This is about the enabling services and infrastructure that make it possible for the Australian Public Service to do its job. These are most often common corporate services such as information technology, human resources, procurement and finance.
As examples, we’ve heard the Australian Public Service:
- is sometimes using old or outdated software because spending money on newer versions could be seen as extravagant
- that budget processes aren’t straight forward
- that it’s not simple to lend your people to short term work if other agencies need their help
Decades from now the enabling services in organisations will look very different. The key to success is how the public service is set up to embrace new ways, run health checks on its system, be nimble and adapt as needed.
The Australian Public Service is already working to improve the efficiency and sustainability of these corporate function.
- What could the Australian Public Service do differently to best direct this investment into the future?
- How would a single enabling services platform across the Australian Public Service benefit you?
We’ve heard the public service needs to do more to address privacy and security concerns, particularly around the use of data.
There is now a Data Commissioner to encourage data sharing. But decades from now:
- How could the service be using and sharing data across organisations or projects? And what about across different jurisdictions?
- Are there systems or practices to reassure people data is being treated carefully and responsibly? That it’s being kept and maintained securely?
Become outcomes focussed.
A recent programme in Queensland government offered small technology companies the opportunity to propose solutions to problems that had been identified across government departments as potentially solvable with some technology.
Feedback was given to each entry if they so requested. The feedback I received didn't make sense. Subsequently I did some contract work in the exact business unit of the department where the person providing feedback worked.
After some time there I enquired with my internal manager as to what had happened. Their response was that the person providing feedback was in their words "the last person who would know what technology could do for government challenges".
Essentially the programme was a cop-out. There had been significant money spent on external consultants to setup this programme and the internal costs of running it, however it seemed to be little more than a marketing exercise where the government was trying to make itself look good and not give true consideration to what was available in the wider community.
Perhaps provide a mechanism for public submissions to review government programmes like these as they conclude.
-Use the KISS priciple -Know who the customers are -Understand the customers requirements
•What could the Australian Public Service do differently to best direct this investment into the future?
Use enterprise software that regular people already use. Don't use any specific software. Staff should be trained to modify that software as needed (e.g. using Visual Basic coding and macros in a spreadsheet) rather than buying tailor made software. Or, they should have access to IT staff who can help them, embedded in their teams even. For instance, we could use the Google Suite. Keep things simple and modular.
•How would a single enabling services platform across the Australian Public Service benefit you?
Increase my likelihood of moving from agency to agency so I don't have to spend time on learning a new software to do the same job, particular when that software isn't even used outside of that one organisation, let alone in the private sector.
•How could the service be using and sharing data across organisations or projects? And what about across different jurisdictions?
You can't make something private after it's been made private. By increase transparency, even at the cost of privacy, we will set a new standard for accountability and people will come to accept it in time. It's a tradeoff, and one that we should make.
•Are there systems or practices to reassure people data is being treated carefully and responsibly? That it’s being kept and maintained securely?
No, because it's an endless arms race and you can't predict whether security threats will prevail or when they will. It's a sure fire way to damage credibility. The best thing is to make it clear that the benefits of data openess outweigh the risks. That means, defeating stigmas associated with certain data becoming known about a person. For instance, data against certain health statuses.
Two ideas here, which at first might seem opposing:
An "Innovation Ombudsman" or equivalent "Innovation Gateway" unit inside of at least large government departments (perhaps a single one for many smaller departments) to hear of failed attempts to get a proper hearing on attempts to bring innovative solutions into government. A decentralisation of decision making when it comes to attempts to bring innovation into government departments. Perhaps a functionally wide panel of representatives from across a department (eg receptionist, engineer, business analyst, mid-level manager, senior manager, Project Officer person) who get to see what attempts are being made from the private sector so that they can help prevent blocking of such attempts.
The reason for these two suggestions is that while I was being interviewed for some contract work inside a large Queensland government department I asked appropriate questions and determined that rather than spending 5 months developing the capability they way they wanted, I could have given them 90+% of it that day, with any final tailoring to be determined after that.
After various interactions with the most senior management in the department through public forums and emails I got a meeting with two people - one thought it would be very useful - the other simply replied "I will make sure this gets nowhere". 18 months later that same department put out a tender for a panel of suppliers where one of the capabilities that the suppliers might be asked to provide was exactly this.
The catch was you needed 500 active users for the tender - which was reiterated as mandatory. The issue in my case was that oligopic corporate Australia had blocked my attempts at innovation for 20 years in their attempts to prevent productivity gains.
The issue is sometimes the systems and practices - they tend to be very task focussed, and are about control. The desired outcome is lost in the "tick the boxes" approach. Good example of this is CDP - what should be the desired outcome of getting people into sustainable employment counts for very little if it's not being done how the system wants things done.