eGov monitor presents a review of the first event in the Transforming Government - Perspectives from the Regions in London and highlights the key discussions and recommendations from the day.
The event was held in RSA in London and the attendees were mostly senior professionals representing various stakeholders from public (both central/local and NHS), private, academic as well as the voluntary sector. Each participant got the opportunity to discuss their areas of interest with others in their specific streams as well as network with those who were part other streams. The conversation started with a brief overview at about 10 am and it did not fizzle out even as people were being ushered out at 7 pm. Everyone who attended enjoyed the unique model of the event and appreciated the opportunity to be part of it through out the series through online activities as well.
The goal for the London Event was to explore those issues and develop a foundation for the next events. Prior to the London event, agenda and briefs for each of the main streams were developed in consultation with the participants for each one of the streams namely “Partnership working”, “Identity management and Data Sharing” and “Developing Sustainable Communities”. Below we have highlighted the key outcomes of the deliberations on the day along with suggestions for the next few events.
What we seek to achieve in each one of those streams in Birmingham and the other events is to develop a consensus based road map for the region around the issues that have been explored in London and also based on our regular stakeholder consultation process.
Partnership Working
You can find the pre-event brief here: node/8568
Everyone attending the stream or sending in their views on the topic agreed that no one department or local authority could deliver truly citizen centric services especially within the constraints of the public purse.
The key discussions on partnership working on the day revolved around shared services especially with David Myers initiating the discussion in the stream. The group as a whole believed that there was a need for more coherent leadership from the Treasury to deliver true partnership as there are significant financial implications which are yet to be resolved.
The major thrust of the discussion was focused upon standardising current practices and procedures especially for back office functions such as HR, Finance etc. All agreed that if corporate functions could be streamlined and aligned then there is potential for large-scale savings which could be released to the front line to deliver better services. The concern expressed by some was whether any research based on ground realities have been taken to identify not only the short term cost savings but the long term benefits to society as a whole. Most importantly, some articulated that many organisations in the public sector have not yet reviewed their internal processes that enable them to partner with others to deliver better services.
For partnerships to work, it was argued, that it must be beyond just shared services. It should begin with an agreement of what the community wants and needs in terms of public services, and which parts can deliver what. It might be case of local authorities working with local authorities, or other public sector bodies or even in some cases work with the third sector and private sectors to deliver effective public services.
Once that is defined it is up to each partner to evaluate its own internal processes and practices and implement those changes that are required to deliver effectively with partners. Technology plays a key role in the process, especially in driving efficiency gains, but effectiveness is often determined by the organisational skills, culture and views of the world which can be very entrenched. It was the recommendation of the group that technology should be seen as a tool and not as a driver for partnership working.
An aspect, participants did not pay much attention to was how partnership with the community could be built and sustained but mentioned as an important aspect of partnership working. We hope to address that in our next few events as well.
Identity Management
You can find the pre-event brief here: node/8558
The Identity Management stream was attended by representatives from a number of organisations ranging from central government departments, to local authorities, police, academics, consultants and private sector companies.
Discussions during day focused primarily on two issues – identity management and data sharing – with additional debate on how the benefits could be communicated to the wider public in a positive manner.
While many aspects of the two main issues were debated, and a number of viewed proffered, the most surprising, encouraging and ultimately unanimous conclusion that was reached was that not only identity management and data sharing are essential to deliver better services for the citizen.
One of the key overriding issues is that Identity Management must benefit all members of society particularly those most disadvantaged. It should not lead to an exacerbation of the existing digital divide.
While the technical challenge remains massive, it is one that is already well known, but any solution must be sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of all citizens.
Successful management of identity requires resolutions of issues that broadly fall under four categories:
- Authentication / Access / security
- Uniquely identifying individuals
- Uniquely verifying individuals
- Permission management – who controls what data we can/cannot see
One major problem discussed was how we decide who has access to what information and on what basis. This is made much more complicated by the fact that people may have multiple “roles” within an organisation, or can represent several organisations. For example, some one may be a teacher in a college during the day, but may also be a student as the same institution in the evening. Adding to the complexity is that different bodies require different types of information, of different levels of sensitivity, but they are all required to talk to each other.
A practical solution to resolve these issue, one that was put forward by local government and viewed as crucial if joined-up government was to work effectively, was a Federated management system.
Rather than devolving management of data access through to local councils, a federated system based on a series of trusted clearing houses, will essentially control who sees what. Instead of making sensitive information available to be viewed by anyone, the system can simply state if a record exists in a particular system. Access to multiple databases will be controlled by the system that will also handle the many roles people can potentially have.
Socitm Consultant Leonard Anderson offered a different take on the question of resolving identity, which rather than relying on assigning a unique identifier to everyone in England and Wales, uses a google-style search engine to query multiple government database that will build up a historical profile of individuals. Human operator can then decide what data is associated with which individual. This approach has several benefits including robust against identity theft, lower technical requirements compared with existing solutions, does not disadvantage citizens on the wrong side of the digital divide (i.e., not reliant on any specific data to establish an identity) and is more tolerant of data currency and accuracy problems.
See node/8685 for a feature article from Leonard Anderson for further details on this new approach.
Data sharing
Data sharing is a key issue if we are to have effective join-up government, but it is also a minefield that raises many concerns.
These include:
- Who owns what data and who is responsible for maintaining accuracy and currency?
- Who decide what data can be shared and with what organizations?
- Who polices data sharing? who polices the policemen?
- Data standards – how do we share data that could potential be held in several different formats?
- What constitutes appropriate access?
Many of these problems boil down to maintain high public confidence in the process of data sharing.
Beyond the media scare stories, when the general public are asked about whether they mind their personal data being shared to improve service delivery, the typical responses is that they approve give proper safeguards.
While strengthening the role of the information commissioner was considered good, this tends to imply a reactive approach to dealing with potential abuses of data sharing. However the ICO can only deal with situations where there is a complaint and is limited in size and budget. Everyone therefore agreed that proactive detection of abuse will be the only effective deterrent. From a technical perspective this can be done.
The problem of abuse tends to arise because there is a human factor involved. Couple with the technical requirements must, therefore be greater guidance from government as to who can share what data, supported by a catalogue setting out common approved data sharing requests. Central government must be clear about its data-sharing requirement and put the appropriate foundations in place.
A second, more practical problem that was raised was the problem of different systems holding the same data in different formats. A typical example is that of date information which can be stored in at least four different formats.
Recommendations from the London stream
- A federated clearing house
- A catalogue of Identity providers
- A review of existing standards and policies on data sharing
- A catalogue of common approved data sharing requests
- Better guidance on who can share what information
- Need for data standardisation and data quality standards across government
- Better information security management: Accountability, proactive detection and enforcement
Sustainable Communities
You can find the pre-event brief here: node/8569
It is agreed upon goals by all political parties and stakeholders involved in the public policy process in “Developing Successful, Safe and Sustainable Communities” that provides a good quality of life with opportunities and addresses digital/social and economic exclusion proactively.
One of the key questions posed at the event was what does transformational government mean to those who are digitally/socially excluded and what could be done to address this very important issue. The role of initiatives such as the UK Online centres were highlighted and the difference they are making in our communities especially for those who do not have the skills to take advantage of the opportunities offered in the knowledge society.
The role of the local community was explored in detail and how the community could work with local authorities and other public sector and third sector bodies to identify the best way transformational government could work in their area. Some suggested online communities with proactive support from the local authority could be the answer. While, some quoting the recent Local Government White Paper argued that it is a role for councillors who should empowered to address these issues and be the prime contact for his/her constituents. This was a challenge that everyone recognised and the discussion revolved around how best to empower communities with the support of public, private, voluntary and academic sectors to deliver public services.
Discussions also revolved around how the different sectors could work together and deliver benefits for their local area. Here, many placed emphasis on human capital and argued that the factor that made Oxfordshire’s example very different was the quality of the human capital. Therefore, according to the group, human capital development in imperative.
The use of GIS was suggested as a policy-enabling tool to identify and address core issues of education, crime, health and transport in a local community. The group agreed that the core responsibility of the government is to provide citizens and business with the tools and support infrastructure so that they can effectively compete in a global economy driven by knowledge and enjoy a high quality of life in a safe, secure and sustainable community.
To find out more details of the event please visit: http://mi.egovmonitor.com/govx/govxevent.asp
