Innovation & Reform in Central Government

Innovation and reform in central government

Roundtable seminar with Paul Maltby, Director of Open Data and Government Innovation at the Cabinet Office

Reform, 45 Great Peter Street, London SW1P 3LT Tuesday 25 March

Reform45 Great Peter StreetLondonSW1P 3LT

T 020 7799 [email protected]

Reform is an independent, non-party think tank whose mission is to set out a better way to deliver public services and economic prosperity. Reform is a registered charity, the Reform Research Trust, charity no. 1103739. This publication is the property of the Reform Research Trust.

We believe that by reforming the public sector, increasing investment and extending choice, high quality services can be made available for everyone.

Our vision is of a Britain with 21st Century healthcare, high standards in schools, a modern and efficient transport system, safe streets, and a free, dynamic and competitive economy.

The roundtable seminar was financially supported by Tata Consultancy Services:

1www.reform.co.uk


Reform comment

The 2014 Budget confirmed what many suspected – that the pressure on public finances will certainly continue for this Parliament and, in all likelihood for years to come. This means successful public service reform remains a top priority for UK central government. With less money to spend, new and innovative ways of delivering public services have to be found; the potential of technology and data must be harnessed to deliver these efficiencies. In February the Government awarded £1.5 million to projects that unlock data from public bodies, and in April’s Budget the Chancellor announced a further £42 million investment in the Alan Turing Institute for Data Science, to strengthen the UK’s aim to be a world leader in the analysis and application of big data.

Of course, data is only useful to the Government – or the public – if it supports them in making a decision. Moreover, raw data holds little value to the majority of the population who have yet to grasp its full potential in their day-to-day lives. A technological cultural change is happening, but there is more the Government can do to speed it up. The skills of the civil service must be improved so that the opportunities for innovation in our public services, and the wider economic benefits this brings, are better understood. Equally important is the need to foster a culture that accepts a certain level of risk in order to test new and innovative approaches to public service delivery. This cultural change requires leadership and permission from Ministers and Senior Civil Servants, with explicit reassurance that not only is it acceptable to take risks in search of better solutions, but that such behaviour will be visibly rewarded.

To ensure such reforms deliver the required savings, cultural change and wider permissions cannot be driven from the top-down. The public will only engage with the data and reform agenda if people understand how it is relevant to them,

including identifying what decisions they face that could be informed by it, as well as the wider benefit of making their own data available in an appropriate format. This requires permission from the individual or the provider, which in itself requires assurance that this proves no risk to their security. To encourage data sharing the public and industry must be reassured that their data is controlled but also offered incentives to do so. We often share data about ourselves with retailers in order to get better deals. The Government must communicate similar service “deals” that the public will be able to access if their data is shared.

Innovation and reform remain vital to this Government if it is to continue to deliver effective public services. To succeed, it must harness the ongoing pressure on public finances to drive a change in the culture of the civil service and the wider public – with stronger leadership from the top and greater acceptance of the risks and benefits of innovation.

Richard Harries, Deputy Director, Reform

2 www.reform.co.uk


In March this year, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) reported that public sector net debt as a proportion of GDP would rise in 2015-16, not fall, corroborating its earlier forecasts. It has since been suggested that the Government’s fiscal programme is deferring the pain of the crisis, making next Parliament a “dumping ground” for problems deemed too difficult to resolve in this one.

So will innovation and public service reform happen? All three main parties appear to recognise that public sector budgets will be hit to an even greater extent next Parliament than this, in order to meet the current Government’s borrowing targets. The question is whether the executive is enabled to innovate around tighter public finances.

It is clear that the Government faces a choice of either offering fewer public services, or innovating to deliver more for less. In the immediate term, central government has put emphasis on innovation as a means to deliver better public services in periods of austerity. The Cabinet Office’s Digital Strategy and associated initiatives reinforce the ambition that technology will release innovation across government and the public sector.

Innovation involves taking risks and embracing the potential for failure. Yet this process of trial and error is not normally associated with the public sector mind-set. In some cases, civil servants are under greater pressure than their private sector counterparts to deliver value for money, as they manage public accounts. The increasingly popularised role of Select Committees through the media has also increased public scrutiny of the executive.

But the civil service should be enabled to take some risks without the reproach of Parliament. This presents a real challenge. If the challenge is overcome, innovation from new technologies can be released into the public sector.

Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) has witnessed a number of industries shift towards digital models of working. For example, digitisation has now completely revolutionised how the retail and financial service sectors operate. However, those transformations have been borne out of competitive pressure, rather than budgetary constraint. Business has to deliver more for less in order to maintain margins and competitive advantage.

Digitisation requires putting the consumer at the heart of the transaction process. It requires an organisation to consider how technology can make a difference to the consumer from the front to back office. For that reason, digitisation offers huge financial returns. For example, TCS digitisation projects in the public sector have been focused on removing redundant steps in transaction processes to both improve the customer experience and deliver financial savings.

Innovation requires a nexus of digitisation, mobilisation, big data and analytics. Digitisation has the power to improve overall citizen experience of government services, but citizens should also be mobilised through access from a variety of different devices. Additionally, interpreting big data sets through the use of analytics can provide valuable insights into government-citizen interactions. Government needs to consider all these topics in collaboration to transform public services. Integrating each new technological channel with pre-existing ones, such as paper correspondence and telephone, will be essential.

Open data is not just about exposing vast waves of information to the electorate. The real power of open data is an intelligent analysis of centrally-held information explicated in terminology that the electorate can understand. For example, while the creation of the OBR has brought welcome transparency to budgetary forecasts, the OBR’s

Tata Consultancy Services comment

Damien Venkatasamy, Director of Public Sector, Tata Consultancy Services

3www.reform.co.uk


publications are still intractable to those without the economic knowledge to interpret their models. Truly open data should aid democracy, enabling citizens to make better informed decisions and increasing the transparency and accountability of government.

Sharing information across departmental boundaries is another crucial aspect to achieving open data. Yet cultural resistance to sharing information is holding back innovation. Government should embrace the opportunity to create a much more holistic view of citizens and the services they receive. Not least, good data sharing mechanisms enable the detection of fraud and leakage in the whole system.

There is huge opportunity for technology to enable public service reform and alleviate pressure within current budgetary constraints. Cultural change is the biggest barrier to transforming government in this way. However, if negative attitudes towards central government reform can be overcome, the vision of a highly innovative public sector can be achieved.

4 www.reform.co.uk


Attendees

Patrick BarbourChairman, Barbour Logic Ltd.

Tim HarperEconomic Adviser, Spending and Policy Analysis, Department for Business Innovation and Skills

Heather SavoryChair, Open Data User Group

Claire VigierPolicy Analyist, French Embassy in the UK

Haidee BellProgramme Manager, Creative Economy, NESTA

Richard HarriesDeputy Director, Reform

Katy SawyerResearcher, Reform

Peter CampbellDirector of Corporate Affairs, The Business Services Association

George LeahyDeputy Director, Innovation Policy, Department of Health

Sonia SodhaHead of Public Services & Consumer Rights, Which?

Alice ChadwickCreative Economy Open Data, NESTA

Rob MallowsSenior Policy Advisor, Confederation of British Industry

Ricky TaylorStrategic Analysis Team, Department for Communities and Local Government

Kerry ChapmanRegional Director, Industry Marketing UK & Europe, Tata Consultancy Services

Paul MaltbyDirector, Open Data and Government Innovation, Cabinet Office

Damien Venkatasamy Director of Public Sector, Tata Consultancy Services

Clare FraserResearcher, Reform

Tony O’Connor CBESenior Analytical Strategist, Department of Health

Weijer Vermeer Spokesman and Political Attaché, Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands

5www.reform.co.uk


Edited transcript

Paul Maltby, Director, Open Data and Government Innovation, Cabinet Office began by highlighting the role of the Government Innovation Group in identifying both “the boundaries of government and where the edge of government is,” in order to “draw in some of the new tools and techniques, and ways of thinking about the business of government from the outside world into the mainstream of government.” He also spoke of the Group’s role “and, in the opposite direction, to be able to try and activate those individuals, charities, social enterprises and businesses just outside who are also interested in similar sorts of questions”. He also noted that the “need is going to continue through

the next Parliament”.He said that there is a “sense of

government innovation and open government data that sits somewhat awkwardly with people’s collective sense of what government is and what government does,” but that the role of the Group “is much more about the tools and techniques” rather than specifying outcomes.

He stressed the importance of “thinking about how to involve and activate citizens within the public policy problem section…you need more than the resources that government alone can bring to bear,” and identified two areas for the discussion. The first was how digital and data can be “brought into the

broader government machine, particularly on the policy and operations side”. The second area was “the need for a different civil service mind-set in a world that is necessarily more distributed, in part because of technology and the way in which that has affected our lives.”

With regard to digital he said “it’s clearly centre stage in the commercial world in a different sort of way from

You need more than the resources that government alone can bring to bear.

Paul Maltby

6 www.reform.co.uk


where we are in government… there are too many times when I’ve been working in a policy environment and the core skill brought to bear is essentially one of rhetoric and knowledge of where power lies… and then analysis brought in after the framing decisions are made.” He suggested that there are “three areas within this world of data and its potential transformational impact on how government is working. The first is on open data… to take data that is in the government machine, opening it up, making it machine readable, reducing all of the restrictions on re-use”.

The second is “around data sharing within government… to be able to observe the patterns of what happens on things like social mobility or different categories of the business sector, is

potentially very powerful”. He observed that an underdeveloped area in this was “the use of different types of data, the unstructured data, the speed at which some of that data is both available and redundant, and to be able to make use of that within the government machine.” He added that it was important to “bring those patterns together to use the scarce resources that we have in a different way and to use predictive analytics machine learning in that space.”

The third area was open policy making: “what we mean by open policy making is fourfold. First of all a mind-set that is willing to use new tools and techniques… then to be able to have

access to a range of these sort of tools and techniques, making sure we’re acquiring the greater range of views into a greater range of expertise into the policy making process... It’s also about using different analytical tools and techniques. So I mentioned the data side, but also behavioural insights or systems thinking or wellbeing policy…. And then an agile methodology in terms of implementing the ideas.”

He concluded with the thought: “I think there is really interesting potential beyond the question of the IT and the other services that we’re providing, that something actually goes deeper into how we think about what it is that we do, the way in which we frame it around the user experience, the way in which we’re prepared to think differently.” He asked the audience to share “the ideas that you have about where we should be taking things next, the opportunities that we haven’t explored, and also explain a bit more about how we’re working with others in government to do these things.”

Damien Venkatasamy, Director of Public Services at Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) responded by agreeing with the enduring importance of the topic and commented that “government faces a choice, really, of either doing less in terms of the range of public services it

offers or innovating.” He described one of the challenges to innovation as risk: “More often than not it involves a degree of trial and error… It’s not culturally ingrained within civil servants to take risks, to want to try something and be prepared to fail.” As a result of spending public money there is “an increased amount of scrutiny from parliament itself, and some of the committees… And then last but by no means least, there is the media.” Leading on from this he posed the question: “how can the civil service find a way of taking some of the risks, trial and error, in a way that enables them to move forward without being pulled up in front of the Public Accounts Committee or facing headlines in The Daily Mail?”

He observed that in industry the “shift to the digital model…has been borne out of competitive pressures rather than budgetary constraint. But it’s the same thing. They’ve got to deliver more with less in order to maintain margins and a competitive advantage”. He also commented that “digitisation, is as much about putting the customer at the heart of the whole transaction and looking at how technology from the back office to the front office can really make the customer, or in this case the citizen, the fulcrum of how the service is delivered”.

There are too many times when I’ve been working in a policy environment and the core skill brought to bear is essentially one of rhetoric and knowledge of where power lies.

Patrick Barbour

7www.reform.co.uk


Therefore we need to look at “how we can remove redundant steps from the process and make this easier from the citizen’s perspective.”

He identified that the real opportunities were not only around digitisation but also “mobility – people being able to access government services from various different devices…Big data and analytics – how to bring all of those things together to improve the customer experience rather than just looking at any one of them in isolation…And it’s also how do you integrate these new digital technological channels with your pre-existing ones to bridge all of those consumer behaviours.”

To conclude he turned to open data and made two observations. The first was that “it’s pretty inaccessible to the majority of the electorate…I think the real power of open data is doing some kind of intelligent analysis of that and putting it in terminology that the electorate can actually understand and really use the power of open data to increase democracy, transparency and accountability for the government.”

The final concluding observation was that there is “some cultural resistance to sharing information across departmental boundaries. Government has a real opportunity to create a much

more holistic view of citizens and the services they’re delivering to citizens as well as detecting fraud and leakage in the system if they were able to share information more effectively and efficiently between departments. And I don’t think that’s so much a technological issue there or barrier to that. I think it’s much more about the mind-set and the culture.”

Patrick Barbour, Chairman, Barbour Logic Ltd. then posed the question: “the Civil Service’s own reform plan talks about this culture of caution and slow moving, focused on processes and not outcomes, bureaucratic, hierarchical and resistant to change. How do you achieve a culture change?”

Paul Maltby agreed that this was “a really good question… Sometimes there are good reasons for people to be cautious. But I think we’ve got that out of kilter. And I think their Civil Service reform plan is appropriately straightforward about that.” He continued: “As you’ll see, as in any large organisation, you will find those who want to innovate. What my teams do when they do it well – like the people working on social investment, the guys working on open policy making – is that they will be in touch at various different levels with those people who are willing to innovate and try something else

new. So I think there is a bottom-up network approach to this. There is also a top-down permissions thing, and I cannot overstate the importance of that.”

He explained the importance of the ministerial role in “encouraging innovation and reform”, but that it is equally important to “find a methodology that enables us to fail in more appropriate ways. So it’s tried and proven…Somehow the idea that it’s less risky to fail quickly and appropriately in a relatively controlled way I think is not true. I think it’s similar with the open policy mind-set, to be able to go out and say actually we’re only going to make this happen if we can have a proper dialogue with people who are fearful of it, people who disagree with it, and people who are a bit neutral.”

Sonia Sodha, Head of Public Services & Consumer Rights, Which? offered some reflections on Which?’s work: Firstly, “we’re taking the decision to invest in developing free-to-use advice sites for consumers off the back of some of this data that’s coming out of government, to help them hold their public services accountable and to make decisions about public services.” She noted though, that “It’s not just about putting the information out there…it takes a lot of investment …[so that] it’s really user friendly, that really helps real people in their real-world lives to interact with some of this information.”

Her second point was that “I think culture change actually is really important all the way through. And if anything it’s not just about the central civil service…we’ve had quite different experiences

Government has a real opportunity to create a much more holistic view of citizens and the services they’re delivering to citizens.

Sonia Sodha

8 www.reform.co.uk


actually in terms of professional cultures…some professions actually see us as a threat to them and they’ve got involved in the politics of government and data and have lobbied quite strongly against some of this stuff being released. Or actually some professions have really embraced it and said this actually gives us the power to go out there and tell particular services they need to be focusing on X, Y, Z which is what users are really interested in.”

Tony O’Connor CBE, Senior Analytical Strategist, Department of Health commented that he thought the culture “is changing slowly” but that “the problem is of course we touch on some legal issues. And unlike in the commercial sector, quite often we’re talking about data about you. And that’s when people start to get nervous. In the fraud and

error space the public are generally supportive of the idea of maybe linking tax records and benefit records and you could start to investigate it because that’s trying to catch people. But actually when you’re starting to try and find innovations around other public sector areas, like health records – and I don’t need to draw too much attention to care.data – there is a real risk that if we don’t get public confidence we won’t be able to use the data in a way which will improve policy or the quality of services. And this is where we need to identify those demonstrator projects which actually show innovation and the system can change and deliver something different.”

He noted that it was necessary to “free up some resources in order to get those demonstrator projects, identify

them, and then publicise them...to bring the public confidence with it; because care.data itself could actually put data sharing back rather than forward.” He identified three areas in the health space that data could be used in: the first was “the classic research element – the more information you have, the more data you have”. The second was “the targeted services approach – where you can have your dedicated healthcare”. The third area that he suggested was to collect the data and “provide it to the service providers in a way that they are developing and learning and understanding in real time, from a larger data set which they weren’t aware of, so they can start to link together different attributes.”

He concluded with the observation that “Data is not information, information

Heather Savory, Damian Venkatasamy and Richard Harries

9www.reform.co.uk


is not insight, insights aren’t solutions and actually we need to work our way down that spectrum, because in government there are plenty of problems, and actually we’re looking for solutions. Just putting the data out there doesn’t get us there.”

Peter Campbell, Director of Corporate Affairs, The Business Services Association commented that “more could be done in terms of the public sector markets and the use of data when a public service is provided by an organisation that is not governmental” and noted that “in many cases when the private sector provides a service, there is already more data, in terms of KPIs and similar. When the public sector provides a service, if the same amount of information was available for potential

private sector, social enterprise or voluntary sector providers, then that would unleash a great deal of innovation.” He asked “is the view within government that there has been this kind of big data dump and now it’s up to everyone else to sort the data out; or that we’ve reached a limit of the data that can be released because of ownership; or that there are further ideas and progress that can be made on making sure that cost and output in terms of public services is more readily available, so that potential providers can show what innovation they could bring to the table?”

Paul Maltby responded that contracts are “going to go through another iteration” of scrutiny “but also you’re freeing up a market, as colleagues at Government Digital Services have done, opening that world to innovative

SMEs rather than the same four massive providers. There is a huge amount of opportunity there, and that is still something we’re chasing down.” He noted that “What I think is interesting is one of the untapped spaces where you have a degree of user voice or choice when interacting with a public service…and actually the things that are there are quite clunky…so I think there are still loads of things we could do.” He also added “there are obviously political choices about what we think government’s role should be in this space, and I’m sure that that would vary according to different political parties. But I’m somewhat wary of government going out and making lots of things. Sometimes – but I’m not sure that that’s our main role.”

Heather Savory, Chair, Open Data User Group commented that “the more data you think about being available, the more the opportunity in both the public sector and for private sector companies. The real point about innovation is you cannot anticipate what people are going to do and we should not try, the platform just needs to be there.” She added that “the availability of data and technology is fantastic but it does not substitute for the need to think, the need to analyse, and the need to add value to actually deliver things of benefit.” She also addressed the view of the citizen: “the point that we need to get across to the citizen is it is still their choice. It is about designing products and services which they can choose to be part of or not. You’ve got to allow people this opt out”.

Finally she added “I just caution everybody against trying to over-engage with the public. Look at real technical innovation. Look at the mobile phone. Nobody ever wanted that; somebody designed it. Look at the tablet computer. Nobody ever wanted that; somebody designed it. I think that same mind-set needs to be applied to the design of new public services. There is almost too much trying to ask the public what they want when they don’t understand what the opportunities are…. But getting your alpha testing of a new product out there

without trying to engage too much first is one of the ways you can get things done much more quickly than the current design in public services.”

George Leahy, Deputy Director, Innovation Policy, Department of Health commented that: “Innovation in all forms comes in from different directions. Sometimes you do need to go out, find the customer, find out what’s motivating them and design things around them. Sometimes somebody is going have an idea and somebody needs to be able to test it, try it, fail, let it fail, improve it, develop it, and nobody paid for it anyway so it doesn’t really matter. That comes back to Paul’s points, really, and I think actually three things at the beginning that he mentioned around risk taking and public money and the scrutiny in the media and the politics…those three points are completely interlinked…how do you create those safe environments that has the confidence of ministers to actually allow you to take an experiment?”

Tim Harper, Economic Adviser, Spending and Policy Analysis, Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) offered some insights into the approach that BIS is taking: “Rather than just roll out programmes and say this is what we’re going to do, it’s really started piloting and looking at examples, seeing if it works, and then waiting. There is a culture of waiting for the feedback to come in, then analysing it and moving forward.” He also mentioned the importance of “getting evaluation data to see where we can get the evidence from things that have gone on to inform the future.”

How do you create those safe environments that has the confidence of ministers to actually allow you to take an experiment?

There is almost too much trying to ask the public what they want when they don’t understand what the opportunities are.

10 www.reform.co.uk


Haidee Bell, Programme Manager, Creative Economy, NESTA directed a question to Paul: “I wonder what your ambitions might be for local authorities?”

Paul Maltby responded: “Local authorities are one of the big priorities to make the shift on… what we’ve got to do is to encourage that agenda around open data, not just about expenses and accountability type data but on to the possibilities.” He offered examples from Manchester (Future Everything) and Leeds (Data Mill) as organisations that say “this is how we can help you and your citizens, rather than these are a set of things you must do because the government told you to do them.”

Kerry Chapman, Regional Director, Industry Marketing UK & Europe, Tata Consultancy Services, added: “Local government is quite interesting because if you look at it, it’s more like a private sector situation in that one local authority doesn’t like to share with another local authority because they’re looking for investment, housing to develop, etc. So they’re almost like competitors in the banking world, whereas in government departments they’re in the business of doing government centrally.”

He also shared the results of a recent survey that found “across local and public leaders’ networks people want training… The next thing they want is they want sharing – they want the data to be shared across government… And the third thing is they want is leadership and drive – they want to know what they’re going to do with it and why they should do it.” He observed that these findings are “similar to what we see in the private sector…in the private sector you can build it, and what’s the question? And that’s really what it comes down to when you look at data and open data. You can provide it, but why do you need to provide it?”

Haidee Bell added that “There may be more innovation that can happen at the local level…there is this in-built competition that many of them want to be the first to get there. We work across Europe on a couple of programmes, and

there is certainly a competition across Europe to be the leading city that’s doing great stuff and showing its impact from open data. There is a huge potential in there to try to win that. So maybe it doesn’t need to follow the GDS and the open data central model, but actually to try to build its own local capabilities.”

Rob Mallows, Senior Policy Advisor, Confederation of British Industry commented that there “is a tremendous sort of wellspring of ideas, whether it’s from the public sector or through data from the private sector” and that this provided “a huge export potential because economies all across the world are facing the same challenges. If we are ahead of the game in how we can use digital and data, not just as a

benefit for us, it actually has huge export potential too. So that’s where I think the government can support in terms of giving life to some of these ideas not just in terms of the UK but globally.”

Heather Savory added: “Business also needs to help government. The issues around the procurement of public services are changing. So the rules are going to be changed such that there is a presumption to have any data which is collected available as open data up front. So that’s first of all because we’ve got difficulties at the moment with legacy systems. So getting that data out, there are contractual things that need to change…But also in terms of openness and joint procurement, business has got to be prepared to have a little bit more of a social conscience and be prepared to open up its own figures because you get this response: ‘well, we can’t possibly have open contracting because how can we possibly be competitive in our industry?’ Well, most sectors know exactly what their competitors are doing in the real world.”

Rob Mallows agreed with this and said: “We have put out a set of principles very much responding to what you’re saying in terms of building in right from

Katy Sawyer, Rob Mallows and Tim Harper

If we are ahead of the game in how we can use digital and data, not just as a benefit for us, it actually has huge export potential too.

11www.reform.co.uk


the get-go the principle about transparency around the contract data, around access to data, around the FOI agenda…There is absolutely a recognition from us, and I think from our members as well, that they have to come part of the way as well, and I think we are very much committed to transparency in procurement.”

Tony O’Connor raised a concern “that we’ve got a solution and we’re still looking for the problem. And it’s actually making sure that we know what we’re going to try to solve.” He also added that there “is a risk of scope creep that we all come here thinking about what our version of what big data or transparency is. And I think there is a call for the potential of using analytics in a different way in order to improve services. But it’s

getting that taxonomy right so we’re using the same language.”

Sonia Sodha responded that “actually when you step back and look at what some local authorities are doing, there is a real disconnect between these mountains of data and what services are being offered. So I think it’s just a point about capability and what central government and other intermediaries can do that isn’t just letting a thousand flowers bloom that encourages that uptake.”

Paul Maltby then posed the question: “What are the areas that should have happened by now but haven’t?”

Heather Savory responded that “For me, I think it’s about within the next twelve months gaining critical mass… in terms of the training…and underlying IT

infrastructure of government and the public sector.” She added that it “needs data available of a good enough standard, but also with commitment that it gets refreshed and updated on a known basis.”

Damien Venkatasamy offered an additional response that he “would have expected a much wider range of services

Richard Harries, Tony O’Connor and Haidee Bell

Business has got to be prepared to have a little bit more of a social conscience and be prepared to open up its own figures.

12 www.reform.co.uk


to be available online and for that service request to be fulfilled online in one transaction.” He agreed that, in the experience of TCS, “the real challenge from a technological standpoint has been the legacy environment that we’ve inherited, the quality of the data, making sense of that in a digital delivery model… a big challenge and a cost.”

Patrick Barbour asked “In how many of the 16 departments of government is the permanent secretary a real champion?”

Paul Maltby responded “different cultures have emerged because each department has got its own preferred way of doing things. Some will regulate.

Some will pass a new law. Some will tax someone. The sort of in-built, long-term movement. But seeing those [civil servants] address this question of ‘how do you bring some of these new tools and techniques into the way in which we do our business’ is something that actually makes me hopeful. There is a set of people there who are actually deeply powerful individuals within the system who are grappling with this in a practical sense and they’re getting their sense of corporate reward by bringing those things on.”

Paul Maltby

Different cultures have emerged because each department has got its own preferred way of doing things. Some will regulate. Some will pass a new law. Some will tax someone.

Reform45 Great Peter StreetLondonSW1P 3LT

T 020 7799 [email protected]

ISBN 978-1-909505-32-2

Date post:	20-Jul-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	the-guardian
View:	74 times
Download:	0 times

Innovation & Reform in Central Government

Documents