Digital transformation and devolution

In a previous Medium post I wrote about Camden council’s digital journey from 2010 to present day. But Camden is just one London borough out of 32 in the capital and one council among hundreds in England. The problems we seek to solve are shared ones across local public services: any many solutions can only come about through working together or with central government departments. So a fuller and more meaningful discussion about digital transformation needs to take place in the context of devolution of power from Whitehall to local and regional government.

So I looked at all the available Deals to see how digital change is being addressed in devolution. I found that Devolution Deals don’t really have a strong or coherent digital proposition. This is not to say that the individual authorities negotiating Deals lack digital capability or vision — some of them lead the country in innovation in data, transformation or support for the digital economy—rather, that digital has not been central to devolution discussions between Whitehall and Town Hall so far.

This is a missed opportunity. City and regional devolution really needs to be smart devolution. Digital transformation (using digital technology to redesign and rebuild services to be simpler, clearer and faster for people to use) is increasingly critical to effective public service delivery: developing services designed around user need; saving money by increasing automation and reducing duplication; and allowing government and the public to see how effective interventions are and what level of government is most appropriate to solve problems (subsidiarity). An understanding of how digital is changing the economy is fundamental to growth, another concern of local government. If these objectives are to be delivered, then newly -elected city and regional mayors will need new tools, teams and thinking to match their new powers.

As of summer 2016 the Government has agreed Devolution Deals all across the country. The Devolution Deal with Greater Manchester has been further extended and there are further deals with Cornwall, Sheffield City Region, Tees Valley, North East, Merseyside City Region & the West Midlands, West of England, East Anglia and Greater Lincolnshire. This brings the total number of deals to ten, involving a mixture of urban and rural areas and covering 30% of England by population outside of London. Devolution in the capital is covered both by agreements between Whitehall and City Hall, as well as between boroughs and the Mayor and is a work in progress.

What’s so digital about the devolution?

There is no requirement for Devolution Deals to consider digital. The Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) insists deals should not be ‘top-down’ or prescriptive, but an expression of local needs as agreed with Whitehall.

The government, where it has articulated its ambition for devolution, doesn’t specifically touch on the digital agenda. When it recently clarified its broad devolution objectives in its response to a Parliament, it backed proposals which “support the ability of local areas to improve local economic growth and productivity; the alignment, coordination and efficiency of public services (including the quality of evidence, data and analysis); and engagement with local democratic decision-making.”

Deals typically run to about 20 or 30 pages outlining areas of agreement in greater or lesser detail. So far many bids appear to follow the ‘Manchester model’: perhaps a reflection of what can be achieved following work there, rather than what should be achieved. The different deals agreed to date therefore cover similar policy areas such as adult skills, employment, business support, planning, housing and transport infrastructure and bus franchising. Some deals express public service reforms using very similar language, while others (Manchester, Sheffield) have several iterations as more detail is thrashed out.

What the deals do and don’t say on digital transformation

‘Digital transformation’ as a term is not specifically mentioned in any of the deals. The deals also fall short on expressing ambitions around common standards, digital governance arrangements or anything more than a general assurance around integration. The suspicion here is that where deals do talk about sharing or ‘joining-up’ they are really talking a language of administrative decentralisation rather than digital change.

But let’s start with a real positive: all of the Deals signed off so far do mention data-sharing, a crucial component of joined-up services, in one way or another. These are expressed either specifically in relation to government departments such as the DWP or DoH/NHS or more generally. Statements of ambition and delivery, compared to other areas (skills, housing) are relatively limited.

East Anglia ‘s Deal expresses an ambition for work between DWP and the Combined Authority and other partners to put in place “workable data sharing arrangements which enable the integration of services and reduce duplication in order to support more people into work.” In perhaps the strongest articulation found so far, the deal states: “Integrating such complex services will require re-shaping the whole system, which can only be achieved through careful planning, a shared vision and strong cooperation between local partners. This Devolution Deal signals a commitment to take forward the goal of improving local services and building resilience for future generations” and plans to “explore innovative and integrated approaches to redesigning sustainable public services across Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough with a focus on prevention and early help.”

Cornwall’s Deal stresses the need to work with the Job Centre Plus and the Skills Funding Agency to facilitate protocols for data sharing between agencies. Others mention the need for UKTI to share information on exports. In the West of England, the DWP to “facilitate protocols for data sharing and transparency” by tackling some of the obstacles and developing solutions to enable the Combined Authority to develop a strategic needs assessment for the area.

Sheffield’s Deal simply states it will continue to progress programmes of transformation amongst authorities to “streamline back office functions and share more services and data, including on assets and property.”

In the West Midlands Deal the government committed to a discussion “about how the government can improve the Combined Authority’s ability to use the following national administrative data sets in order to support the Combined Authority’s ambition to develop an integrated data system to improve outcomes for individuals with multiple indicators of vulnerability (unemployment, offending, substance misuse, poor mental health and homelessness)...” Discussions will also take place as to how the government can support the shadow Combined Authority in “analysing and interrogating health data sources to improve care whilst respecting legal and other privacy concerns.”

Liverpool and Lincolnshire set a broader challenge to “continue to implement their own programmes of transformation; streamlining back office functions, and sharing more services and data, including on assets and property.”

London’s Health Deal does not mention data but proposes that “closer alignment with London’s ambitions for transformation, regulation can support and reinforce local health and care collaboration, integration and transformation.”

In practice if data sharing is not seen as a particularly ‘top-tier’ issue by the government or the combined authorities, it may well be expressed in the future in the detail of agreements, in the form of memoranda of understanding. Manchester’s specific deal around justice requires “a more integrated approach and transformational changes in the way in which services are delivered across Greater Manchester. “ To facilitate this, an MOU has been put in place to create “a transparent framework for achieving co‐commissioning, possible delegation and potential devolution of agreed and specified justice and rehabilitation responsibilities to accountable, statutory organisations in Greater Manchester. Decision making will be underpinned by transparency and the open sharing of information between all relevant parties.”

We shall wait and see how this develops in further agreements of this type.

Smarter cities

Over the past few years local authorities have increasingly invested in smart technology to improve public services. In the coming years Internet of Things (network of devices, buildings etc. embedded with electronics, software, sensors and connectivity) technology will enable a much rich view of citizens, businesses and their behaviours and needs. Issues such as transport, parking, air pollution, waste collection and recycling, energy consumption and climate change are all areas under active consideration.

While many cities and regions themselves have articulated this in terms of digital strategies or smart city thinking, there is more limited expression of this in the detail of the deals. West of England, West Midlands and most of the regional deals prioritise smart ticketing across private-franchised bus services in their regions.

Sheffield’s ambition goes into more detail, aiming to deliver “an optimised network which minimises bus congestion and pollution, integrates with other public transport modes, and is designed around people’s travel patterns.” This will be supported by a smart ticketing scheme: “this must be sustainable in the longer term both to tax payers and operators, and through technology deliver a better and more dynamic user-operator relationship utilising smart ticketing, real time information and a unified Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system.”

The Sheffield Combined Authority will also look into establishment of a ‘National Smart Data Institute’ in the region.

Digital infrastructure

A major concern for national and local government is digital infrastructure, and in particular high-speed broadband to support enterprise. The issue is important not only because there is a need for better connectivity, but there is also a demand for more competition. Only a few of the Deals prioritise this.

East Anglia’s Deal stresses investment in digital infrastructure and “the connected economy” with the objective of making a truly digitally connected region of the UK.

The North East and the Government agreed to “drive the commercial rollout of ultrafast broadband following successful testing and to ensure 4G services are available to at least 95% of the North East’s population.” Government will also support the reinvestment of funds into “creative solutions” to supply superfast broadband to remaining premises. The Combined Authority also pledges to “work with businesses and universities in the North East to develop applications for 5G technology.”

Innovation and the digital economy

All Deals seek to support business and growth and many mention industries of the future. For example, Greater Lincolnshire seeks to “exploit Higher Education Institutes for establishing industry-led partnerships; support the development of agri-tech clusters”; Cornwall highlights “Smart Specialisation priorities” in aerospace and satellite, digital, marine-tech, agri-tech and e-Health. Sheffield’s agreement aims to “explore how to further the Sheffield City Region’s advantage in advanced manufacturing.” Others mention specialisation, although detail may be more forthcoming following future government audits of science and technology.

As currently expressed, further detail will be forthcoming following work with government. However, it should be noted that many cities and regions (Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, East Anglia) already champion the digital economy though other plans.

Digital skills

The Deals are non-specific about a digital skills gap currently faced by every region. The digital skills pipeline currently suffers from failures from primary school right through to Further Education and university level and unless this is addressed it will hold back economic growth. Nurturing STEM subjects and programming skills in our young people will improve future employability and provide a talent pool upon which local businesses and the economy as a whole can draw.

While every Deal mentions skills and the area reviews of post-16 education, none mention digital skills needs specifically. Cornwall’s Deal is the only one to address long-term talent when it proposes to target schools and employers engaged in STEM activity. As part of the Area Based Reviews, the East Anglia Combined Authority will gather data to feed into the development of a potential proposal for an Institute of Technology (IoT) for regionally significant sectors.

The skills area is perhaps one which more than any other requires investment in data to ensure that interventions are as effective as they can be. The London Proposition between boroughs and the Mayor around the capital’s particular needs is heavy on data requirements around learners. In the future if we desire these initiatives to give opportunities to more excluded citizens policy aim to look beyond the individual in, say, the education and skills silo to get a more rounded picture of their background and their family circumstances. For this we will need to have a much more coherent and purposeful approach to data.

Workforce skills

Public services face significant talent challenges as they undergo digital transformation. This issue is only dealt with in one deal: as a “human capital” ambition, the Combined Authority in the North East will set up a ‘Service Transformation Fund’, to support early intervention with individuals and families with complex needs, to reduce high dependency on public services and support economic participation, “supported by a data sharing agreement and other measures to promote the integration of local public services.”

What Devo-Deals could be doing

New elected-Mayors and combined authorities will need to be able to join up, analyse and act upon data from across their areas to identify the problems they seek to tackle and the service demand they aim to meet. They need to consider how smart cities work can be progressed — alongside better broadband infrastructure, support for hi-tech businesses, workforce and broader digital skills.

Devolution presents a rare opportunity to express ambitions for digital transformation and leadership. While the above account shows that Deals do mention important digital transformation and technology issues, their patchwork approach is a reflection of a wider disconnect in digital leadership between Whitehall and Town Halls.

It’s pretty clear that HM Treasury, the ultimate arbiter of these Deals, has not placed a big emphasis on the digital agenda during negotiations.

What’s the solution? The existing UK Digital Strategy is now 3 years old and relates only to Whitehall departments. The delayed 2016 Digital Strategy should express a clear ambition for government departments and local government towards open data, data sharing, digital infrastructure, skills and the economy.

The March 2015 budget gave GDS the remit to support local government, how this manifests itself has yet to be seen. But since then the DCLG cut the Local Digital Partnership work in March 2016, the function of which are now supported voluntarily by councils, now supported by the London Borough of Camden (the Coalition’s Action Plan articulates the views of leading authorities in this space). Compare this to Scotland where there is a clear expression of the needs for effective digital transformation from Holyrood and where they have recently appointed a Chief Digital Officer to champion integration and a Chief Technology Officer to oversee the operational side.

The Mayor of London has proposed a Chief Digital Officer for City Hall, primarily a strategic authority for the largest city in the country, to co-ordinate the digital governance across 32 London (unitary) boroughs who are responsible for the delivery of services. The question remains how exactly this will be joined up.

While current CLG/HM Treasury policy is resistant to prescription in Deals, the importance of the digital agenda is such that there is greater public interest in agreeing some common principles to accelerate reform. I urge consideration of the following points:

• Every Deal should also contain a political commitment for a senior elected digital leader in each area who sits on the Board. Development should be available through LGA, GDS and other providers.
• New digital governance through Chief Digital and Technology Officers — and teams — should be empowered to develop Deals in more detail setting out common standards and data-sharing agreements with other local public services and, by necessity, central government departments. The CDO/CTO should ensure the city-region’s key policies and strategies are aligned with existing digital ambition expressed elsewhere.
• Every Deal should have an aspiration for an Open Data Charter and plans which express commitment across public services operating in the region to be ‘open by default.’
• Discovery missions to all public services with the aim of reducing/simplifying the number of IT systems to share resources and co-ordinate procurement more effectively. A future ambition here could be shared services.
• Adopt the Local Government Service Standard and Local Digital Coalition Action Plan and commit to sharing code and interfaces with other public bodies to enable them to use our development to help them improve public services. This will help put the customer’s needs and experience at the heart of how new systems will operate and work.
• There should be clear commitment to grow digital centres of excellence to provide innovation, leadership and support to public services in digital developments including automation and channel shift, business intelligence and integrated service delivery. Through ‘Open Call’ methods, public services should be assisted to explain problems they need solving in a way which can be understood by the tech community.
• Commit to changing how we support vulnerable households across public services. Enabled by integrated IT systems, we can remove duplication of activity and streamline casework; by joining-up information and using business intelligence tools wisely we have a better chance of spotting complex needs sooner.
• Express clearer ambitions over connectivity and Internet of Things, including how the devolved area will work with providers to shape planning policy and capital investment.
• Seek to provide support and partnerships with emerging sectors such as creative technology, and med-tech/life-sciences.
• Link to the Government Digital Service and assist developing work between GDS and local government delivery.
• Focus on improving digital skills from primary school onwards and ensure that digital skills are an outcome of Area Reviews in FE and linked to the Apprenticeship Levy.
• Develop the digital skills and confidence of public sector workforce so they are equipped to productively and proactively apply technology to drive better ways of delivering public services.
• Deliver robust information security to protect our citizen and business data from misuse and cyber-threats.

Theo Blackwell is Cabinet member for Finance, Technology and Growth at LB Camden. Theo was 2014 LGIU Digital Champion of the Year and winner of the Sandy-Bruce Lockhart scholarship in 2015. Camden’s Digital Strategy won the borough the MJ Digital City of the Year in 2015. Camden’s Digital Strategy and submission to the UK Digital Strategy can be found here.