Interesting elsewhere – 2 April 2014

2 April 2014

Things which caught my eye elsewhere on the web

    Why it is not possible to regulate robots | Technology |
    We really only know how to make one kind of computer: the "general purpose computer" that can execute every instruction that can be expressed in symbolic logic. Put more simply: we only know how to make a computer that can run every programme.

    Thirty Percent Feedback
    When you meet someone who is hungry for tough feedback, the effect is powerful.  You can just tell that they’re going to be successful because they are so hungry for information.  Their pace of learning is so much quicker than anyone else who toils alone.  They don’t take criticism of their work personally, and because of this, they exude a deep sense of confidence.  I’m always inspired when I see that in its purest form.

    danah boyd | apophenia » Why Snapchat is Valuable: It’s All About Attention
    Snapchat is a reminder that constraints have a social purpose, that there is beauty in simplicity, and that the ephemeral is valuable.

    It’s not about making a comment. It’s about making a difference | Patient Opinion
    Patient Opinion is nothing like Tripadvisor. This isn’t about “reviewing” a service or comparing “top-rated” services. It is about an effective, scalable collaboration between patients and staff, right across the NHS, to make care better.

    Digital public management – Jerry Fishenden
    While technology remains an enabler of new opportunities in the design of our public services, digital is not primarily about technology. At its core are new organisational values and practices: successful digital organisations have user-centric operating models clustered around speed and adaptability.

    Sound of success: finding perfect acoustics for a productive office
    "We need architects to start designing offices that are fit for the ears as well as the eyes," says Treasure. "We really need to start designing for all the senses and end up with offices that are truly fit for purpose."

    But what would you do instead?
    We’ve always done it this way. Yep. That’s probably the biggest barrier to any change. Someone has to make a decision to do something differently. Yes, that involves some risk. Yes, that means you’ll be vulnerable.

    Instead – don’t go it alone. Find others in your organisation willing to share the risk with you. Find collaborators from outside who can bring in new ideas.

    We Don’t Sell Saddles Here — Medium, Long — Medium
    When you want something really bad, you will put up with a lot of flaws. But if you do not yet know you want something, your tolerance will be much lower. That’s why it is especially important for us to build a beautiful, elegant and considerate piece of software. Every bit of grace, refinement, and thoughtfulness on our part will pull people along. Every petty irritation will stop them and give the impression that it is not worth it.

    Schneier on Security: The Insecurity of Secret IT Systems
    I used to decry secret security systems as "security by obscurity." I now say it more strongly: "obscurity means insecurity."

What is a digital leader?

24 March 2014

What is a digital leader who doesn’t do digital? Not a digital leader would be a one obvious answer (though not the only one possible).

Perhaps we need to reflect on what constitutes a minimum viable digital leader. And that in turn suggests that the answer should be specified in terms of user needs.

But whoever this group is and whatever their starting point, it’s a safe bet that they will be more digital after a day with Chris.

Aphorism 110

14 March 2014

History books tell us as much about the time they were written as the time they were written about.

Tom Streithorst

Past aphorisms are collected on the aphorism archive page

Aphorism 109

13 March 2014

[Martin Luther King] gave the “I have a dream” speech, not the “I have a plan” speech.

Simon Sinek

Past aphorisms are collected on the aphorism archive page

Digital is political

12 March 2014

Governments govern. Oppositions oppose – or, more positively, present an alternative set of policies based on an alternative political perspective. Political initiatives taken by one government will be looked at critically by its potential successors, for the obvious reason that the decisions embodied in those initiatives will have been taken by people with different political goals, different political instincts and in a different political context.

That doesn’t, of course, mean that every decision taken by one government is overturned by the next. It does mean that new policies and new institutions created by one government are likely to be looked at closely by parties with the ambition to form the next government, and mere assertions of the virtues of those policies by third parties are unlikely to be persuasive. Some policies survive that scrutiny and go on to be part of the shared understanding of what governments do and how they do it. Others do not.

And that brings us to a little flurry of concern yesterday about a Computer Weekly article on a Labour party review of digital government, with a headline which proclaims

GDS becomes political as Labour launches digital government review

I am not interested, for this purpose, in whether the questions said to be covered in that review are good questions or whether the right assumptions are being made about what the best answers might be. What I am interested in about the article and some of the commentary round it is two points.

The first is the implication that a review by Labour politicises something which was previously apolitical. The second is that it is somehow illegitimate to question the government’s digital policy in general and GDS in particular. Behind them both is the idea that there is an objectively correct policy which, once found, should transcend politics. That matters not just because it is wrong – though it is (as I argued in much more detail in a post last year) – but because it sets up the wrong kind of argument.

GDS is a creature of the current government and is the result of decisions by its ministers. Those decisions were made in the context of a set of political views and priorities. That doesn’t make GDS itself a political organisation, it doesn’t mean that those who work there share the ideological framework of its political creators, and it certainly doesn’t mean that the only possible justification for what it does and how it does it is in terms of that ideological framework. But it does mean that the existence of GDS is and always has been political, in the same sense that every other policy and its implementation is political.

Should Labour come to power after the next election, the people in GDS will carry on implementing the policy of the government of the day, because that’s what civil servants do. That policy may be to continue on the current path. It may be to adjust it marginally – to prioritise the development of one service over another, for example. Or it may be to change the approach more radically, perhaps to the extent of changing what GDS does or dispensing with it altogether. Whatever it is, civil servants will do their best to make it happen, again because that’s what civil servants do. It’s not the job of anybody in GDS to express a preference between a government by – or the policies of – one party rather than another, so they won’t.

That doesn’t stop anybody else, of course, from attempting to persuade any party they choose of any policy they choose to advocate, including the policy of not changing the current policy. On the contrary, doing so is also a vital part of the political process.

The potential mistake is not in having a view that the Labour party should have a digital policy which is broadly a continuation of the policy of the present government.1 It is not even in having a view that policy continuity in this area itself has value. The mistake is in claiming that such a policy would somehow be less political than any other. It might be less politically contentious, but that isn’t at all the same thing.

“I want to take the politics out of this” is often a way of saying “I want to make it illegitimate to challenge the status quo”. Politics is the art of making public choices, and we do not make an issue less political by denying that there are choices involved.

Technology is not neutral. Service design is not neutral. Decisions about priorities and resources are not neutral. There are some important questions facing the future government – any future government – about where digital goes next. The decisions and priorities of 2015 (to say nothing of 2020) will not be those of 2010. The Computer Weekly article and commentary by Alex Blandford and Matthew Cain all make good points about what the issues are and how they should be thought about. There are debates to be had, and we all benefit if well-informed people take part in those debates and influence their direction.

But those debates are intrinsically political, because digital is political.

  1. Though I am not expressing an opinion myself one way or the other.

Aphorism 108

12 March 2014

Think of a digital strategy as a change programme rather than a technology programme.

Helen Milner, quoted by Andrew van Doorn

Past aphorisms are collected on the aphorism archive page

Aphorism 107

11 March 2014

The word ‘innovate’ is overused generally, and misapplied often.

Joanne Jacobs

Past aphorisms are collected on the aphorism archive page

Aphorism 106

10 March 2014

Science is a tribute to what we can know, although we are fallible.

Jacob Bronowski, speaking at Auschwitz about the power of science against absolutism.

Past aphorisms are collected on the aphorism archive page

Aphorism 105

21 February 2014

A well-managed hierarchy is among the most effective weapons for getting rid of the friction, incompetence, and politics that plague bad organisations.

Chris Fry, quoted by Flip Chart Rick

Past aphorisms are collected on the aphorism archive page

Aphorism 104

20 February 2014

Listening is not the same as waiting to speak.

Penny Walker via Ann Kempster

Past aphorisms are collected on the aphorism archive page