Discussion of Principle 5
From Theconnectedrepublic
5) A Feedback-driven Public Sector: Government 2.0 will be radically closer to citizens and will give multiple and real opportunities for feedback, will allow citizens to see all the feedback from others and will ensure the feedback has a real impact in shaping its decisions.
Contents |
General Comments
Both Principles 4 & 5 will depend critically on citizens feeling that it is Safe to Play, as set out in the Safe to Play position paper commissioned by Cisco in 2007 & available at the TCR White Papers page, http://www.theconnectedrepublic.org/downloads.
Problem of the Noisiest Wheel Government will also have to work out how to ensure an appropriate balance between 'noisiest wheel' & 'evidence based' input. Otherwise, an online equivalent of 'mob rule' or 'lowest common denominator' is possible. There is more potential for this where those providing input don't have to meet the cost of providing the input they have suggested - co-production does not suffer from this much if at all, but where one party is suggesting another party act without the first party having to pay for it in some way, these distortions potentially appear. It will be useful to address this question in this paper.
Clearly there are important issues about whether feedback is representative because certain groups do not internet access or skills (or interest?) in using online feedback channels. However, this issue needs to be looked at in specific contexts and generally involving some users should surely be better than involving none. Also feedback-driven does not mean: all decisions are driven by some form of online voting! I think the important point is a shift in mindset so that public sector organisations expect to be in a real-time dialogue with citizens on as wide a range of issues as possible. Clearly use of online tools can really drive this and make it easy for the organisation to involve lots of people on lots of issues at relatively low cost while simultaneously allowing citizens to contribute with low costs in terms of their time and effort. However, even if a lot of feedback and citizen involvement is digital (and of course that can mean via mobile phone as well as via PC), any organisation that has shifted to an approach that assumes dialogue should be happening will also want to exclude other forms of dialogue with citizens/users particularly if it is clear that a significant proportion of its users are digital excluded or digitally disinclined. In all of this, I think the default assumption should be that all feedback the organisation receives is fully shared with the public and that its response to the feedback (including any doubts about representativeness etc) is itself transparent and so open for challenge and discussion as long with everything else.
Potential Benefits
[Insert your comments here] --Msweeks 08:00, 1 June 2008 (BST)The obvious ones would include transparency, insight and legitimacy. Of course, the three are all linked, roughly like this. Decisions are likely to be see to be more legitimate if they can demonstrate that they are based on a wide and inclusive search for the best ideas and smart thinking and if the process by which those ideas are sourced, analysed and then used (or discarded) is itselt open and trackable. As the comment above makes clear, the question is not only about the number and variety of 'voices' in the discussion, although that is part of it. It is about being able o see who the voices are, what they are saying, what their interests are and then how their ideas are weighed in the final decision or action that is then taken.
Potential Barriers
[Insert your comments here] --Msweeks 08:10, 1 June 2008 (BST)I think one of the barriers is about 'standing' ie determining who is qualified to give the feedback in the first place. I know some are critical of the focus group approach to policy making, for example, where governments claim backing or opposition for an idea based on focus group polling. The criticism flows from questions about the qualifications or experience of those being talked to. Asking citizens about foreign policy or nuclear power options or other relatively abstruse issues simply tells you how they feel about an issue and what their prejudices might be. Why do we listen to people, the criticism goes, who don't have the knowledge or expeirence to comment anyway?
The criticism zeros in on a key issue about the differnet types of knowledge or information that the policy process might source by way of feedback. Sometimes experiential knowledge that is all about how people think and feel from the perspectives of their day-to-day lives is exactly the 'wisdom' we're after. Other times, we need the input of different types of 'expert' knowledge. So the discussion about feedback needs to differentiate between different types of knowledge or insight that we want the feedback mechanisms - which should as a general rule be rich and extensive - to uncover.
To what extent is the public servant the barrier in the process? Do most public servants tasked with community engagement think beyond the focus group, the public meeting or the mail back survey? Building the skills and confidence of the engagers will be important, as will showcasing 'what works'.
Government could also start using some of the new 'scraping' tools which identify and track comments on online forums to provide a richer view of the other conversations which are taking place about specific topics rather than just the views of those who are responding formally. I dont know how it actually works but saw a recent example from Delib about the London mayoral election.
Real-life Examples
[Insert your examples here]
