There have been a few cases in the media where research has been done into the outcomes on the ground of public spending.
(I am afraid I only have these results verbally, but they accord with less well researched results I have seen elsewhere.)
The study was into a family in Swindon that over a period of ten years was in various sorts of low grade trouble. A number of public services contributed to the support this family received, at an average cost for each year of £235,000. The family was in no better shape at the end of this investment than they were at the start. The proportion of the expenditure that was construed to have been spent on the family to their immediate benefit was 3%.
The question of what the POSIWID of public services like social care or the police or the benefit system might be is crucial in the current climate. As a starter for 10 I would suggest that in the large it has been important to say that something is being done. In the small, it has been important to say that best practice has been followed. I think it is moot whether we will move at all to transparent decision making on the basis of evidence of what makes a difference.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Don't Waste A Miracle
Until this week, the term "Miracle of Chile" generally referred to the disputed economic transformation of Chile from the 1980s onwards, attributed by Milton Friedman to monetarism and by Amartya Sen to the rejection of Friedman-style economic liberalism. See Wikipedia.
Yesterday's dramatic rescue of 33 Chilean miners from a mining accident in San Jose has been popularly described as a miracle [Channel4 News, Daily Telegraph, Get Religion, Washington Post]. The Vatican had sent rosaries to the trapped miners, and will doubtless wish to use this miracle in justifying some future beatification or canonization procedure - perhaps even that of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI himself.
In Don't Waste A Crisis, I discussed the cliché "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste." We might also think that a miracle is a terrible thing to waste: see my earlier post on The Purpose of Miracles. I don't think we've heard the last of those rosaries.
Yesterday's dramatic rescue of 33 Chilean miners from a mining accident in San Jose has been popularly described as a miracle [Channel4 News, Daily Telegraph, Get Religion, Washington Post]. The Vatican had sent rosaries to the trapped miners, and will doubtless wish to use this miracle in justifying some future beatification or canonization procedure - perhaps even that of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI himself.
In Don't Waste A Crisis, I discussed the cliché "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste." We might also think that a miracle is a terrible thing to waste: see my earlier post on The Purpose of Miracles. I don't think we've heard the last of those rosaries.
Saturday, October 09, 2010
Easier Seddon Done 2
#JohnSeddon has developed a simple approach to service design, which he and his followers call "systems thinking", much to the annoyance of everyone else in the systems thinking world. He has also developed a critique of what he calls The Regime, including some very pertinent observations about the failings of the target culture.
Seddon adopts a highly political language in attacking The Regime, and this hasn't always been helpful in-the-large for tackling the problems of the UK public sector. In my previous post Easier Seddon Done, I noted his complaint that when he wrote a letter to representatives of the regime explaining their errors, he got a “snotty, curt reply”. (Well, who could have predicted this?) Today I found another example of this kind of thing in a heated debate started by @leanblog, The One Where John Seddon Might Be Lying (or Has His Facts Very Very Wrong) (October 2010). In his contribution to the debate, Bill S points to the Vanguard Newsletter Feb 2010 where Seddon admits to harrassing the head of HMRC.
The great systems thinker C. West Churchman identified politics as one of the enemies of the systems approach. Seddon's campaigning approach has resulted in a considerable politicization of the "systems thinking" label. Seddon himself certainly understands the POSIWID principle (in his books he refers to "de facto purpose") so he must take some responsibility for this.
Some additional points about lenscraft
The first point about lenscraft is the principle that no single lens is adequate to solve difficult problems. That principle applies both to the UK government's obsession with targets (which it is thankfully now backing away from) and to Seddon's simple service design alternative. It is when the claims of a given lens are overstated that politicization occurs.
The second point about lenscraft is that any lens can be useful sometimes. There may well be specific contexts where targets are valuable (although I can't think of any right now), and there are probably situations where Seddon's way of looking at the world is useful.
The third point about lenscraft is that any lens needs to be used reflectively and critically. In other words, we need to pay attention to the nature of our own intervention in the situation, and the limitations of the lenses we are using, rather than imagine we have some privileged observation platform. For my part, I am particularly wary of the claim that a given lens is "integral" or for that matter "holistic", because such words imply a kind of cognitive closure, as well as inviting arguments with proponents of rival lenses.
The question this discussion raises for me is what kind of practical systems work is viable (both politically and financially) in an ecosystem that is dominated by such claims and counter-claims.
Related Posts
Easier Seddon Done (June 2008)
Changing How We Think (May 2010)
Demanding Change: Lenscraft
Seddon adopts a highly political language in attacking The Regime, and this hasn't always been helpful in-the-large for tackling the problems of the UK public sector. In my previous post Easier Seddon Done, I noted his complaint that when he wrote a letter to representatives of the regime explaining their errors, he got a “snotty, curt reply”. (Well, who could have predicted this?) Today I found another example of this kind of thing in a heated debate started by @leanblog, The One Where John Seddon Might Be Lying (or Has His Facts Very Very Wrong) (October 2010). In his contribution to the debate, Bill S points to the Vanguard Newsletter Feb 2010 where Seddon admits to harrassing the head of HMRC.
The great systems thinker C. West Churchman identified politics as one of the enemies of the systems approach. Seddon's campaigning approach has resulted in a considerable politicization of the "systems thinking" label. Seddon himself certainly understands the POSIWID principle (in his books he refers to "de facto purpose") so he must take some responsibility for this.
Some additional points about lenscraft
The first point about lenscraft is the principle that no single lens is adequate to solve difficult problems. That principle applies both to the UK government's obsession with targets (which it is thankfully now backing away from) and to Seddon's simple service design alternative. It is when the claims of a given lens are overstated that politicization occurs.
The second point about lenscraft is that any lens can be useful sometimes. There may well be specific contexts where targets are valuable (although I can't think of any right now), and there are probably situations where Seddon's way of looking at the world is useful.
The third point about lenscraft is that any lens needs to be used reflectively and critically. In other words, we need to pay attention to the nature of our own intervention in the situation, and the limitations of the lenses we are using, rather than imagine we have some privileged observation platform. For my part, I am particularly wary of the claim that a given lens is "integral" or for that matter "holistic", because such words imply a kind of cognitive closure, as well as inviting arguments with proponents of rival lenses.
The question this discussion raises for me is what kind of practical systems work is viable (both politically and financially) in an ecosystem that is dominated by such claims and counter-claims.
Related Posts
Easier Seddon Done (June 2008)
Changing How We Think (May 2010)
Demanding Change: Lenscraft
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)