Marxism, the Foundation of 'Joined Up Government'

19 August 2002

By John McHale

This article represents the views of the writer and not that of any other organisation.

Organisations that know they must change often can't get up the head of steam needed to do so, why?

Why is it that the key resource, the people, who have most to offer when change is being considered are the least considered?

There has been a great deal of research indicating that of the small number of projects where benefits are actually measured 60-80% don't deliver any benefits.

There is a considerable body of evidence from a number of sources to support this view, most notably Paul Strassmann in his report, "The Business Value of Computers".

When reviews are undertaken, project success is usually measured in terms of delivery time and cost. However, there is growing evidence that the actual or perceived lack of productivity arises from:

· Lack of understanding of the past

· Measurement error - output and input

· Lag - due to learning and adjustment

· Mismanagement.

However, in my view, there is more the need to not just understand the social dynamics and emotions of people, but to understand them with wisdom, insight, and practicality.

Since any change effort, from local government reorganisation to providing joined up services, inevitably involves people, it's hard to believe that no one has looked to address the two main concerns, head on:

· The past, and

· The people who deliver the change.

It has been well documented that the major consultancy houses look at the 'modern' consultancy model:

· We are here

· We want to get there

· How do we get there.

There are many well-documented cases of projects that have failed to deliver the perceived benefits. Nevertheless, before one can look at a project with any forward thinking, there is the need to understand the history of the 'body' evaluating any change initiative.

Karl Marx stated that we need to understand our history and where we have come from before we can look forward. There is an old Russian saying that says "to have one eye looking at the past you are blind in one eye, to have no eyes looking at the past you are blind in both eyes". This is contrary to modern day consulting thinking that tends to minimise the role of an organisation's history as symptomatic of 'old' or 'negative' thinking.

Until we understand and accept that we have history, that there have to be lessons learnt from that history, and that we understand better our 'sense of self', then it is inevitable that more projects will fail to achieve their goals.

Activity Theory, as developed from some of the ideas of Karl Marx, is one method of understanding and making sense of the history of organisations.

The main principle is to Focus on Practice. This requires us to:

· organise around what people 'do' (rather than what they 'know'),

· identify who is involved,

· understand what brings them together and

· determine the factors that mediate their shared endeavours.

This avoids the separation of the individual from collective behaviour, or social from technological factors.

Activity theory analyses and develops the relations between agents, the communities to which they belong and the conceptions they have of their activities.

Why Focus on Practice?

The people who implement the 'new' change are very often the same people who enacted the previous failed project, thereby running the risk that the new project will fail to deliver.

Culture is in essence what is being challenged. There has to be a new way of delivering these services, however the challenge is to integrate the new thinking with the old culture.

How is this delivered?

A consultant - operating as a facilitator - helps the change delivery agents of an organisational unit to analyse the history of their collective activity and identify current challenges for organisational development.

These change delivery agents then construct their vision for the future form and objectives of their work that will enable them to address these challenges collectively.

Then another group (e.g. senior management) have a go - presenting their contrasting perspective on things (such as the official strategy of the organisation).

As a result of this dialogue with the consultant and management, the change delivery agents modify their vision and develop a set of concrete innovations that become the first experimental steps to change their work practice.

Example

In our research in support of the Public Policy Forum work on innovation in the NHS, we have found an interesting example of the application of Activity Theory.

A group of researchers from the Centre for Developmental Work Research, University of Helsinki have been engaged on a project with the health authorities in Helsinki, aimed at developing an innovative approach to the management of integrated care pathways for patients with chronic illnesses. The project aimed to develop an expansive solution for the management of chronic illnesses where no one agency or practitioner is in control of the care pathway.

The project involves the creation of care agreements - negotiated face-to-face by all relevant stakeholders (including the patient) in the care of a particular individual. The agreement contains an account of the historical care of the patient, including the patient's own personal interpretations and concerns. A plan is then negotiated for the future co-ordination of care and a supporting administrative and institutional infrastructure is developed.

The project recognises the complexity of developing integrated pathways for the care of patients with complex and unpredictable chronic illnesses.

The following link contains a full exploration of the project: http://www.ncrl2001.org/engestrom-symposium.pdf

Practitioners of the world unite?

Although the term Activity Theory, its Marxist origins and its development in the world of academia may be off-putting to some, we believe the technique has profound implications for developing new and innovative approaches to transforming public services. It challenges the obsession with new approaches that learn nothing from the past and creates a more profound basis for sustained change.

The challenge all innovators face is how to ensure they can continue to develop new approaches and learn from similar experiences elsewhere. Activity Theory can help here and perhaps to adapt another of Marx's quotes: "Practitioners of the world unite - you have nothing to lose but your preconceptions."

Contact: john.mchale@bt.com

John McHale, Business Interventionist, working in the government sector, provides eGov monitor with his personal perspective on joined-up government. John focuses on change management and his interests are housing and social work aspects of government. He has researched change management at postgraduate level and has an in-depth knowledge and view on the challenges the many government bodies have in creating a citizen focussed joined up government. His current activity is looking at what services local authorities could be providing in the housing sector, that could enable the citizen to have a single view on all their housing needs.

This article represents the views of the writer and not that of any other organisation.