ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
I’m grateful to John Fisher, CEO of Citizens On Line, for a conversation we had about supply and demand, digital inclusion and the way that it’s supply led. I’ve been looking at the American experience; the whole social media idea appears to be far more embedded there than here. That may be just an impression but I think it stems from the social media phenomenon being driven by consumers. The desire to influence products and product quality has taken hold so that the social media environment is a way of talking publicly about a product or service experience. This means that in America, politics is getting wise to a consumer driven experience and is getting engaged with consumers. Here in the UK politics is driving the initiative and trying to get consumers engaged.
The consequence is that the supply side has overcapacity. We are awash with initiatives and yet 29% of people in the UK still do not engage with “digitalâ€. At the same time, politics seeks not only to drive the initiative but also to control the dialogue. This is partly because of the nature of local authorities that tend to be hierarchical and inward looking. This means that messages flow down and outwards, not in and upwards.
If it’s not supply led, then what is a “Core offer†for digital inclusion? Lyndsay Grant of NESTA
I find this way of thinking attractive. I do not believe that a knowledge economy is possible without a knowledge society.
On the same theme of design a piece by Robert Fabricant takes a slightly different view of user centric design:
“We have been operating under the assumption  that the primary challenge is to convince businesses to focus on fulfilling user needs with higher quality products, with more meaningful experiences? But what if the 'users' themselves are the problem?â€
Fabricant argues that a User Centric Design process will emphasise the benefits of an experience, such as ‘convenience’ rather than more meaningful sources of social value. I take this to be alluding to the situation we see when people are asked how they would like to access Local Authority Services. The majority will say, by telephone! Thus the “Death Star†is born and “one stop shop†call centres spring up all over the country. No matter how good the scripts and no matter how well trained the staff, what sort of social value is created and what sort of user experience do we have?
In short, Fabricant argues, user behaviour is always subject to influence. While Fabricant is speaking in the context of design generally it strikes me that his principles can, and should, apply equally to the design of services. His idea is that design should be for social systems, not individual needs because: “it is within cooperative systems that personal fulfilment has the best chance of intersecting with broader social values. “
"Social innovation in the age of networks is a process of change where new ideas are generated by actors directly involved in the problem to be solved." While participatory design can be used as a technique within a standard UCD process, social media technologies are allowing it to play a more transformative role.â€
Lean thinking has gained a lot of traction in local government, particularly in process re-engineering for call centre delivery. Lean originated out of Japanese manufacturing and by a process of iteration, involving the people who actually did the work, it developed very efficient processes. The problem with Lean thinking is that it tends to emphasise the supply side experience.
I was fortunate to be a part of a workshop for the participants of the Digital Challenge competition led by Jonathan Drori, now a member of the action group for the Digital Champion, Martha Lane-Fox. The workshop looked at market segmentation, the creation of archetypes and the development of scenarios. It was a day well spent. There is a thought provoking presentation by Hugh Graham which looks at a process of design using emerging stories. He promotes a very similar approach to design:
Understand the context
Conduct research
Create personas
Define scenarios
Build prototypes
Iterate rapidly
Increase fidelity
Fail early and often
The difference between this approach and the Lean method is that it develops the design through the user experience and then tests the design through a number of different user experiences. In a sense it forms the scaffolding that Grant talks about while avoiding the pitfalls that Fabricant highlights.
So what does all of this tell us about the “Core Offer†for digital inclusion. I believe that the core offer should arise from the dialogue with the final 29% not from a selection from the existing supply side, in other words, capture the emergent story rather than develop the supply side offer . What does this look like? It delivers something that people want now. It delivers through friends and trusted agents. This means that we must build the capacity of the front line services. What of the existing supply side? It has to be there, there has to be a place for people to go next, it is what it is, but I doubt that it is the Core Offer.
Fabricant, R. (2009, July 1). Tools of Engagement: The New Practice of User-Centered Design. Retrieved August 5, 2009, from http://www.core77.com: http://www.core77.com/blog/featured_items/tools_of_engagement_the_new_practice_of_usercentered_design_by_robert_fabricant_13907.asp
Graham, H. (2008, August 8). Story and Emergent Design. Retrieved August 5, 2009, from Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/hughgraham/image-space-object-presentation-2008-presentation
Grant, L. (2008, Dec 10). Putting innovative ideas into practice. Retrieved Aug 5, 2009, from Futurelab: http://media.futurelab.org.uk/podcasts/becta_talks/lyndsay_grant/




In order to vote, you need to be logged in!
Showing 6 comments
Citzens as co-producers, not consumers
Digital inclusion is a tricky idea. It suggests that people WANT to be digitally involved but sometimes lack the necessary resources. A better concept is inclusive design, i.e. services must be designed to be available and adaptable to a range of lifestyles, including the "digital scpetics".
When we have several equally legitimated and interoperable ways of participating in governance and public services we are better equipped for mutual learning. That is, when digital scpetics find the same processes online that they find offline, and when they find open communities, they will gradually "learn" by doing without pressure. This what Etienne Wenger (1991) and others called "Communities of practice" characterized by legitimated peripheral participation. This means as you say that "learners must be supported by means of scaffolding" without pressure/social norms set out by one group.
There is no alternative to user-centric design. But we need to stop downgrading the citizen to the level of consumer.The CITIZEN IS OWNER NOT CONSUMER. As owners, citizens are responsible for the bottom-line. "The 'users' themselves are the problem†(Fabricant, 2009) only when incapacitated and brain-washed into the role of consumer. We need to enable users to become co-producers of public value.
Citizens as Consumers
This is a valuable comment, thank you. Your point is well made about citizens as consumers. Being a consumer implies a choice and, in public services, we frequently have no choice, especially in a crisis situation.
However, do you not consider Fabricant's point that in designing a service we should look for the wider social value to be of merit?
I am interested in how we might capture emergent stories to facilitate service design. I look forward to other contributions on this theme.
Social value through connected citizens
Fabricants point is well made. When designing artefacts, we need to see not only the consumer, the guy that pays us, but the entire individual. Putting too much emphasis on one tiny facet, the consumer, leads to solutions that are unsustainable and impair social value. The connected citizen is a wider and more sustainable concept than the utility-optimizing consumer.
feelings and transparency !! ??
feelings and transparency are certainly two concepts that should be forwarded and protected by the digital culture! why?:
in our democratic societies, management and governance don't know very well what mean those concepts. Modern consulting (with a dimension of humanism) discovered that when people express their own feelings and pathos in their community , they reach an higher productivity and a better psy level turned to the others!!
At University we often heard about the concept of "silent majority" in society... Digital culture could open the windows to a smooth running attention and care of that sphere of feelings from people , so that slowly could appear a culture of dialogue and creativity. Nothing is easy , sure , but our modernity is in capacity to respect all of citizens, consumers and "DREAMERS" for the benefit of democracy and happiness indeed!!
Time to hope has certainly a good future !!!
marc pierre
A Positive Future
This is a timely reminder of an important feature of our democracies. If people feel that their ownership, outlined by Mr Kaschesky, of the processes is real perhaps they will also seek to use their voice and become a vocal majority.
Technologies are creating channels for people to have a voice but a voice needs to be heard. I wonder, is their a view of the cultural changes that need to take place within our institutions to make this so?
A voice must be heard? yes !
Paul Nash points an interesting and concrete question: technologies open new ways for communication and inter-bodies dialogue: good!
He says: but voices must be heard: YES! and how?
I would propose that we remember a basic right concerning freedom in the field of Press and Journalism = any citizen appearing and commented by the press can use the right to answer in the same space he was cited!
Consequently , we could say that digital right could offer and protect the right to receive a reply when a citizen delivers a request to official bodies, showing by that way that the struggle of demander is respected and taken in account...
Digital culture will be certainly an opportunity of "revisiting" items of social ethics and of citizen education... the doors of positive hope remain slightly open!!
marc pierre