the meeting, someone from the team who is good at doing that. This allows staff to behave from a position of their authenticity. It does not mean that everyone has to have a view, or that everything is democratic. I find myself having to ensure that the team moves in a direction to a safe space quite quickly, and I have one-ones with people if I find they are uncomfortable. I reassure them and the whole team what we are trying to do — this is not some hidden tactic. I often let the team know what needs to occur and describe a safe space. What do I do to make the team and individuals develop? In short the answer is to allow them to design something new. Perhaps a new part of a process. Perhaps reducing errors between one department and the other. Start somewhere not too difficult, where they can begin to learn new ways. A real case study Example of the old system: Each department was responsible for one part of a service. Sales, were at the start, and they would ‘throw over’ their agreed contract with the customer, to the design department. It was wrong, full of errors and sold at far too low a margin. The same situation in the new system: The same person had a designer from the design department allocated to them. Whenever there was some discussions with the customer, the sales rep would talk to the designer. And at least once, the sales rep would bring the designer along to a customer meeting. The outcome was that the final sales contract, that was still led by the sales rep, was adjusted and contained elements that the designer needed. This created a work environment, where front line workers began to see how their actions contributed to the customer. The managers role shifted to ensure that these discussions took place, and they tried not to interfere in the detail.
What changes? Recognise that this is not a trivial shift. A self-managed team environment does not just happen, it needs to be created. Then, it needs to be nurtured. There will be many challenges, especially when there will be some who don’t want to participate, or who cannot work in such a system. It's the manager as a leader that must be the creator of this way of working. For both the manager and the staff, this may be new. Possibly attempting to work in a way that they have never done before. So, it may be difficult to find ways forward. It will be awkward. Some may benefit from specific coaching or guidance. My experience is that it is difficult to achieve without that guidance from someone close by. And it may need someone to facilitate this new way of working. It will occur step by step, not all at once. In Toyota, it took months in certain departments, with people not aligning well even after more than a year. What are the characteristics of such a team?
I usually come up with a set of principles, that we all agree to use;
In some parts of the public sector, these are a set of principles that I tend to use: - Understand what matters for each person, this decides what actions we take together. - We make decisions based on knowledge and evidence, not opinion or standards. - Only do what is needed to create value, enabling the person to gain control.
Decision-making Authority and responsibility needs to be pushed down the hierarchy, to the place that is best to make those decisions. Then the rest of the organisation should be there to support that place. So here we will shift the managers roles from being a decision-maker, to Ensuring that the right decision is made. There is no clear-cut agreement as to what to name the change in role, but one word that is used is decision-taker. Move from decision-maker to decisions-taker. The role of those managers in the hierarchy, then becomes one of being responsible for the right decision to be made. The role of those deemed to be closest to the work are now a decision-taker, to follow a path to come up with the right decision. This is not about consensus, it is about focused knowledge and systemic understanding. The decision-taker has the responsibility to go to the right people to get further knowledge, and then decide how and when to decide. The role of the decision-taker is about identifying issues, taking ownership to raise the issues and perhaps pass it onto the best placed person to deal with it. They discover the people that need to be involved. Can you imagine what happens when everyone in your organisation can become a decision-taker? When they can do this whenever they see something that is at odds with what should be happening. When they pick up new knowledge about a competitor. When they have a new idea about how to deal with something? The potential is huge. 'Someone within the organisation sees a problem, an idea or a chance, and takes the initiative to be a decision-taker. If this person thinks they are not right for the job, they can ask someone else to take over the role. The decision-taker makes a proposal for the decision, with or without input from colleagues. The decision-taker gets advice from people directly involved with the decision, and/or experts in the subject under decision. The decision-taker ponders on this advice, and then makes a decision. The advice can be taken on board, or ignored. The decision-taker has the final say. The decision-taker takes action, and informs all those involved about the advice they received, and the decision eventually taken.’ Corporate Rebels
Making sense of complexity for managing, decision making and designing organisationsTo help us to manage and re-design organisations. An alternative to the Cynefin framework What is complexity?You might not want to read the whole article, so I am putting the core of the answer as to what is complexity here, at the start of the article. The Definition of complexity - leaving behind the academic descriptions on the internet, complexity has to be experienced. And that is what we are going to do now. We need to put aside our scientific mind for a moment and look at our actual younger life;
You were living with your parents, wondering how to get out and live somewhere else. Find some work to pay the rent. A friend invites you to share their apartment and you begin a job in a restaurant. You think you might like to manage a restaurant one day. But after some time, you really don’t like working late, stuck in a hot kitchen. So you begin to look for other work, and a friend of your father has a vacancy in his office. In desperation you agree to try that out. After six months, you find you are good at the work in the office, and they promote you. Your life in working in insurance has begun! Almost all of ourlife experiences happen according to wilful intent and seeming chance events, that conspire together to create the outcome that occurred into your life. Change one thing; a rainy day, and the sequence and outcome changes. You happen to read a job advert at a friend’s house whilst reading their newspaper, that results in the job you have today. You might walk into a random cafe and meet your future partner. These events rarely happen when we just wait for them to occur. In most cases where we are in our lives today, has been arrived at by applying intents in a general direction. But none of this was predictable, nor under our direct control. Our experiences are based on those that others contribute to; perhaps family, colleagues, friends, that are also out of our control. This has to be our most direct example of complexity! Now lets have a look at organisations. Complexity and organizationsThis is a framework that is an alternative to Cynefin, that will help us to deal with organisation work situations in far more effective and better ways. That framework revolves around three key concepts;
Before we dive into this framework, lets ask: what is working and managing in organizations today REALLY like? A large part of the work that managers do in organisations is about how we do things; applying rules, making decisions designing better ways of working. We are usually relying to do this through: Designing and improving our services, & Managing unruly operational teams, We are constantly dealing with situations and resolving problems in the workplace. And all while we are trying to reduce the long list of to-do items we have to deal with. However, if we are really honest with ourselves, we often find that what we actually do is often more about; It is what we all do every day, and it sometimes feels like it is getting worse, not better! Perhaps we are just too busy to have the time to actually stand back and question how these apparent situations occur? Here, we are going to look at how we really behave and our decision-making in our work. And we will discover how painless successful decision-making works. Logical situationsDefinition — A logical situation is one that, when we observe it, we can understand that it follows a rational logic; we know how it was created and therefore its outcome is possible to determine. Our actions are often based on thinking of our organisation running like a well oiled machine: a machine paradigm. A mechanical way of thinking. So when the organisation machine is broken we go and fix it. A ‘one size fits all’ approach. These situations consist of cause and effect relationships that we can understand. We find facts, and use data to inform us. As an example, the design of a business process that describes a service like online shopping, is logical by its design. The way that we document it and train people follows a logical flow. Logical operational processes are based on how we generally understand how organisations are designed, and how we should work within them. Examples of Logical situations or services of organisations are;
- Simple situations are easily understood. - Complicated situations, are logical ones, that are not immediately understood. So they require further expertise, time and understanding to resolve. Manufacturing an aircraft is a complicated situation, because every part of an aircraft is measured and known, but no one person can understand it all. Characteristics of logical design in organisations are;
How we deal with a logical situation Identifying and resolving a problem is usually based around a logical analysis;
Logical method = define - analyse - solve Simple problems are generally easy to fix, in that they follow the typical logical problem solving methods that we are all familiar with. As busy managers and designers, we can apply these methods quite easily and quickly. With a more complicated situation, we need to include planning and design into this method. Logical complicated method = define - plan - analyse - design - implement Logical change in organisations In organisations change most often happens through projects, by design, maybe a reorganisation, or a process improvement. Or just by a decision by a manager to change something themselves. These activities consist of rational analysis and decision-making. The more we understand a logical linear system, the more control we can have over it. Also, the more we understand how it works, then its workings and outcomes become more predictable. Business analysis is based on this logic. Change within a logical situation is to plan and ensure everyone understands what they need to do. Monitoring becomes the measure of variance to that plan. Planning becomes a key competence of managers in this logical process. Service design and Project management are methods for organisational change that has found great success in redesigning highly transactional services, and implementing change projects. Complex situationsSo, if most things in my organisation are uncertain are they then complex? Not necessarily. Reminding ourselves about what complexity is from the paragraph at the start of this post.
Characteristics of complexity and how they might manifest in an organisation.
Let's look at an organisation, and look for what is complex in operating and managing it. We might prefer to use the word messy as another term that is sometimes used to characterise complexity.
For a very long time I believed that we should be working and thinking in the workplace logically, and when I saw that this did not often happen, that it was a problem with me. I felt I had to try harder to be logical and controlled. However, after looking at those situations using the concept of complexity, I realised that I was immersed in complexity actively all around me. I realised that we as individuals and groups of people are perhaps far more complex than we think we are. And that much of what goes on in an organisation is actually complex rather than logical. What we are demonstrating here is that the way we deal with logical situations should be very different to how we deal with complex ones. At this point, as a reader, it might be helpful to think about and explore these complex concepts yourself; with regard to your life as we have written above, and your experiences working in organisations. It took me many weeks, perhaps months of thinking about complexity, to link complexity to that of an organisation and my work. I found complexity scary, because I was used to knowing how things worked, and how to plan. And complexity pushed that way of thinking aside. This irrationalism also extends to organisational change and redesigning work within an organisation. I began to see that the fact that change programmes were less about following a logical method, and more about a set of human interactive activities that leads to positive change. When we “engineer” only with logic in mind, it does then explain why so many change projects fail to meet their objectives. What if we replace that planning by explorative design that is more human, more about adapting and developing emergent outcomes? In today's business world, we recognise, far more than we used to, the uncertain nature of business and the ever changing business environment it resides in. This is not because there is something wrong, but because it is inherently complex. Complexity challenges the fundamental assumption that we fundamentally operate in logical scientific ways, by recognising exactly the opposite; that uncertainty and a lack of cause and effect, are valid. And in many cases complexity might be the dominant principle. Examples of complexity
At this point, as a reader, it might be helpful to think about and explore these complex concepts yourself; with regard to your life, and your experiences working in organisations. It took me many weeks, perhaps months of thinking about complexity, to link complexity to elements of an organisation and my work. Dealing with complexityThe most important point about complex and logical situations, is that we need to deal with each differently complex situations cannot be resolved using logical methods The complex approach is not to resolve things through looking at the individual parts on their own, but to do the opposite. Attempt to stand back and observe what is happening in as wide a perspective as possible. And also to dive in and make sense of what is going on from this systemic frame of mind. Identifying a complex situation. When we are confronted with a situation in an organisation, before we begin, the first question we can ask ourselves is; Are the underlying concepts in this situation critical, logical or complex? As an example, we can take the payment element of a service; 1. Is it critical, logical or complex? Answer; The bulk of how we pay for a service, especially online, is transactional and logical. The underlying concept is logical. 2. What about the customers, what payment method can be used? Answer; Payment is inherently a transactional process and logical. The underlying concept is logical. 3. Some parts of the service may be complex, what about those who cannot pay? Answer; When we understand these customers, in many cases the causes of why they cannot pay is out of their and our control. The underlying concept is often complex. Therefore 3 above, needs to be approached very differently compared to the elements 1 & 2 of the service. Dealing with a complex situation
Complex method = Immerse - make sense - try-out & adjust Understanding the Whole Synthesis is integrating; it is less about focusing on a specific area, and more about pulling back and understanding how each element interacts with each other. When we immerse ourselves, our intent has to be one of learning and synthesis is about understanding the whole, including all the hidden aspects that we cannot see or have data on. The outcome of synthesis is more clarity and understanding, and because this understanding is complex, it is often difficult to put into facts and data. It might be helpful to seethe concept of; Synthesis as being the opposite to the concept behind analysis; synthesis is integrating, analysis is reductionist We often have to reflect before we act. We often have to look at relationships rather than just facts. We cannot define outcomes at the start of the process, because we don't know what those outcomes might be. We cannot have targets, and we might not know costs and timescales. These are quite different to logical situations. Characteristics of complexity These are some of the characteristics of dealing with complexity, it requires;
When we are implementing change, complexity points to;
Experimentation and learning should be fundamental to the method used. Structure for dealing with complexity - designing and leading In a complex situation, the understanding of the real context, is not with data or with a group of people in a room, but it should almost always occurs at the place in the work where that complex situation occurs. For example, if we have a front line employee whose job it is do deal with something complex, then they are at the place that can best deal with that complexity; not the manager, or the expert, but that employee. We go to where the greatest understanding of it occurs and how it manifests. The structure of decision-making for logical situations may well be the hierarchy, and expertise. Conversely, the operating structure for complex situations is often best understood as a network of people, with the one who has the most understanding of that situation at the centre of that network. That diagram of a network looks like a spiders web, the links changing as the information in the centre changes. The network shifts in response to change, because it senses, understands and reacts to that change. We can call this a self-organising network. A network of knowledge, responsibility and decision-making. And what of the role of managers and leaders in complexity? The managers job should be to design the organisation to allow for the freedom to act at the place where the complexity exists, for decision-making to be enabled there. The managers job is to allow for the freedom at the place where the complexity exists, for decision-making to be enabled there. Understanding with SensemakingFacts, Data and Reality Data are discrete pieces of facts that have been converted into numbers. Data is a representation of measurable reality that has been reduced to categories, and values. Logical situations lend themselves to data and categorisation to help to make sense of it. They rely on the accuracy of facts to understand and measure. Therefore logical situations can use the mechanisms of analysis, like data analysis and categorisation very successfully. The information we acquire about complex situations through sensemaking, follows illogic characteristics. It is multi-layered, and connected in various ways. When we examine a part, seemingly separate elements merge into each other. We can understand a complex situation as a systemic picture in our minds. A picture in the mind is rich, expressive, and connected in ways that transcend description and categorisation. This is the processing of sensemaking. How do we put this complex picture into data? The answer I have found is that we cannot do this easily. So, I resist the temptation, and alternatively I keep the complex picture of sensemaking in the mind as a primary repository for understanding. When I engage and transmit this with others, we do this as a rich picture or a story. Complexity & DigitalLastly, what about the role of digital technology? This is such an interesting and important subject because it is so relevant. Firstly, digital is not just a technology, it also comes with its own set of principles and paradigm that reside in our minds when we consider digital. The model of how Amazon works, for instance, gives up a simple input - output machine model. Secondly, digital is inherently logical, and complexity is not, therefore digital struggles to deal with any type of complexity. I like to think that there are two main types of processing technology. - One of these is digital, great for dealing with logic. And what is the technology that is best suited to deal with complexity? - It has to be the human mind. And that comes free with every person, so lets use it! And what is the technology that is best suited to deal with complexity? Using the framework in organisationsThis article is highlighting the point that there are different types of situations in organisations, and this framework highlights different conceptual characteristics that can help us deal appropriately with each different situation we come across. Whilst working within organisations, perhaps what I have learned the most, are two aspects of complexity. #1 By what method. Generally in our work, each of us seeks to make things simpler, to make our work easier. As we simplify, we use the same methods that we trust, again and again. It's quite natural. It is like the quote: If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail
Critical situationsThere is one more situation that we have to mention, and it is one that is so pervasive. If you ever go and watch a manager in a modern organisation, that are they doing. Are they looking to solve situations from a logical or complex perspective? Often, no, they are simply trying to deal with issues as quickly as they can. They firefight. So let us look at critical situations. Definition — Critical situations are situations that are immediate or urgent, and we need to deal with them quickly. Consequently, the ability to analyse and plan is reduced. Once we have acted and the urgency is over, we can review the situation and understand any consequences. Critical Situations in organisations
a situation is not chaotic, the chaos it is in the way we deal with the situation How we can deal with chaotic situations Chaotic situations. If we are looking at a chaotic situation, perhaps the best way to begin is to attempt to move from chaos, to one where we feel we have some control. So, if you are a manager operating in this state, you can take steps to calm that immediate response. - First pacify the crisis, by “buying time” to deal with the chaos now, to make some space to think. - Deal with the underlying reasons, so that we can decide how to keep the chaos under control. Current Chaotic method = act without much thought Try to move to Calm thinking = clear the crisis, reflect — re-evaluate the situation - decide I am reminded of the quote; If there is a fire in the kitchen, don’t sit in the living room discussing what colour the walls should be. Put the fire out first! When I see a manager acting in crisis mode, I cannot really engage with them rationally, until the crisis is over. I have also learned a very interesting deeper aspect to this that explains the reactions we have. We are human after all…
The complete frameworkIf we put all the above into the framework, we come up with this diagram. Complexity in organisations made simpleThis is an 17 minute video that I created to describe the above. Please feel free to use this to learn and share if you prefer a video. Complex Adaptive SystemMerging the self-organising network, with systems leadership, flow based operations, and network decision making, in a big pot of complexity, begins to move us into a new paradigm of how we might design and work within an organisation. We might describe this, not as a logical machine, but a complex adaptive system (CAS). This term is often used to describe alternative ways of understanding an organisation that focuses on the organisation as a system that contains complex characteristics. This alternative paradigm is systemic, it lies in the realms of understanding through systems thinking, rather than machine thinking. Our understanding of an organisation then includes the quality of relationships and interactions. It is these interactions that actually make the organisation work and thrive. We are familiar with the diagram of a logical organisation, but there is no equivalent diagram that describes a CAS. The reason is that a CAS looks different to different people in the organisation, depending on the reason of interest. A diagram of knowledge is different to the diagram describing the operations, and it is different to the diagram that reflects authority. These differences are a characteristic of how we understand and view organisations as systems, in that they are shaped by us as individuals. This lands us in an awkward place, unless we simply accept that this lack of clarity is how it should be. Let us accept that there is no one model of an organisation. So let's not try and create one right now. This situation is not a problem, we will sort that out another time. First let's Understand the workplace and our services, then we will worry about what might it look like as a diagram.
This framework is derived from Keith Grint, and Rittel & Webbers work, and many front line people who I have had the pleasure to work with over the years.
CynefinA note on Cynefin, as so many have been asking me. Whenever I have tried to use Cynefin, I find it is designed for many different types of scenarios, not just organisations. Therefore its relevance is not as specific for my use. More importantly, I am interested in complexity within systems thinking, rather than just working within a reductionist scientific perspective that is based on conventional management principles that I have let go awhile back. I was constantly adjusting Cynefin to fit my needs.
The third point that I found when using Cynefin with my work audience, is that they very quickly get into confusion with having to learn new words and meanings. It is a massive learning exercise for them, to understand that which should be simple. So I designed something for my work that is designed for organisations, and more straightforward to work with. ver 1.2 Designing complex systemic person centred services fail unless we use strength based approaches like the liberated methodIt is so easy for us to recognise a service, to see how it works, and to see how good it is. We all now buy, we bank, we communicate, online. As users, we just know when it is designed well or not. When the workflow of the service fits our requirements, this have a good experience. Then there are issues that we face in life. They often begin in adulthood, and usually after quite some life experience, where we have suffered in some way. Perhaps we have failed important exams, lost someone close to us, had a friend who was in a bad car accident. When I was 20, I had no idea what it might be like to be a single parent, or have anything deeply intrusive happen to me. I remember that it was years before I experienced someone close to be dying. But, I had to experience these things before I could understand some aspects about life, and understand myself and my place in the world. It took some years before I could leave my naive mindset, and realise that life was actually complex, very complex, and difficult. Often there were circumstances outside of my control that impacted mt life journey. Maybe not always for me, but I saw that it was for many that I knew. When we engage with each other, to become friends, lovers, colleagues, we begin to realise that, it is not money or possessions that is what we are, but it is our interactions with each other that what really make us actually human. These interactions make the world work. Perhaps that is who we are; is what we are as people, defined by our interactions with each other? So, now turning to those interactions, how should we interact when we need support? When we need help? When we have fallen off the narrow path that we are carefully treading? Maybe we simply cannot pay all our bills at the end of the month, and we have to decide to eat less. Experience, as a parent, the pain of trying to explain to a young child that they cannot have something that all their friends have, can really be gut wrenchingly horrible. Certainly an important part of life are our relationships, and the engagement we have with each other. The Ridge metaphorIt is so easy to slip on our path of life, and slowly begin to fall down the side. Before you know it, you have slid so far, that you need help in stopping the slide, and to then begin hauling yourself up back to your journey of life. Perhaps we have lost our job, or a pet that we loved. Perhaps we have been to the doctors and we have found out that our bodies are not quite so robust as we thought. Our partner is drinking too much. Our parents have split up. Youre on holiday, and you have missed your flight, and the flight arrangements are all made online, and you realise that there is no-one to speak to, and everyone around you appears very alien. What it is like to slip down the side of life? It is really shit. It is horrible. You are fearful, you cannot see the path ahead anymore, and you fear that you will lose it for good. You panic, and your chest tightens. You lose the rationality you had before. It is so easy to turn to whatever you can to dull the pain. Maybe you’re not like this, maybe you are able to wake up the next day, and push yourself back. But many of us cannot just do that alone. What do you need to stop sliding and get back up the slope? What often works is to have someone to cry with, someone to listen, someone to be there, someone to help you feel better, someone to help you so you can get back on your feet. Thats the start. What if you are not confident in in the snow of life, and you just keep slipping anyway? What if others keep you from pulling yourself up? What if you have no savings. Your family around you are disfunctional. For many people, a significant percentage, simply trying to survive and have a reasonable life, they really struggle to do just that. They might have issues that prevent them from walking along the ridge, that they simply cannot manage; mental health issues, circumstances, situations, maybe they are just too different from others. Imagine this happening constantly, for a week, a month, years? That is what life is like for a significant percentage of the population. Relational or strength based servicesAnd when we design services for people who have fallen off the ridge of life, what do we have to design to ensure that the service is designed to best listen, support and assist? We have been doing this for many centuries in our communities, so we already know. But what we do know that it is not, it is not an online form that asks you to select categories. It is not a link on a computer screen. It is another human being. When we design relational services, we are building true person centred services. Therefore they are human, not digital. They are personal, adaptable, slow, engaging, trusting, empathising. As designers we need to understand how to design complex human services. These are different to the product based services that we all know and love. And, it is not just services which are not transactional. Has anyone reading this been in an airport, when you have missed a flight, and there is no person at the counter that can assist, because you with a digital only airline? Being in a foreign land, with perhaps no wifi. Trying to talk to someone who you can ask questions of, and help you out. Thats when we need to speak to a person. The methods we then follow are not those of the digital based Double Diamond, but one that is iterative, experimental, systemic, human. Ones that deal with uncertainty. One where analysis and data is subservient to sense-making Systemic design for complexity is a rich discipline where we can go deeper and wider into the systemic design of whole services. This applies to both private and public service. Even in transactional servies, customers can fall down that slope at various times. But in public services, what percentage of those are actually relational person services? Perhaps most of them. Strength based liberated method workshopDo you find this relevant? How about joining a systemic design masterclass to learn how to apply this
One of the reflections that we can take from the multitude of attempts at creating change in organisations, is that change is less about a change initiative, and more about how we work together. Rather than change being a project that we do from one date to the end, we are recognising that the workplace is more and more becoming a place where change is constant. What I mean by this is that we seem to be changing so frequently that maybe our normal state is to both change and to maintain continue operations? This is an interesting point, because there is a strong metaphor that says; we are either in a balanced and stable state, or we are trying to change something. When we are stable we work one way; procedures instruct us, measures guide us, and people do the things they have on their job description. And when we ‘do change’ we work another way. We plan, decide, develop a programme, and implement. We move from one state to the next. But increasingly we see that perhaps we should accept that both seem to be constants at the same time. And trying to jump between one and the other seems to be unstable, difficult, stressful, and often contradictory. Staff cannot keep up, and managers are trying to deal with too many issues at the same time. The clash between the two states points to a tension, that if it remains, becomes increasingly uncomfortable. And the more we try and control each down, the more confusion it seems to create.
|
|
Human Learning Systems
Lets start with the belief that public service exists to enable each person to create good outcomes in their lives. To do this, we believe that public service must embrace the complex reality of the 21st Century world. This means being human, continuously learning and nurturing healthy systems.
BEING HUMAN
refers to creating the conditions in which people can build effective citizen relationships. This means understanding human variety, using empathy to understand the lives of others, recognising people’s strengths, and trusting those who do the work. It allows for new management competencies to develop.
It also means that staff bring their whole selves to work, recognising that we as people in work need; challenge, learning, autonomy, and achievement.
refers to creating the conditions in which people can build effective citizen relationships. This means understanding human variety, using empathy to understand the lives of others, recognising people’s strengths, and trusting those who do the work. It allows for new management competencies to develop.
It also means that staff bring their whole selves to work, recognising that we as people in work need; challenge, learning, autonomy, and achievement.
CONTINUOUSLY LEARNING
In complex environments people are required to learn continuously in order to adapt to the dynamic, ever-changing nature of the work. In complex environments, there is no simple intervention which “works” to tackle a problem. “What works” is an on-going process of learning and adaptation. It is the job of managers to enable staff to learn continuously as the tool for performance improvement. This means using measures to learn, not for reward/punishment. It means creating the conditions where people can be honest about their mistakes and uncertainties. It means creating reflective practice environments between and across peer groups.
In complex environments people are required to learn continuously in order to adapt to the dynamic, ever-changing nature of the work. In complex environments, there is no simple intervention which “works” to tackle a problem. “What works” is an on-going process of learning and adaptation. It is the job of managers to enable staff to learn continuously as the tool for performance improvement. This means using measures to learn, not for reward/punishment. It means creating the conditions where people can be honest about their mistakes and uncertainties. It means creating reflective practice environments between and across peer groups.
THINKING AND DESIGNING SYSTEMS
The outcomes we care about are not delivered by organisations. They are produced by whole systems – by hundreds of different factors working together. The final job of managers is therefore to act as Systems Stewards – to enable actors in the system to co-ordinate and collaborate effectively - enabling positive outcomes to emerge.
The outcomes we care about are not delivered by organisations. They are produced by whole systems – by hundreds of different factors working together. The final job of managers is therefore to act as Systems Stewards – to enable actors in the system to co-ordinate and collaborate effectively - enabling positive outcomes to emerge.
How do we do this?
The principles of Design Thinking are the antidote to the machine based command & control paradigm.
Traditional Change |
HLS characteristics |
Our perception of what the public want |
focused on the citizen and what matters to them. |
Designed around legislation |
designed around person-centred purpose. |
Created by Service Designers |
co-created with everyone in the end to end workflow. |
keep the waste in the design |
design out waste |
managers decide base don their opinions and experinece |
based on evidence from experiments, rather than management opinions. |
only change one part of the service |
we view the service as a system, including behaviours, team working, leadership, collaboration, and culture. |
create a plan for change and measure progress |
any design is emergent, so we iterate as we learn what works. |
hierarchy is based on power and the right to make decisions |
we develop ourselves so we remove fear from hierarchy and the work environment. |
Digital solves all our problems |
Digital is designed in when necessary |
We need an approach that contains these principles, and is based on proven practice. The HLS framework has been created from researching the approaches used in the HLS case studies.
The Triple Diamond Design
We all use different variations of the framework. It is flexible enough to be able to adapt to change in organisations.
UNIVERSAL CREDIT EXAMPLE, Authored by LANDWORKS June 10 2021
It was not going well. Universal Credit in some ways does help people back into employment.
In other ways, it is simply not designed for folk who are not, or have never been supported, educated, or trained in budgeting skills.
Jack (52) was struggling. Monthly payments make his life difficult. Like so many on UC, he takes to borrowing here and there, to get through.
Then, as Jack puts it, “come payday I’m f#*ked”, as the sharks swim in for the kill.
That was not what this meeting was about, we were discussing Jack’s PIP (Personal Independence Payment), which is a long-term benefit if you have difficulties with daily living and/or getting around.
And one of the assessment criteria is the capability to ‘make decisions about money'.
So together with the Citizens Advice Bureau, we work hard to support these PIP applications. We knew the application would almost certainly be turned down (a cynic would think they have a target of high rejections), and most are.
It was.
The appeal process is long and hard (not everyone is capable of this). Interestingly another of the criteria for getting PIP is your ability around reading and communicating.
Jack’s appeal (after 6 months) was successful… Hooray.
But DWP didn’t inform him… Boo.
A large back payment was made (as if by magic) into his account… Hooray, but with a note of concern!
Jack finds this pot of gold (6 months of PIP) in his bank and goes straight to the pub. To demonstrate to his new group of ‘friends’ just how poor his budgeting skills really are… Boo doesn’t really do it!
PIP is a progressive benefit designed for people with identified low life skills (e.g. capability to make financial arrangements) who have proved they are not best equipped to deal with daily living in the first place.
So, Department for Work and Pensions, could you please stop making large back payments. Please, it's unhelpful and in a few cases life-threatening.
These back-payments need to become forward-payments, spread out over an agreed period or used for a one-off payment such as a deposit on suitable accommodation. Also, DWP while you’re about it, stop the loan shark’s activity and make benefit payments weekly (supposedly fortnightly payments exist but all our applications have been rejected) for those who need it.
It was not going well. Universal Credit in some ways does help people back into employment.
In other ways, it is simply not designed for folk who are not, or have never been supported, educated, or trained in budgeting skills.
Jack (52) was struggling. Monthly payments make his life difficult. Like so many on UC, he takes to borrowing here and there, to get through.
Then, as Jack puts it, “come payday I’m f#*ked”, as the sharks swim in for the kill.
That was not what this meeting was about, we were discussing Jack’s PIP (Personal Independence Payment), which is a long-term benefit if you have difficulties with daily living and/or getting around.
And one of the assessment criteria is the capability to ‘make decisions about money'.
So together with the Citizens Advice Bureau, we work hard to support these PIP applications. We knew the application would almost certainly be turned down (a cynic would think they have a target of high rejections), and most are.
It was.
The appeal process is long and hard (not everyone is capable of this). Interestingly another of the criteria for getting PIP is your ability around reading and communicating.
Jack’s appeal (after 6 months) was successful… Hooray.
But DWP didn’t inform him… Boo.
A large back payment was made (as if by magic) into his account… Hooray, but with a note of concern!
Jack finds this pot of gold (6 months of PIP) in his bank and goes straight to the pub. To demonstrate to his new group of ‘friends’ just how poor his budgeting skills really are… Boo doesn’t really do it!
PIP is a progressive benefit designed for people with identified low life skills (e.g. capability to make financial arrangements) who have proved they are not best equipped to deal with daily living in the first place.
So, Department for Work and Pensions, could you please stop making large back payments. Please, it's unhelpful and in a few cases life-threatening.
These back-payments need to become forward-payments, spread out over an agreed period or used for a one-off payment such as a deposit on suitable accommodation. Also, DWP while you’re about it, stop the loan shark’s activity and make benefit payments weekly (supposedly fortnightly payments exist but all our applications have been rejected) for those who need it.
Moving service design forward to incorporate systems thinking, allows us to expand the depth of how we can evolve organisations and design for complexity
1. Systems Thinking
My definition of Systems Thinking for a service organisation is conceptually very simple;
it is a holistic way of looking at the service, its customers, operating environment, its service delivery, and all the elements that go to making this happen.
One key aspect of systems thinking that is easy to grasp, is that systems thinking sees the interactions and communication that occurs between departments. It's about how people interact within an organisation, in response to customer demand. When people start to perceive their organisation through a systems lens, they gain a perspective that leads them to understand how that service can work in a fundamentally different way to traditional mechanistic & reductionist principles that operate today. There are few good paths that lead to learn about Systems Thinking; the best way is to practice it. And looking for how to do this can often ends up creating more confusion than it solves! I hope that this article may help to make some sense of all this.
What is an Organisation when Viewed as a System?
A system isn’t just any old collection of things. A system is an interconnected set of elements that is coherently organized in a way that achieves something.
If you look at that definition closely for a minute, you can see that a system must consist of three kinds of things: elements, interconnections, and a function or purpose. Meadows
What is a Systems Thinking Lens like?
Systems thinking is a way of seeing a service, from the customers perspective, all the way through the service delivery. It understands everything that goes into that delivery, without the barriers inherent in departmental design. Therefore we can begin to redesign the service from that customer centric perspective, incorporating the staff, managers, behaviours, leadership, and the culture of that organisation.
Complexity and uncertainty are recognised as being different to transactional process design and certainty. Understanding this complexity then allows us to design in different elements to what we would have done. This then allows us to help decision-makers reframe and see their problems to sovle from a new perspective.
- It pulls down barriers between departments and stakeholders, it dissolves silo working.
- We design services that match the flexiblity of the needs of all customers, and move away from standard processes.
- We understand the interactions between activities, and use that to create design how the organisation truly works.
- We recognise 'warm' data that contains the richness of experiences and behaviours, and avoid analysis dumbing down that richness through categories or personas.
- We move away from a machine based and reductionist way of understanding of how we traditionally design organisations. This will then allow us to see problems from a new perspective, allowing us to create novel solutions that we did not see before.
Complexity and uncertainty are recognised as being different to transactional process design and certainty. Understanding this complexity then allows us to design in different elements to what we would have done. This then allows us to help decision-makers reframe and see their problems to sovle from a new perspective.
The systems thinking iceberg illustrates how systems thinking practice delves deeper into the hidden abstractions of how services truly work. Those aspects of a service that are visible, are often the only ones busy managers attempt to fix. However, go underneath the obvious, and we can uncover how the myriad of connections, behaviours, personalities, and competencies interact together. Start on the right hand side, and keep asking why until you can go no further. Then design back up on the left hand side. Once we have understood this, then we can begin to alter the underlying structures so that we then effect deeper transformation. |
Service Design with Systems Thinking = Systemic Design
Design Thinking is based on creating something innovative. This is ideally placed to provide a vehicle for systems thinking concepts to be incorporated.
Below is a diagrammatic way of demonstrating the difference between traditional service design (that begins with the needs of the organisation), and systemic service design (that starts from the customer and what matters to them.)
Below is a diagrammatic way of demonstrating the difference between traditional service design (that begins with the needs of the organisation), and systemic service design (that starts from the customer and what matters to them.)
- approach is iterative and is about learning,
- destination is through enquiry,
- understands the whole,
- focused on the customer.
The concepts; traditional design vs systemic design.
Traditional approaches reduces the problem to manageable pieces and seeks solutions to each. Practitioners of this approach believe that solving the problem piece by piece ultimately will correct the larger issue this method aims to remedy.
The systems design approach, in sharp contrast, the seeks to understand a problem situation as a system of interconnected, interdependent, and interacting issues and to create a design as a system of interconnected, interdependent, interacting, and internally consistent solution ideas. Systems designers envision the entity to be designed as a whole, as one that is designed from the synthesis of the interaction of its parts. A systems view suggests that the essential quality of a part of a system resides in its relationship with, and contribution to, the whole. Systems design requires both coordination and integration. All parts need to be designed interactively, therefore simultaneously. This requires coordination. The requirement of designing for interdependency across all systems levels invites integration.
Banathy
Traditional approaches reduces the problem to manageable pieces and seeks solutions to each. Practitioners of this approach believe that solving the problem piece by piece ultimately will correct the larger issue this method aims to remedy.
The systems design approach, in sharp contrast, the seeks to understand a problem situation as a system of interconnected, interdependent, and interacting issues and to create a design as a system of interconnected, interdependent, interacting, and internally consistent solution ideas. Systems designers envision the entity to be designed as a whole, as one that is designed from the synthesis of the interaction of its parts. A systems view suggests that the essential quality of a part of a system resides in its relationship with, and contribution to, the whole. Systems design requires both coordination and integration. All parts need to be designed interactively, therefore simultaneously. This requires coordination. The requirement of designing for interdependency across all systems levels invites integration.
Banathy
Diagram 1 shows how managers and designers will start by; 1. taking the assumptions that we hold, and the standards that we think we have to align to, and define these before we start the design. 2. These contraints then birth the design, that is ultimately designed around what the organisation believes to be important. 3. The final design is then given to the staff to follow. Managers define the design, and use their expected behaviours and staff roles to ensure the service operates how the managers wish it to. |
Diagram 2 is where a team of operational staff and the designers; 1. take real demands in an experiment, and develop flows as they deal with those demands. 2. When they need to, they pull in various specialisms, and the team interpret how those characteristics should be implemented into the fledgeling experiment. No specialism should impose their views on the team. 3. The design that emerges is person-centred, and developed by the operational staff. Managers work with the team, and learn new collaborative and team based behaviours, so they accept that the design is co-created. Managers role in the new design focus on systems competencies. |
Traditional thinking & practice |
Systems thinking & practice |
Applying rationality, reductionism, expertise and functionality to an organisation may take us away from the understanding of that whole. |
The whole service should be understood as a system. |
Service functions have their own purpose, working against each other. |
The whole service is defined by its purpose. And as such the service must be understood end to end, creating an outside-in view of the organisation as a system |
Staff are cogs in a machine, they have little control over their work |
People are the heart of any organisation, and they are the embodiment of the system. Staff bring their whole selves to work |
Reductionist thinking |
Holistic understanding |
Impose standard services on the customer |
Absorb variation in the design and operations |
Internal focus, and satisfy stakeholders |
Design around the customer |
Leaders think that staff perceptions need to change, not theirs |
Recognition that leaders mindsets creates the system, allows us to help leaders to change their fundamental understanding of how they see organisations work |
Change is done to staff |
The staff in the organisation undertake the change |
2. Design Thinking & Systems Thinking
If, Systems Thinking provides the perspective, how to understand it
then,
Design Thinking provides the principles,
and Service Design is the practice.
then,
Design Thinking provides the principles,
and Service Design is the practice.
Design Thinking is an iterative process in which we seek to understand the user, challenge assumptions, and redefine problems in an attempt to identify alternative strategies and solutions that might not be instantly apparent with our initial level of understanding. At the same time, Design Thinking provides a solution-based approach to solving problems. It is a way of thinking and working as well as a collection of hands-on methods.
Design thinking is also a set of principles that defines how to design something using iterative techniques, that create emergent designs. The 'customer' is the starting point, and the inherent nature of design thinking is innovative. It is a uniquely human activity.
And for the design of services, the Nesta's triple diamond model is a great place to conceptualise this:
Design thinking is also a set of principles that defines how to design something using iterative techniques, that create emergent designs. The 'customer' is the starting point, and the inherent nature of design thinking is innovative. It is a uniquely human activity.
And for the design of services, the Nesta's triple diamond model is a great place to conceptualise this:
3. Complexity
Complexity defined by Grint
Complex problems hold a multitude of other problems within them. They change over time and are affected by aspects outside our control. They have no predictable solution.
Complexity, it messes with our rationality. Let go of that rationality as a cage and allow complexity to become normal.
Complexity, it messes with our rationality. Let go of that rationality as a cage and allow complexity to become normal.
Understanding complexity, and therefore moving away from my prevailing and rational mindset, has helped me to understand why I often failed to sustain much of what I was trying to achieve in the past, with managing operations and people, implementing change, creating and implementing IT systems. I, like so many others, have looked back and seen the frustration and struggle to ‘get things to stick’ and how I used to blame others for that failure.
Logical services - they can be analysed, and procedures created that can be applied through Digital means
Complex services - their interactions need to be understood, and the subsequent design is based on collaboration and fuzzy data.
The presence of Complexity should radically alter our approach to understanding users, and how we design services. It disrupts our view of how Digital should be applied, and how we deal with knowledge and engage across the whole value chain.
Logical services - they can be analysed, and procedures created that can be applied through Digital means
Complex services - their interactions need to be understood, and the subsequent design is based on collaboration and fuzzy data.
The presence of Complexity should radically alter our approach to understanding users, and how we design services. It disrupts our view of how Digital should be applied, and how we deal with knowledge and engage across the whole value chain.
Understanding when to use a particular approach, helps managers to understand why sometimes their efforts are successful or futile.
In both the public and private sectors, managers understanding of management concepts is rooted in mechanistic and scientific management theories. This has evolved over the past centuries through the rise of scientific thinking. However, complexity cannot be successfully dealt with by applying these traditional concepts, and attempts to do so create poor service designs, and great frustration for all working in them. There are many resources now available, at the click of a button, to help us to understand complexity and how to deal with it, so I won't go into details here. But I have found the simplicity of Keith Grint's approach to complexity a very helpful starting point.
4. Service Design
Can we describe basic Service Design as the application of Digital to a Design Thinking approach? If we do, then we have to admit that SD is therefore bounded by Digital. In this article SD is defined as the design of services, using Design Thinking (without the constraint of Digital).
My Experience of Outcomes of Good Service Design
These are some of my Systems Thinking & Change principles, that I use as a foundation to my design approach.
- The Service workflow is understood and designed end to end.
- What matters to users and the variation of demand has to be incorporated into the new design.
- That the fundamentals of the design is created from the Purpose of the service. Purpose is primarily defined by the user of the service. This immediately places the focus of the design starting from an outside-in perspective.
- That the leaders thinking, assumptions and behaviours creates the whole environment within which the Service operates in. These need to align to managing complexity and systemic view, to create a new organisation design.
- The thinking and approaches of leaders and managers, drives the behaviours of the staff and the culture of hte organisation.
- The change is performed by those in the service itself, I merely ast as the facilitator.
Real learning through fundamental mental shifts are difficult to achieve. This often happens whilst people are connected to the work itself. It hardly happens in a rational environment through teaching or reading. (Ref: Argyris & Schon). Systems thinking is real, and that reality is not possible to directly comprehend through human forms of communication, it should only be experienced. Its understanding lies directly in the human-ness that we are, with regard to our individual world views.
I hear things, and I forget them. I see things, and I remember them. I do things, and I understand them. Confucius |
5. Human Learning Systems - A combination for Systemic Design
The HLS framework is an example of a methodology that can be seen combining systems thinking with design thinking. This helps us to frame the Design Council model of systems thinking into a coherent approach for change and design.
Service designers systems thinking workshop...
If you want to know more, then this 1 day workshop will help you as a service designer, to understand some of the systems thinking fundamental that are applicable to redesigning services.
We now delve into the background and theory of Systems and Design Thinking. Recommended for those who wish to know more of the issues I have faced breaking boundaries of what is deemed acceptable.
Getting into the Background and Theory - Using Different Approaches
Systems thinkers can collide because they see the world in different ways, or they can see this as essential. We should examine the different ways they see the world rather than argue about the way the world ‘actually is’. In some circumstances one viewpoint will give you the traction to bring about improvement, in others a different viewpoint is needed. You can make an informed choice of which viewpoint ( and associated systems approaches) to start with but you will never really know until you are engaged in the process of using it. And you should be ready to switch as a project progresses. Best is to have a variety of viewpoints (and associated systems approaches) at your disposal. This ‘second-order’ thinking - concentrating on the nature of the systems approaches and what they can achieve, rather than pinning down what the world is like - is called critical systems thinking, perhaps most well defined by Prof Michael Jackson, OBE.
It is easy to remember theory with the mind; the problem is to remember with the body. The goal is to know & do instinctively. Having the spirit to endure the training & practice is the first step on the road to understanding.
Taiichi Ohno.
Qualities Required to Learn about Thinking things
- The ability to put aside ones own views, beliefs, stated positions and truly learn from others that do not share your perspective.
- Realise that judging other is in itself a limiting action, and it inhibits point 1.
- Realising that others are different to ourselves, so their journey, whilst different to ours, may be valid for them.
- That to truly understand, words that have been written, data, presentations, case studies, none are a substitute to actually visiting a situation with that person, and witnessing what they are doing to gain true understanding.
Design Thinking
Background
Design Thinking has always existed, but the term itself was coined in the 20th century. It became the subject of ‘papers’ and then become increasingly recognised through very practical and successful product development. An interesting and important characteristic about Design Thinking, is the reluctance for those operating in that field to strictly define it from an academic perspective, and critically, to resist attempts to standardise and codify it. According to many practitioners, the day that codification happens will probably be the day it begins to die.
Section by Stefanie di Russo
We have come to realize that we do not have to turn design into a limitation of science, nor do we have to treat design as a mysterious, ineffable art. We recognize that design has its own distinct intellectual culture; its own designerly ‘things to know, ways of knowing them, and ways of finding out about them’ (Nigel Cross 1999, p. 7)
We have come to realize that we do not have to turn design into a limitation of science, nor do we have to treat design as a mysterious, ineffable art. We recognize that design has its own distinct intellectual culture; its own designerly ‘things to know, ways of knowing them, and ways of finding out about them’ (Nigel Cross 1999, p. 7)
Schön aggressively refuted the idea that design needs to ground itself in science to be taken seriously. Like his peers, he made an attempt to individualise design as a unique practice through cognitive reflections and explanations on its process.
Schön’s main approach on design practice was not focused on analysing the process but rather framing and contextualizing it. He describes the idea of ‘problem setting’ as a crucial component that holds together the entire process. The point of focusing on this was to allow designers to best understand how to approach the problem before they go about processing how to solve it.
Let us search, instead, for an epistemology of practice implicit in the artistic, intuitive processes which some practitioners do bring to situations of uncertainty, instability, uniqueness and value conflict (Schön 1982, p. 49)
Schön’s main approach on design practice was not focused on analysing the process but rather framing and contextualizing it. He describes the idea of ‘problem setting’ as a crucial component that holds together the entire process. The point of focusing on this was to allow designers to best understand how to approach the problem before they go about processing how to solve it.
Let us search, instead, for an epistemology of practice implicit in the artistic, intuitive processes which some practitioners do bring to situations of uncertainty, instability, uniqueness and value conflict (Schön 1982, p. 49)
Learning Systems Thinking? It’s not so Straightforward, lets ask Russ Ackoff
So I want to separate Systems Thinking from systems theory. They are different but yet related. I want separate the two because Theory itself, by definition, is a rational, scientific and reductionist way of looking at anything. Academia primarily engages in theory and research analysis.
As an example, when we use a model to describe something, we are not describing that thing directly. The model is and always will be an artificial construct that we create to help us understand. And often the model is a poor relation to the real thing, in that we have to embellish or move away from the model when applying it. We use models and theories to help us analytically to understand Systems Thinking, and for some this is the ideal route for them. But for others it could also confuse and only teach us about structured constructs and models, if we limit ourselves to this approach. Looking at Systems Thinking through a holistic lens, we would never reduce it to its component parts and then ‘teach’ those.
As an example, when we use a model to describe something, we are not describing that thing directly. The model is and always will be an artificial construct that we create to help us understand. And often the model is a poor relation to the real thing, in that we have to embellish or move away from the model when applying it. We use models and theories to help us analytically to understand Systems Thinking, and for some this is the ideal route for them. But for others it could also confuse and only teach us about structured constructs and models, if we limit ourselves to this approach. Looking at Systems Thinking through a holistic lens, we would never reduce it to its component parts and then ‘teach’ those.
Ideally, systems theory and practice should inform one another,
Prof Mike Jackson OBE
Prof Mike Jackson OBE
Navigating the Systems thinking Environment
If you go to the world of systems thinking and cybernetic groups you will find that they are very often antagonistic. Its not necessary to behave in that way, its juvenile.
...We should curate our different modes of thinking, rather than moving towards uniformity.
Ranulph Glanville
...We should curate our different modes of thinking, rather than moving towards uniformity.
Ranulph Glanville
The splintering of the systems movement into warring factions championing soft systems thinking against hard systems thinking and critical systems thinking against soft systems thinking may provide amusement to academics but is alienating to practitioners.
Prof. MICHAEL C. JACKSON OBE
Prof. MICHAEL C. JACKSON OBE
If Systems Thinking and Holism was an integrated and accepted part of our way of thinking as a nation, part of how government and the civil service think, and how we educate ourselves; then maybe this would happen differently. Perhaps we would: - listen and accept, rather than analyse and differentiate. - develop and open up, rather than entrench. - look to the future, rather than just think of now. - think of us, rather than think of me. - enquire, rather than tell. - all succeed, rather than compete to the top. |
The Nations Health
In response to health, social, and community problems, we would have health services designed around the complex nature of issues that many of us face. Appropriate state or voluntary group support would be available, to prevent issues escalating to become bigger and more complex.
We would have local communities as a power-house of action.
Health staff would be in jobs that they could perform, and flourish as people.
Demands into the health services would be lower than today, as would be the cost of delivering those services.
We would have local communities as a power-house of action.
Health staff would be in jobs that they could perform, and flourish as people.
Demands into the health services would be lower than today, as would be the cost of delivering those services.
Brexit
Our relationship within Europe would have changed, to suit the different views in the country. We would have found ways to remain connected in Europe, and to be different.
We would never have had to go to the frustrated place we got to by the time Brexit was an issue, as issues with matter to people over the decades - in regard to immigration and national sovereignty would have been listened to, and the causes looked at.
We would never have had to go to the frustrated place we got to by the time Brexit was an issue, as issues with matter to people over the decades - in regard to immigration and national sovereignty would have been listened to, and the causes looked at.
Homelessness
Our understanding of the myriad of links that need to be made, to solve deep societal and person issues, would be such that we would realise that Homelessness is a symptom of a malaise with us as a nation. People would return to living a more balanced life.
Prisons
We would have a reducing number of prisoners in our prisons, and a greater return of those people in prison back to a life away from crime.
Society
Would our families and communities be structured in ways that promoted good living? Would we be less interested in consumerism, and have a greater range of interests that promote living a good life?
Education and Learning
Would we be helping children to become the adults they want to be, and take forward the principles that advance civilisation?
Humanity
Would we be so much more aware of the true implactions of our lifestyle? So we would be creating a fairer world. Could we be reducing the impact of climate change at a pace that makes the future one that our children deserve?
Local government response to COVID-19 is giving us a glimpse of a new way of delivering our public services.
What can we learn from this, and make Working Smarter the new way of working?
We have all had to work differently, and to our surprise, it worked really well!
This write-up compares the current way that the public sector operates, with how we have rapidly redesigned ourselves to respond to the COVID-19 crisis. I will use experiences from various councils, to list down a series of actual changes that were made in both the services themselves, but more importantly, the way that staff and managers adapted to this change.
The New Support Hub
The typical setup was a group of front line officers in a large room together. Some of those with more experience were quickly appointed as leads. A facilitator was resident in the room three days a week for the first two weeks, and two managers had the job of ‘managing’ the team.
Lets look at various aspects of what we would normally do in these situations, and compare them with what actually happened
Lets look at various aspects of what we would normally do in these situations, and compare them with what actually happened
One; The Drive for change — the current approach
In both the private and public sector, pressures are what creates new activity and change — regardless if we want it or not. In fact, we generally prefer to retain static workplaces, but pressure drives us, kicking and screaming into doing something.
Local government in the UK has been in austerity now for over 10 years and the impact of this pressure has, according to most comentators, to simply cut rather than improve. In terms of outcomes from the perspective of those who need support and help to live their lives, the impact has seen them struggle more, and generally get into greater difficulty in their lives. And ontop of that, we have failed to tackle the waste in the way we do things. Austerity is a major pressure, but that pressure has come from where? It is from central government funding, and that is what we reacted to.
Local government in the UK has been in austerity now for over 10 years and the impact of this pressure has, according to most comentators, to simply cut rather than improve. In terms of outcomes from the perspective of those who need support and help to live their lives, the impact has seen them struggle more, and generally get into greater difficulty in their lives. And ontop of that, we have failed to tackle the waste in the way we do things. Austerity is a major pressure, but that pressure has come from where? It is from central government funding, and that is what we reacted to.
Drive for change — the new approach
The pressure from COVID-19 came from our community, an external pressure, and it has been very different to that from central government. Firstly it came very quickly, no time to have meetings and plan endlessly. No reports! But more importantly, what is the driver? The driver is in the local need, the need that is on the doorstep, and in the urgent phone calls. So, dealing with this problem means that we then deal with the actual need in-front of us, rather than a man-made initiative.
The basic design of the new way of working consists of three main things;
We observe that:
The impact of reduced central funding, drives us to cut activities and non-essential services.
vs
The impact of being confronted with real problems, drives us to support people to get them back to supporting themselves.
A brief comment about urgency — it is a driver for change that is often needed to bolster us into action. That pressure creates speed, and drives the activity and solutions that we use to address that change. And the quicker the speed of the problem, the more rapidly we need to respond.
An Example — One hospital Chief Exec sent an email to all staff, congratulating all staff on moving a haemoglobin ward. It was completed in two weeks, rather than taken two years!
The basic design of the new way of working consists of three main things;
- We take a demand, and we deal with it in the way that makes most sense to us.
- From our knowledge on the ground, we predict a problem and then plan to resolve it from occurring.
- We design the steps of this end to end service workflow as we take the demands.
We observe that:
The impact of reduced central funding, drives us to cut activities and non-essential services.
vs
The impact of being confronted with real problems, drives us to support people to get them back to supporting themselves.
A brief comment about urgency — it is a driver for change that is often needed to bolster us into action. That pressure creates speed, and drives the activity and solutions that we use to address that change. And the quicker the speed of the problem, the more rapidly we need to respond.
An Example — One hospital Chief Exec sent an email to all staff, congratulating all staff on moving a haemoglobin ward. It was completed in two weeks, rather than taken two years!
Two; The redesign — the current approach
How we redesign in the public sector needs no introduction here. Most of us can make a list of ‘cures’ for our woes that we have seen over the years. The main characteristics of such change might be something like:
- Top down designed and driven change.
- Planning, discussions, governance, oversight, budget, permissions, risk analysis; all lead and define the change that we intend to do. Communication is via report templates and email.
- Front line staff do not like change, therefore we need to communicate it to them.
- Change takes a long time, and we know that lasting outcome is often a fraction of the original intended improvement.
- Digital and IT always makes things better doesn’t it? It is a magic wand. Digital by default.
- We replace one set of procedures, with a new set. We still retain a standard service, designed against best practice. ‘Customers’ slot into categorised demands and follow our standard process.
- ‘We’ create our services, that we then impose on the public. We have the power; parent-child relationship. We deliver and give to the needy.
The redesign — the new approach
It started with an email to a group of front line staff from different departments, to meet in a room, scratching their heads and wondering what to do. A facilitator was there in the room that had the ability to go and fix things. We engage the public online with a form, and via the phone. Most people preferred to call, as they wanted to discuss things. The council office was closed to visitors, but there were a few people with no working phone or internet who needed immediate help — we helped them, despite it being not what we ‘officially’ meant to do.
The facilitator watches as calls begin to come in, and the staff work out how to deal with them. Once a call is complete, they put the phone down, and talk with their fellows in the room and discuss how to take this forward. The conversations are not planned - they emerge, people feel they can contribute and are listened to.
The manager is outside the room most of the time, and has regular zoom calls with the team. There are flip charts of diagrams and lists going up on the walls, as we figure out what we are doing.
An Example — There was a question about food bag volunteers not having food safety training or certificates, we went upstairs to talk to the environmental health expert, and we got a pragmatic and immediate reply that did not slow us down. It took 10 minutes.
What are they doing that is different?
We had plenty of data to analyse, so we analysed it… It was interesting. And we waited for it to actually direct us to do something that we could not do without it. What we found is that technology was essential, it was critical to helping us to retain knowledge. But, when there was a question, when there was complexity to resolve, invariably a person was the key to answering it, not the data.
The facilitator watches as calls begin to come in, and the staff work out how to deal with them. Once a call is complete, they put the phone down, and talk with their fellows in the room and discuss how to take this forward. The conversations are not planned - they emerge, people feel they can contribute and are listened to.
The manager is outside the room most of the time, and has regular zoom calls with the team. There are flip charts of diagrams and lists going up on the walls, as we figure out what we are doing.
An Example — There was a question about food bag volunteers not having food safety training or certificates, we went upstairs to talk to the environmental health expert, and we got a pragmatic and immediate reply that did not slow us down. It took 10 minutes.
What are they doing that is different?
- The workflow is driven by the demand, and that demand shouts out the purpose to the team; ‘help me to help myself in the current crisis’.
- The facilitator has an eye on what is happening, and highlights potential issues to the leads in the room. Working with them to resolve them.
- The front line staff are designing the workflow, every day they discuss the learning from the day before and modify what they do. The facilitator and manager support the team and ask them what they need resolving to make this work.
- Change takes two weeks at the most, it is iterative and uses prototypes to learn what works.
- We learn that it is people that make a difference and make things occur, the technology should support that, not drive it. The public choose how they want to engage with us, regardless of our technology.
- We create a rough set of flow diagrams on the wall. We all know what we are doing, and how flexible we have to be to do the right thing. We deal with people by listening and talking to them, and our actions are guided by what matters to them.
- We recognise that, by engaging with people directly, that the power relationship is mutual. Our role is not to deliver, it is to facilitate and support.
We had plenty of data to analyse, so we analysed it… It was interesting. And we waited for it to actually direct us to do something that we could not do without it. What we found is that technology was essential, it was critical to helping us to retain knowledge. But, when there was a question, when there was complexity to resolve, invariably a person was the key to answering it, not the data.
Three; The change framework— the current approach
- Mangers set-up plans, governance, oversight, milestones, budget, permissions, and risk analysis, and pull in experts to ensure things are done properly.
We have experts who have big brains, who know everything. They tell us what we have to do to comply, or else we will incur the wrath of the Daily Mail. We add in lots of checks and management approvals to the procedures, and the experts threaten us with inspections. Risk is defined by the worst case scenario, events that will rarely happen. Our power comes through compliance, for instance GDPR.
Those experts define the how we do the change, and that ultimately defines what becomes the overarching focus of the change. The real reasons for the change become lost to these pressures.
Those experts define the how we do the change, and that ultimately defines what becomes the overarching focus of the change. The real reasons for the change become lost to these pressures.
The change framework — the new approach
- Planning, governance, oversight, milestones, budget, permissions, and risk analysis are all there, but they were happening in parallel to the new design. They were in the mind of the facilitator, and reactive and supportive, rather than leading the design. The primary focus remains the public.
The experts connect with what the team are doing in their operations room, and they observe. The facilitator then discusses how they can help the team to ensure they do the right thing. The experts realise that by sitting on one room, engaging with staff, ensures flexibility of governance at the right level. Risk is balanced and learned from the actual activity being carried out, rather than fearing the worst case. Checks and balances are part of the discussions with the team who then modify their workflow diagrams.
GDPR was not allowed to become a barrier, it was used to adapt and alter the design of what was needed. The experts' role includes to actually resolve the issues the team encounter, and allow the team to do what they need to do unhindered.
GDPR was not allowed to become a barrier, it was used to adapt and alter the design of what was needed. The experts' role includes to actually resolve the issues the team encounter, and allow the team to do what they need to do unhindered.
Four; Measures — the current approach
- Our measures record departmental costs and targets, and we pay attention to central government metrics.
Measures are a managers way of understanding performance and indicates what is happening in the work. Typically, what matters to the manager gets measured; how many, departmental costs against budget, how quickly can we process, government returns, etc. Managers react to those measures.
The staff respond to the measures by artificially improving them, and this creates departmental silos, hiding the real issues, and their purpose becomes ‘hit the numbers’. Measures are often compiled into reports, discussed at meetings, and hidden from the front line. After careful massaging, top management receive a watered down version of what others want them to know.
Measures — the new approach
- We primarily measure purpose; the time to help people, against their real need, and keep the measures visible to all.
The numbers are written up at the end of the day on a flip chart on the wall. If anyone wants to know outcomes, they have to come to the room, where someone from the team will explain the measures, and have a discussion as to the implications. No numbers are allowed to be emailed out of the room! This causes other managers and finance to engage directly with the team.
The measures are used in discussions in the team to alter what they do; they learn from them. It is up to the manager to go into some individual cases to understand the causes of costs, and then to formulate the cost model away from the team.
The operations room becomes the place to go to for managers.
Five; Management— the current approach
The management approach in the public sector is born from bureaucratic and administrative foundations. Rooted in the logic of Taylorism, designing the organisation like a logical machine. Then add in the myriad attempts to bring in private sector techniques and wider ‘best practice’ initiatives, and we get to where we are now. In times of pressure, we tend to behave as our masters expect us to, and that is almost always responding to the person with the purse strings.
Management — the new approach
Let’s look at what organisations do when they liberate themselves from the confines of so many conflicting pressures, and instead focus on what we are here to do — purpose as defined by those we are here to support. This greatly simplifies our focus, and directs the organisation to do the right thing. Moving away from the machine paradigm, replaced by an adaptive and emergent way of working that requires a shift in the way we manage.
This table attempts to highlight some of the main management approaches and behaviours that emerged, contrasting between the current and new way of working.
This table attempts to highlight some of the main management approaches and behaviours that emerged, contrasting between the current and new way of working.
How do we move forwards, learning from this?
One way is to set up a series of change initiatives, and then plan the living daylights out of them. That's what we have been good at doing, but now we want to do better, we need to do this differently.
The crisis has taught us one really important lesson, that has made us very uncomfortable, but is true.
The crisis has taught us one really important lesson, that has made us very uncomfortable, but is true.
We reacted immediately, and became person centered by default.
We were thrust into uncertain territory, that was actually not that frightening
One thing to note, is that this way of working does not just happen. The new services did not just happen. There were many issues that needed resolving, where the cause was; people not being team players, dominance, lack of communication, top down management decisions, silo mentality.
Community groups are the place where the complexity and solutions meet. In one area of the borough, there was almost no demand. We heard nothing. We discovered that it was because there was a robust and well operating set of volunteers operating in that area. We had little idea what they were doing, but were on hand to support them when needed. The end to end workflow, includes groups, neighbours and family as the true enabler of support.
The development of new approaches like this requires conscious leadership decisions to be made. It requires the managers to become both managers and the facilitators. This is primarily dealing with demand that is complex — uncertain and changing; therefore the management approach needs to adapt to that environment. We need to ask ourselves about the fundamentals of what we need to put in place, to ensure that we enable our organisation to work this way.
- Everyone involved focused on one thing; delivery against purpose, driven by the real needs. We became person centred in the true sense of the phrase. Staff were responsible for the end to end flow of each case.
- We recognised how the end to end service includes communities, so staff collaborated with community groups in ways that were appropriate to each situation.
- Decision-making has to be local, based on the real situation on the ground. Managers understand that and support those decisions.
- Managers ‘allowed’ the design of how we deliver to emerge, by designing it together with those in the front line.
- The communication channels were direct, and based on a network of contacts that briefly emerge to solve particular issues.
- The values, leadership and behaviours we need are different; based on collaboration, focus on the workplace, achievement, learning, and systemic.
- We still understand our constraints, but instead of focusing on cost, we focus on the causes of cost and act on them.
- We are in this together, and we achieved speed through collaborating and learning from each other’s organisations.
- Digital has helped, but it is not the answer. The real value is in the staff and bringing their whole selves with them.
One thing to note, is that this way of working does not just happen. The new services did not just happen. There were many issues that needed resolving, where the cause was; people not being team players, dominance, lack of communication, top down management decisions, silo mentality.
Community groups are the place where the complexity and solutions meet. In one area of the borough, there was almost no demand. We heard nothing. We discovered that it was because there was a robust and well operating set of volunteers operating in that area. We had little idea what they were doing, but were on hand to support them when needed. The end to end workflow, includes groups, neighbours and family as the true enabler of support.
The development of new approaches like this requires conscious leadership decisions to be made. It requires the managers to become both managers and the facilitators. This is primarily dealing with demand that is complex — uncertain and changing; therefore the management approach needs to adapt to that environment. We need to ask ourselves about the fundamentals of what we need to put in place, to ensure that we enable our organisation to work this way.
The context used to be we were designing things within systems that were relatively stable. Now we're designing things when the systems themselves need designing. |
This quote by Tim Brown recently describes the shift in Design Thinking activity with organisations that is happening worldwide. The shift is from the initial concept of product design and fitting that into a stable organisation. Now, service designers are increasingly called to integrate their work within the business itself. In his quote Tim Brown specifically refers to the design of the underlying end to end service. For those seasoned practitioners who have been working in Service Design, this should come as no surprise, as it is becoming an increasing reality in our work.
Is this good? The impact this is having on service designers is less about theoretical discussions about being right or wrong, it is driven by the market demand. And it is being driven by the market because Service Design is maturing into he next stage in its development; it is moving from an innovative and dynamic start-up, to a more accepted mature methodology, slowly becoming integrated into businesses. That in itself is very interesting, as it is another indicator that proves the worth of Service Design through its acceptance by mainstream businesses. So, it perhaps has to be accepted as a positive milestone on the path to providing greater value.
What approach and skills are needed to fulfil this shift? The question has been bounced around conferences and discussion in the last few years, and is being currently tested by those in the thick of the service design workplace. From recent observations with that work that is published and has demonstrates proven success, these are some of the points that are surfacing:
1. Familiarisation with business concepts and skills have to be present when undertaking service design in a business context.
2. Service Design and business transformation skills and methods have to go hand in hand at various points in application of Design Thinking, and the relationship with the client.
3. Design Thinking has specific unique principles and characteristics that are central to its definition, and traditional methods of transformation are mostly not aligned to these principles. Therefore additional transformation disciplines have to become realised through approaches and mindsets like Systems Thinking, Teal, and other modern concepts. This will allow Service Designers to leverage their new approaches into business services efficiently and effectively. In fact, efficiency and effectiveness need to become part of Service Design.
How to do this. These three points do not mean that all service designers have to become proficient in them, but designers will be increasingly co-designing their services in collaboration with like-minded team members who have got that proficiency. They have to work with those who share their principles of working and culture. Service Design agencies are already sourcing those contacts into their work.
The Role of Digital. Lastly and perhaps most striking, is that if Design Thinking has to include truly redesigning services, designers have to be able to wean themselves off the single minded focus on Digital as being the only means by which to achieve transformation. The transformation of services is far more about people, behaviours, purpose, and the workflow, than it is about any one specialisation. Why do I say that Digital might have to be not the only design specialism? Well, I deal with plenty of complexity with some services. This is particularly relevant in the public and health sectors, where as soon as we move away from the most simplistic services, we land right in there middle of complexity. And in service design, complexity is often not the best way to deal with that complexity. In England we have plenty of examples of that. If that is widespread, that will certainly push Design Thinking into wider contexts!
A recent example I saw recently, in a London Borough Council, was a new customer system for helping people walking in. It was for Housing. It went like this;
In the week I was there someone was so shocked by the service they were getting and they were in such a mess, that they took an overdose whilst sitting talking to the housing officer. They were in hospital for two days. And no, they did not have severe mental health issues. That same week, in another housing department in the country, a person set themselves alight in the same situation.
Whoever designed that Digital service has lots to learn about SD
Is this good? The impact this is having on service designers is less about theoretical discussions about being right or wrong, it is driven by the market demand. And it is being driven by the market because Service Design is maturing into he next stage in its development; it is moving from an innovative and dynamic start-up, to a more accepted mature methodology, slowly becoming integrated into businesses. That in itself is very interesting, as it is another indicator that proves the worth of Service Design through its acceptance by mainstream businesses. So, it perhaps has to be accepted as a positive milestone on the path to providing greater value.
What approach and skills are needed to fulfil this shift? The question has been bounced around conferences and discussion in the last few years, and is being currently tested by those in the thick of the service design workplace. From recent observations with that work that is published and has demonstrates proven success, these are some of the points that are surfacing:
1. Familiarisation with business concepts and skills have to be present when undertaking service design in a business context.
2. Service Design and business transformation skills and methods have to go hand in hand at various points in application of Design Thinking, and the relationship with the client.
3. Design Thinking has specific unique principles and characteristics that are central to its definition, and traditional methods of transformation are mostly not aligned to these principles. Therefore additional transformation disciplines have to become realised through approaches and mindsets like Systems Thinking, Teal, and other modern concepts. This will allow Service Designers to leverage their new approaches into business services efficiently and effectively. In fact, efficiency and effectiveness need to become part of Service Design.
How to do this. These three points do not mean that all service designers have to become proficient in them, but designers will be increasingly co-designing their services in collaboration with like-minded team members who have got that proficiency. They have to work with those who share their principles of working and culture. Service Design agencies are already sourcing those contacts into their work.
The Role of Digital. Lastly and perhaps most striking, is that if Design Thinking has to include truly redesigning services, designers have to be able to wean themselves off the single minded focus on Digital as being the only means by which to achieve transformation. The transformation of services is far more about people, behaviours, purpose, and the workflow, than it is about any one specialisation. Why do I say that Digital might have to be not the only design specialism? Well, I deal with plenty of complexity with some services. This is particularly relevant in the public and health sectors, where as soon as we move away from the most simplistic services, we land right in there middle of complexity. And in service design, complexity is often not the best way to deal with that complexity. In England we have plenty of examples of that. If that is widespread, that will certainly push Design Thinking into wider contexts!
A recent example I saw recently, in a London Borough Council, was a new customer system for helping people walking in. It was for Housing. It went like this;
- you walk in,
- queue, and the person shows you that you have to go to the computers and register. So,
- you are presented with a few pages with simple questions and you have to supply your NI number and email.
- You then have to verify your email address.
- Then, you can select the option to make an appointment with a housing officers and if you are lucky to get one the next day. OK, that is possible for many of us.
In the week I was there someone was so shocked by the service they were getting and they were in such a mess, that they took an overdose whilst sitting talking to the housing officer. They were in hospital for two days. And no, they did not have severe mental health issues. That same week, in another housing department in the country, a person set themselves alight in the same situation.
Whoever designed that Digital service has lots to learn about SD
Understanding complexity and then applying that to dealing with customers is critical to true service and systems design
Interesting to read this article in the guardian that the issues with the NHS are not just about ‘fixing people’ when they are unwell. But that loneliness has a large impact on people well-being, demonstrated in the figures for 50% less life expectancy to those that are lonely.
Analysis
When I did some work in the NHS, and we looked at the demand into hospitals and also helping people in the community - going to the GP, or after they have left the hospital. Something about what we were learning about the demand seemed to need further analysis. It is easy to treat different types of demand as common categories - broken leg, diabetes, etc. But when we looked at the time taken to help people get back to a normal life, there was great variation in the resources and time used with the same category.
Complexity
We discovered that certain people absorbed far more resources, visit their GP, or were admitted to hospital far more than others. These people often had a level of complexity to their situation that was not obviously identified when looking at their records. When we analysed a cohort of patients it was obvious to attribute age to the cause of increasing complexity. But looking at each person in detail we discovered the causes were various. And what was the highest cause of complexity? Loneliness.
It surprised everyone around us, that this was the result of the analysis. And how well had this health trust geared itself up to respond to this problem? Well, apart from having weekly public social gatherings, the problem was not on anyones radar as being important.
What we did
The continuation of this has been written up into a case study
Analysis
When I did some work in the NHS, and we looked at the demand into hospitals and also helping people in the community - going to the GP, or after they have left the hospital. Something about what we were learning about the demand seemed to need further analysis. It is easy to treat different types of demand as common categories - broken leg, diabetes, etc. But when we looked at the time taken to help people get back to a normal life, there was great variation in the resources and time used with the same category.
Complexity
We discovered that certain people absorbed far more resources, visit their GP, or were admitted to hospital far more than others. These people often had a level of complexity to their situation that was not obviously identified when looking at their records. When we analysed a cohort of patients it was obvious to attribute age to the cause of increasing complexity. But looking at each person in detail we discovered the causes were various. And what was the highest cause of complexity? Loneliness.
It surprised everyone around us, that this was the result of the analysis. And how well had this health trust geared itself up to respond to this problem? Well, apart from having weekly public social gatherings, the problem was not on anyones radar as being important.
What we did
The continuation of this has been written up into a case study
Public sector data protection should allow us to share data - not hinder us
Data sharing, often a major stumbling block to joined-up working in the public sector. How to use a systemic approach to thinking about the problem and delivering a different and far easier solution.
Lets start with a real case study and define the problem that this organisation had.
The Problem
I came across a new data sharing issue in a new Hub we were redesigning recently. In this situation local government Council staff were newly sitting next to and working with the Police. The question was:
How do we now share information between us?
This was a project started to develop the workflows, policies and practice in the Hub. The Police, and Council front line staff were in a multi-disciplinary change team, and the managers were connected to that team.
What the Police Did
If anyone works with the Police you will find that they have a quite different way of making decisions than any other type of organisation. In the situation with the Hub, they made a local decision to share data in the way that supervisors on the ground thought was reasonable. However, when they went and asked their Data Controller, and the Controller replied they could not share any of the data. As simple as that! The Police then spent the rest of the three months in this position - frustrated, but unable to proceed.
The Standard Solution
As is usual, the purpose has to be defined or understood. It will be defined by managers, and may be defined something like;
we need a set of rules on how to legally share data between us, that protects people and allows us to work together efficiently.
This is the usual approach in most organisations to solve a problem like this. They will ask a consultant with analytical knowledge to look at this as a project and study the data. They also need to be fully aware of the legislation, so they ask the Data Controller and get a copy of the Data Protection Act, and read it in detail.
This consultant then takes the data types from a data analyst, and attempts to categorise the data into the categories that make sense, and that show different levels of risk. They would look at the job roles of all the people involved and attempt to make a judgement as to the data they are required to view and why. And engage with the Data Controller and put all the collected findings on the table.
The outcome will be a report, that will be approved, and then circulated down through the hierarchy - as each manager makes sure that their particular concern or point is contained in the final report. In some cases this step in the process can take many months and the problem is seen as:
the needs of different stakeholders, which must be taken into account.
Staff groups are put on a schedule to listen to their managers tell them what the new rules are.
The Systemic Approach
Understand
Again, the first step that has to happen is that the problem has to be understood. This is done by going to where the work is. The change team listen to demands coming into the Hub, by actually listening to the conversations. They have to understand the whole problem and what matters to the person making the demand.
The purpose they define for the sharing of information remains undefined.
Redesign.
The next step, after listening to the demand, is to undertake the work - by just doing the work that matters to fix the problem - together with the person.
The Data
So what of the data sharing? Well, the example above is looked at by the team, and the key information that was needed to provide the knowledge required to solve the problem is written down.
The above process is repeated several times, until the team understand enough about the demands and the knowledge. They might do 20 or more demands.
Then the team sit together and analyse what knowledge is needed, and where it is usually held. Interestingly it is quite often held in peoples memories rather than simply in a computer.
The purpose they define for the sharing of information now emerges from the evidence.
The Outcome
This analysis is then used to define the agreement on the sharing of knowledge. If a manager does not like this, or wants to add other rules, then they have to work with the team to demonstrate that the evidence proves that this change should be made.
The word data is not included in any document or discussion. The purpose of this exercise is the sharing of knowledge
From a systems thinking perspective, what is important in this problem is not about data, but pertinent information regarding a council officer about to visit the property of someone. As soon as you make it data you have entered the world of concepts and ideas. Systems thinking has to be firmly rooted in the reality of what the the system is really about.
The solution was surprisingly easy, focus on the information - not the data. When there is a new demand, and the council officer wants to know about the what we know about the person making the demand, then they ask a police officer in-front of a computer if there are any issues I need to be aware of when I visit Mr. Smith.
The officer could respond with;
After the demands were understood, It took about two weeks to define, and make into a workshop for staff.
The Difference Between Systems Thinking and our Usual Approach?
Point 1 - there is are no stakeholder needs, as the person and the demand defines the need.
Point 2 - there is no inflexible set of rules that applies to certain categories of demands.
Point 3 - the managers do not initially define the outcome, the evidence does. Then the managers agree the analysis the team undertook.
What is needed is not the data, its the knowledge I need before the visit and during the process. This real need by-passes all data arguments, as the real basis of data sharing is the sharing of knowledge. The sharing of data can be a side issue to the main principle, that is often used when sharing is between people far away from each other and who are unable to collaborate. If you can collaborate with your colleague in the other service, then the sharing becomes one of knowledge - and a different and much easier problem to fix.
In addition, this approach supports the front line staff and is flexible to every situation. So no detailed procedures or rules are necessary - just the creation of a set of principles to work to in a framework that front-line staff can be coached to use.
This is an real example of using systems thinking to the problem of data sharing. The problem is redefined from data to knowledge - which is should have always been in the first place, if the legislation had been looked at from a systemic perspective then maybe the problem so many public sector organisations are having would be made alot easier.
The data protection act in the UK is actually written to help data sharing and to prevent private organisations from marketing our data. But we tend to see it only as the method of restricting communication. Certainly those who wrote it made a big error in the way that it puts across the central concept of what it is about. But, it really does focus on DATA, and in public sector operations we are far more interested in information.
Lets start with a real case study and define the problem that this organisation had.
The Problem
I came across a new data sharing issue in a new Hub we were redesigning recently. In this situation local government Council staff were newly sitting next to and working with the Police. The question was:
How do we now share information between us?
This was a project started to develop the workflows, policies and practice in the Hub. The Police, and Council front line staff were in a multi-disciplinary change team, and the managers were connected to that team.
What the Police Did
If anyone works with the Police you will find that they have a quite different way of making decisions than any other type of organisation. In the situation with the Hub, they made a local decision to share data in the way that supervisors on the ground thought was reasonable. However, when they went and asked their Data Controller, and the Controller replied they could not share any of the data. As simple as that! The Police then spent the rest of the three months in this position - frustrated, but unable to proceed.
The Standard Solution
As is usual, the purpose has to be defined or understood. It will be defined by managers, and may be defined something like;
we need a set of rules on how to legally share data between us, that protects people and allows us to work together efficiently.
This is the usual approach in most organisations to solve a problem like this. They will ask a consultant with analytical knowledge to look at this as a project and study the data. They also need to be fully aware of the legislation, so they ask the Data Controller and get a copy of the Data Protection Act, and read it in detail.
This consultant then takes the data types from a data analyst, and attempts to categorise the data into the categories that make sense, and that show different levels of risk. They would look at the job roles of all the people involved and attempt to make a judgement as to the data they are required to view and why. And engage with the Data Controller and put all the collected findings on the table.
The outcome will be a report, that will be approved, and then circulated down through the hierarchy - as each manager makes sure that their particular concern or point is contained in the final report. In some cases this step in the process can take many months and the problem is seen as:
the needs of different stakeholders, which must be taken into account.
Staff groups are put on a schedule to listen to their managers tell them what the new rules are.
The Systemic Approach
Understand
Again, the first step that has to happen is that the problem has to be understood. This is done by going to where the work is. The change team listen to demands coming into the Hub, by actually listening to the conversations. They have to understand the whole problem and what matters to the person making the demand.
The purpose they define for the sharing of information remains undefined.
Redesign.
The next step, after listening to the demand, is to undertake the work - by just doing the work that matters to fix the problem - together with the person.
The Data
So what of the data sharing? Well, the example above is looked at by the team, and the key information that was needed to provide the knowledge required to solve the problem is written down.
The above process is repeated several times, until the team understand enough about the demands and the knowledge. They might do 20 or more demands.
Then the team sit together and analyse what knowledge is needed, and where it is usually held. Interestingly it is quite often held in peoples memories rather than simply in a computer.
The purpose they define for the sharing of information now emerges from the evidence.
The Outcome
This analysis is then used to define the agreement on the sharing of knowledge. If a manager does not like this, or wants to add other rules, then they have to work with the team to demonstrate that the evidence proves that this change should be made.
The word data is not included in any document or discussion. The purpose of this exercise is the sharing of knowledge
From a systems thinking perspective, what is important in this problem is not about data, but pertinent information regarding a council officer about to visit the property of someone. As soon as you make it data you have entered the world of concepts and ideas. Systems thinking has to be firmly rooted in the reality of what the the system is really about.
The solution was surprisingly easy, focus on the information - not the data. When there is a new demand, and the council officer wants to know about the what we know about the person making the demand, then they ask a police officer in-front of a computer if there are any issues I need to be aware of when I visit Mr. Smith.
The officer could respond with;
- no problem,
- maybe you should go with a colleague,
- the mother has difficulties talking to a official,
- there may be someone staying there illegally,
- talk to Jason, he knows a bit about this family,
- a police officer will go with you as it might be tricky,
- dont go - lets have a conversation...
After the demands were understood, It took about two weeks to define, and make into a workshop for staff.
The Difference Between Systems Thinking and our Usual Approach?
Point 1 - there is are no stakeholder needs, as the person and the demand defines the need.
Point 2 - there is no inflexible set of rules that applies to certain categories of demands.
Point 3 - the managers do not initially define the outcome, the evidence does. Then the managers agree the analysis the team undertook.
What is needed is not the data, its the knowledge I need before the visit and during the process. This real need by-passes all data arguments, as the real basis of data sharing is the sharing of knowledge. The sharing of data can be a side issue to the main principle, that is often used when sharing is between people far away from each other and who are unable to collaborate. If you can collaborate with your colleague in the other service, then the sharing becomes one of knowledge - and a different and much easier problem to fix.
In addition, this approach supports the front line staff and is flexible to every situation. So no detailed procedures or rules are necessary - just the creation of a set of principles to work to in a framework that front-line staff can be coached to use.
This is an real example of using systems thinking to the problem of data sharing. The problem is redefined from data to knowledge - which is should have always been in the first place, if the legislation had been looked at from a systemic perspective then maybe the problem so many public sector organisations are having would be made alot easier.
The data protection act in the UK is actually written to help data sharing and to prevent private organisations from marketing our data. But we tend to see it only as the method of restricting communication. Certainly those who wrote it made a big error in the way that it puts across the central concept of what it is about. But, it really does focus on DATA, and in public sector operations we are far more interested in information.
Just when the news of the Scottish police centralisation of call handlng has shown that there are significant problems with this approach, Mike Penning, a home office minister has stated that the combining of three emergency services will bring significant benefits. This will bring in economies of scale with the sharing of back office services. Efficiency jsut drops out as the answer, doesn't it?
This is not the place to resort to egoistically stating one view over another. No, its time to realise that we, as a nation, relish in stating the obvious. At least, we all think we are stating the obvious, and each of us comes up with the solution that makes sense. Maybe its about time that we stood back a little, and recognise that we keep returning to this style of behaviour like flies around a light bulb.
Its obvious that covering a pan that is boiling over, to stop it from spilling its hot contents is a solution to a problem. But the better solution is to switch off the gas.
Transformation is about doing different things, not doing the same things differently. It is about looking at what we have been doing, and choosing to approach problems from different perspectives. I would suggest to Mike Penning that his good idea, based on common sense, just before he commits millions, to just do a few simple things:
1. Get someone to help you learn how the current system works. Understand its underlying assumptions. Discover the root cause of the issues.
2. Start with a better set of assumptions, and apply a different logic to the problem you have to solve.
3. Start to redesign the system, so that the problem's root causes are eliminated.
4. You end up with a system that works differently than before, will cost less, and performs better.
You need someone to show you how to do it, because it is very difficult to see the system we are in differently, without someone to help us.
Its actually not difficult, and will only take a few weeks to do 1 and 2, but it will save milllions.
Remember this from 2010? The principles were exactly the same...
“FiRecontrol was a project established under the previous Labour Government, and is now being scrapped because it does not work.
“This project has wasted millions of pounds, perhaps around £550million of public money as well as thousands of firefighter hours in trying to bring it to completion." https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmpubacc/110/110.pdf
This is a plea for trying something different, so my tax money will not be wasted again.
I just want to add this about Ian Duncan Smith and Universal Credits. Its the same principle as sharing control centres, related to a process:
"This is the man who is the chief architect of the Universal Credit, which was supposed to have been rolled out in October 2013, and in March 2016 has been rolled out to the grand total of 141,100 people - and by "people", I mean "single men without dependents", the only group whose claims are simple enough to be processed on the Universal Credit."
Stephen Bush, New Statesman
Good grief, look at this! facebook page about universal credit
This is not the place to resort to egoistically stating one view over another. No, its time to realise that we, as a nation, relish in stating the obvious. At least, we all think we are stating the obvious, and each of us comes up with the solution that makes sense. Maybe its about time that we stood back a little, and recognise that we keep returning to this style of behaviour like flies around a light bulb.
Its obvious that covering a pan that is boiling over, to stop it from spilling its hot contents is a solution to a problem. But the better solution is to switch off the gas.
Transformation is about doing different things, not doing the same things differently. It is about looking at what we have been doing, and choosing to approach problems from different perspectives. I would suggest to Mike Penning that his good idea, based on common sense, just before he commits millions, to just do a few simple things:
1. Get someone to help you learn how the current system works. Understand its underlying assumptions. Discover the root cause of the issues.
2. Start with a better set of assumptions, and apply a different logic to the problem you have to solve.
3. Start to redesign the system, so that the problem's root causes are eliminated.
4. You end up with a system that works differently than before, will cost less, and performs better.
You need someone to show you how to do it, because it is very difficult to see the system we are in differently, without someone to help us.
Its actually not difficult, and will only take a few weeks to do 1 and 2, but it will save milllions.
Remember this from 2010? The principles were exactly the same...
“FiRecontrol was a project established under the previous Labour Government, and is now being scrapped because it does not work.
“This project has wasted millions of pounds, perhaps around £550million of public money as well as thousands of firefighter hours in trying to bring it to completion." https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmpubacc/110/110.pdf
This is a plea for trying something different, so my tax money will not be wasted again.
I just want to add this about Ian Duncan Smith and Universal Credits. Its the same principle as sharing control centres, related to a process:
"This is the man who is the chief architect of the Universal Credit, which was supposed to have been rolled out in October 2013, and in March 2016 has been rolled out to the grand total of 141,100 people - and by "people", I mean "single men without dependents", the only group whose claims are simple enough to be processed on the Universal Credit."
Stephen Bush, New Statesman
Good grief, look at this! facebook page about universal credit
Isn't it a fact that many people can talk at length about the reasons as to why we, as managers in organisations, are always striving to create a great organisation. We can list the top reasons as to why we need to change, and another list of what needs to change. How about a list showing the characteristics of successful leaders? Does anyone like to count the number of books on this subject?
Yet, when we actually look at what works, and what does not work, actually watch managers manage, what is the one thing that underpins what is REALLY stopping us. Is not the answer, that we all actually know deep down, is us - our own fear of the unknown - of stepping out of our zones of comfort? Its easy to say that we must become bold, etc. Its another to actually feel the wind of uncertainty grip our chests.
Which manager is prepared to take the risk of a new approach, when they are being measured on success, by a room full of grim faced, suited stalwarts. Isn't it easier to follow the tried and tested approaches, that were developed about 80 years ago?
Our real barriers are all in our heads.
Its not easy, but the first step is to recognise our limitations, and be prepared to challenge them. Then find an approach and the right people who share your vision. Then you have a chance to succeed...
Yet, when we actually look at what works, and what does not work, actually watch managers manage, what is the one thing that underpins what is REALLY stopping us. Is not the answer, that we all actually know deep down, is us - our own fear of the unknown - of stepping out of our zones of comfort? Its easy to say that we must become bold, etc. Its another to actually feel the wind of uncertainty grip our chests.
Which manager is prepared to take the risk of a new approach, when they are being measured on success, by a room full of grim faced, suited stalwarts. Isn't it easier to follow the tried and tested approaches, that were developed about 80 years ago?
Our real barriers are all in our heads.
Its not easy, but the first step is to recognise our limitations, and be prepared to challenge them. Then find an approach and the right people who share your vision. Then you have a chance to succeed...
So, the Scottish Police centralisation of calls is being put on hold. What is the problem? The problem is that we as decision-makers love to use the same clever principles to make decisions, that on reflection, seem to be plausible.
The problem is that the police service relies heavily on calls into the system. These calls arrive at all times of the day, with varied frequency over the day. At small sites the cost of managing these call handlers, arranging their shifts, and preparing for holidays and sickness is a challenge. So, the solution is to get them all from the smaller sites, put them in a big building, and connect them with technology, back to their original locations. Then, maybe we can recruit cheaper grade staff to answer the calls, based on best practice CRM systems. If we can call India when we talk to a bank, surely its a no-brainer?
It all makes sense to a decision-maker, who is being pushed to make savings, the like that have never been experienced by that leader in the lifetime of the service. The logic and the maths make perfect sense.
The reality is this. The demand that comes in is often complex and fails to follow a pre-determined pattern to resolve. That seemingly simple call about a Facebook spat can turn nasty if not dealt with according to the unique circumstances of what matters to that particular caller. The history of conflict within the facebook issue, shows that those invovled have been warring for some time.
Then, if we do pass on the call to a division, it gets categorised, prioritised, and then sits in a queue until someone in a locality picks it up and reads it. They read what was written by the call handler, not what was actually said, not understanding the intonation in the voice, not hearing the confused shy vulnerable message struggling to be heard over and above the categorisation they are being forced to be placed in.
The call-handler is trained to push away calls deemed not for the police. The unintended consequence is often an escalatin of the incident, until it becomes necessary to respond to with greater attention.
The locality the call eventually gets to, need to call the caller back, to obtain more information that was not detailed on the record. The phone number is tried several times, before contact is remade. The officer who can really help understand and help the caller, finally talks to the person with the problem, and then finally starts the value work of sorting out the problem. Hopefuly it is not too late by then, but it has caused a load of waste activity to ripple through the organisation.
One day someone will come up with the bright idea of in the first instance, getting the caller to talk directly to the person who can help them resolve the problem, and that same manager who set up the big building full of call handlers will find that the cost of doing this is considerably less than the old way. And, as a by product, the service is markedly improved.
It is what happens to all such contact centres if they are analysed in the right way, but it takes so many of us to make the expensive mistake before we learn that lesson. By that time, a new manager has taken the reigns, and they have a great idea to solve the cost of different localities taking their own calls... The wheel goes round again.
Take a systems thinking approach to this problem, and the right solution will be clear.
Scottish policing article from Ian Wiggett
The problem is that the police service relies heavily on calls into the system. These calls arrive at all times of the day, with varied frequency over the day. At small sites the cost of managing these call handlers, arranging their shifts, and preparing for holidays and sickness is a challenge. So, the solution is to get them all from the smaller sites, put them in a big building, and connect them with technology, back to their original locations. Then, maybe we can recruit cheaper grade staff to answer the calls, based on best practice CRM systems. If we can call India when we talk to a bank, surely its a no-brainer?
It all makes sense to a decision-maker, who is being pushed to make savings, the like that have never been experienced by that leader in the lifetime of the service. The logic and the maths make perfect sense.
The reality is this. The demand that comes in is often complex and fails to follow a pre-determined pattern to resolve. That seemingly simple call about a Facebook spat can turn nasty if not dealt with according to the unique circumstances of what matters to that particular caller. The history of conflict within the facebook issue, shows that those invovled have been warring for some time.
Then, if we do pass on the call to a division, it gets categorised, prioritised, and then sits in a queue until someone in a locality picks it up and reads it. They read what was written by the call handler, not what was actually said, not understanding the intonation in the voice, not hearing the confused shy vulnerable message struggling to be heard over and above the categorisation they are being forced to be placed in.
The call-handler is trained to push away calls deemed not for the police. The unintended consequence is often an escalatin of the incident, until it becomes necessary to respond to with greater attention.
The locality the call eventually gets to, need to call the caller back, to obtain more information that was not detailed on the record. The phone number is tried several times, before contact is remade. The officer who can really help understand and help the caller, finally talks to the person with the problem, and then finally starts the value work of sorting out the problem. Hopefuly it is not too late by then, but it has caused a load of waste activity to ripple through the organisation.
One day someone will come up with the bright idea of in the first instance, getting the caller to talk directly to the person who can help them resolve the problem, and that same manager who set up the big building full of call handlers will find that the cost of doing this is considerably less than the old way. And, as a by product, the service is markedly improved.
It is what happens to all such contact centres if they are analysed in the right way, but it takes so many of us to make the expensive mistake before we learn that lesson. By that time, a new manager has taken the reigns, and they have a great idea to solve the cost of different localities taking their own calls... The wheel goes round again.
Take a systems thinking approach to this problem, and the right solution will be clear.
Scottish policing article from Ian Wiggett
So, you have decided to log demand into the police. Make sure you look at all the demands coming in, they come in on the phone, by email, and into the enquiry counters. And what about when officers are on the beat, and from the phone at enquiry counters, don't forget those...
Then a table is made up of demand. And if youre thinking a little further, you decide to focus using an outside-in perspective, to see what REAL demands are coming in. So split the demand into value and failure demands. Take a systems thinking view of demand.
The demand coming into the police are far more tricky to analyse than transactional based system. Why? well, because these demands are:
1. They are varied. Some demand is a simple questions, some are for requests for police service, and others are just plain calls for help. If you try and combine them together, on a spreadsheet, then you may be working with data that is just too summarised to make any real decisions on. A demand for a shotgun licence, to a call to attend a historic burglary, to a call for a domestic issue, to a call asking about help on a civil matter. Some of those demands will take a great deal of time to answer, and what matters to the caller and the subsequent response is vastly different.
2. In a simpler system, like a bank, a demand is a call for service, and the service delivery follows that demand. With the police a demand may be followed up by subsequent demands, that are of value. They represent communciation that is part of the flow of work. Maybe in these cases it is better to view these demands as in process demands.
If you treat the demands above as the same for computational and analysis purposes, you will aggregate apples and pairs as being the same fruit. And how useful will the information be? Maybe a better way is to look at the police system from an outside in perspective, and group demands into:
a. Transactional demands - that starts as a demand from the public, and the police provide a service or answer, and then it is complete. These transactional demands can then be further categorised.
b. Help me demands - where a member of the public needs help and support. These cases are sometimes complex, sometimes not directly do with the police, and their resolution may be long term.
c. Different types of demands follow different flows of work. If they do, then these demands are different and be wary of aggregating them into statistics.
So, whats the best thing to do with demands into the police? Be very wary of categorising them to any standard apart from that from the outside in perspective, and use what matters as a guide. Then you will create groups of demands that will truly be useful to operations to analyse how to deal with them.
Real Lean, when combined with systems thinking, gives a view of your organisation that is often difficult to view, in todays pressured and prioritised environment. Using it will help you to see why certain issues remain resistant to change, regardless of how many consultants, or how much money is thrown at it.
A link to Joan Donnelly article on Demand, from Policing Insight here
Then a table is made up of demand. And if youre thinking a little further, you decide to focus using an outside-in perspective, to see what REAL demands are coming in. So split the demand into value and failure demands. Take a systems thinking view of demand.
The demand coming into the police are far more tricky to analyse than transactional based system. Why? well, because these demands are:
1. They are varied. Some demand is a simple questions, some are for requests for police service, and others are just plain calls for help. If you try and combine them together, on a spreadsheet, then you may be working with data that is just too summarised to make any real decisions on. A demand for a shotgun licence, to a call to attend a historic burglary, to a call for a domestic issue, to a call asking about help on a civil matter. Some of those demands will take a great deal of time to answer, and what matters to the caller and the subsequent response is vastly different.
2. In a simpler system, like a bank, a demand is a call for service, and the service delivery follows that demand. With the police a demand may be followed up by subsequent demands, that are of value. They represent communciation that is part of the flow of work. Maybe in these cases it is better to view these demands as in process demands.
If you treat the demands above as the same for computational and analysis purposes, you will aggregate apples and pairs as being the same fruit. And how useful will the information be? Maybe a better way is to look at the police system from an outside in perspective, and group demands into:
a. Transactional demands - that starts as a demand from the public, and the police provide a service or answer, and then it is complete. These transactional demands can then be further categorised.
b. Help me demands - where a member of the public needs help and support. These cases are sometimes complex, sometimes not directly do with the police, and their resolution may be long term.
c. Different types of demands follow different flows of work. If they do, then these demands are different and be wary of aggregating them into statistics.
So, whats the best thing to do with demands into the police? Be very wary of categorising them to any standard apart from that from the outside in perspective, and use what matters as a guide. Then you will create groups of demands that will truly be useful to operations to analyse how to deal with them.
Real Lean, when combined with systems thinking, gives a view of your organisation that is often difficult to view, in todays pressured and prioritised environment. Using it will help you to see why certain issues remain resistant to change, regardless of how many consultants, or how much money is thrown at it.
A link to Joan Donnelly article on Demand, from Policing Insight here
Commissioning and outsourcing has failed in the public sector, and we need to learn the lessons for next time someone in government thinks they have a good idea
We probably have to thank Margaret Thatcher for creating the space in the public sector to embrace outsourcing and commissioning through new public management. The idea was to inject private sector thinking in to a local authority. A very good idea... Local authorities are in sore need of being able to manage and view their organisations differently, especially when there is no real impetus for change.
Did it work? Was it the right thing to do? Well, introducing elements of the private sector is fine as long as they are the right elements, but what have we been left with? Competition! Thats the method that is used in commissioning and outsourcing to drive down costs and improve service. Thats all very well if we can draw parallels between the private sector customer connsumer ethos. But a council does not providing a consumer service, they do something very different.
So the impact of outsourcing and commissioning in a local authority has been to reduce costs for those services from an accounting perspective. However, the impact of outsourcing in reality is being locked to a fixed agreement: unable to change, being charged for additional work, unwillingness to work across other services, and potentially costs not being reduced in the long term. The woes of a service that has been outsourced are legendary.
Universal Credit has outsourcing at its heart, and despite all attempts to 'fix it' the root cause of the flawed design is at its core.
Today, councils all over the UK have realised that this appropach has largely failed. And they are rapidly taking most of those same services back in-house.
Did it work? Was it the right thing to do? Well, introducing elements of the private sector is fine as long as they are the right elements, but what have we been left with? Competition! Thats the method that is used in commissioning and outsourcing to drive down costs and improve service. Thats all very well if we can draw parallels between the private sector customer connsumer ethos. But a council does not providing a consumer service, they do something very different.
So the impact of outsourcing and commissioning in a local authority has been to reduce costs for those services from an accounting perspective. However, the impact of outsourcing in reality is being locked to a fixed agreement: unable to change, being charged for additional work, unwillingness to work across other services, and potentially costs not being reduced in the long term. The woes of a service that has been outsourced are legendary.
Universal Credit has outsourcing at its heart, and despite all attempts to 'fix it' the root cause of the flawed design is at its core.
Today, councils all over the UK have realised that this appropach has largely failed. And they are rapidly taking most of those same services back in-house.
What is the problem?
Looking at outsourcing systemically, there are two main aspects of this approach that point to inappropriate design.
1. Outcourcing works by designing services functionally. This also meanas that they have to be defined by standard flows and procedures. Many public sector demands require flexibility, continuity of knowledge, and they change over time. Thiese factors cnnot be served by this standardisation.
2. Dealing with complexity using standard transactionally designed services simply will not work. transactions are defined by tame and linear defined workflows. Complexity is defined by dealing with demands as they present themselves according to their context. This confusion in design will drive up cost and create a very poor outcome.
In both cases an understanding of systems thinking and complexity will point the way to a design that fits people centred services.
1. Outcourcing works by designing services functionally. This also meanas that they have to be defined by standard flows and procedures. Many public sector demands require flexibility, continuity of knowledge, and they change over time. Thiese factors cnnot be served by this standardisation.
2. Dealing with complexity using standard transactionally designed services simply will not work. transactions are defined by tame and linear defined workflows. Complexity is defined by dealing with demands as they present themselves according to their context. This confusion in design will drive up cost and create a very poor outcome.
In both cases an understanding of systems thinking and complexity will point the way to a design that fits people centred services.
Can it work?
Commissioning and outsourcing can work if you can get agreement based around a common systemic purpose. And the agreement is based on true cost (open book). If not, then you get the problems with commissioning that is destroying the NHS.
As an example, Fareham council is redesigning its services using a systems thinking approach. Their managers have already redesigned their own services, and are continuing to refine their effectiveness. Its only by transformation that any organisation can achieve effective reduction in cost. They have also outsourced where appropriate, but in the main, they have decided to get the right sort of management of their services and deal with most things in-house.
As an example, Fareham council is redesigning its services using a systems thinking approach. Their managers have already redesigned their own services, and are continuing to refine their effectiveness. Its only by transformation that any organisation can achieve effective reduction in cost. They have also outsourced where appropriate, but in the main, they have decided to get the right sort of management of their services and deal with most things in-house.