A most interesting piece that highlights the core thinking that permeates the civil service and the decision-making principles of those in senior public service positions. The UK seems to take pride in its ability to maintain a civil service that is immovable!
This article focuses on technology, but there are direct parallels with how the whole of the civil service and public sector design and change occurs. The UK is known internationally for its public sector innovation, but this innovation occurs outside the realm of the civil service and other public institutions. There are myriads of people and groups that pioneer innovation in local government, and in communities around the UK, occurring with greater intensity over the past 2 decades. This is born from a clear perception that the seismic shifts of New Public Management have allowed the creation of designs, within in its fundamentals, lie a failed design. This fact appears not visible to decision-makers, despite the fact that so many of us have been demonstrating the evidence of this failed approach for so long.
The new NHS 10 year plan is a good example. It now reverses all the trends that the NHS has been following, but do those that constructed the plan recognise that the fundamentals also have to change? If so, then they have not communicated that in the document. This is important as many will simply attempt to implement the plan, using the current thinking for change and operational design.
Thank you. This is very useful, even if depressing. Canada faces the same or very similar issues. Reliance on old (no longer appropriate) paradigms, reinventing the wheel over and over again, overly risk averse, way behind on digitalization, and so on. This is an area where UK and Canada could collaborate, along with civil service reform, defence, AI, quantum, etc. Even if we each seek competitive advantage in the global marketplace, playing the zero sum game is not the most productive way to proceed. We both essentially know what to do. It is the doing of it that endlessly falls into the 'too hard' basket. (And BTW we have critical minerals ...)
"In the UK our default is still to create a committee to review the landscape, and if a new institution is to be created..."
A committee stuffed with the usual suspects.
Has government innovation caught up with the death of "third generation R&D" and the decline by many big companies investment in long-term research? No more ICIs with chemical research that could match many academic departments.
What is left of "big engineering" in the UK seems to rely on universities to develop results nearer to take off. Inevitably D is more costly that R, with knock effects on budgets and the work that gets done.
A most interesting piece that highlights the core thinking that permeates the civil service and the decision-making principles of those in senior public service positions. The UK seems to take pride in its ability to maintain a civil service that is immovable!
This article focuses on technology, but there are direct parallels with how the whole of the civil service and public sector design and change occurs. The UK is known internationally for its public sector innovation, but this innovation occurs outside the realm of the civil service and other public institutions. There are myriads of people and groups that pioneer innovation in local government, and in communities around the UK, occurring with greater intensity over the past 2 decades. This is born from a clear perception that the seismic shifts of New Public Management have allowed the creation of designs, within in its fundamentals, lie a failed design. This fact appears not visible to decision-makers, despite the fact that so many of us have been demonstrating the evidence of this failed approach for so long.
The new NHS 10 year plan is a good example. It now reverses all the trends that the NHS has been following, but do those that constructed the plan recognise that the fundamentals also have to change? If so, then they have not communicated that in the document. This is important as many will simply attempt to implement the plan, using the current thinking for change and operational design.
Hi, pleased to hear from you again Su
Thank you. This is very useful, even if depressing. Canada faces the same or very similar issues. Reliance on old (no longer appropriate) paradigms, reinventing the wheel over and over again, overly risk averse, way behind on digitalization, and so on. This is an area where UK and Canada could collaborate, along with civil service reform, defence, AI, quantum, etc. Even if we each seek competitive advantage in the global marketplace, playing the zero sum game is not the most productive way to proceed. We both essentially know what to do. It is the doing of it that endlessly falls into the 'too hard' basket. (And BTW we have critical minerals ...)
"In the UK our default is still to create a committee to review the landscape, and if a new institution is to be created..."
A committee stuffed with the usual suspects.
Has government innovation caught up with the death of "third generation R&D" and the decline by many big companies investment in long-term research? No more ICIs with chemical research that could match many academic departments.
What is left of "big engineering" in the UK seems to rely on universities to develop results nearer to take off. Inevitably D is more costly that R, with knock effects on budgets and the work that gets done.